User talk:Wtfiv/Archive 1

Archive 1

RE: Cecily Kelke Farrar

Hello, Wtfiv...

I'm sorry to disturb you here (especially since you seem to have banned messages being posted here previously), but I wasn't sure if you had seen my message on William Farrar's talk page. I really didn't want to jump the gun and add the reference to Mrs. Kelke Farrar without getting opinions from my fellow Wikipedians.

Would you mind terribly if I added it to his background section?

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack.

Hello, Wtfiv...

I hope that you've had a lovely day. I just wanted to say that I've edited Mr. Farrar's page as we discussed earlier on my talk page. I've included a reference to Mrs. Kelke Farrar in the background section, and for sources I have offered both a reference to a published book about the numerous descendants of the Plantagenets, and a citation from a magazine article in "Elle Australia" that includes a family tree showing the relationships of the Farrar family in particular. I hope that these meet with your satisfaction.

Please let me know if there are any corrections that need to be made. I'll be only too glad to do so.

Best wishes,

O.ominirabluejack (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC) O.ominirabluejack.

@O.ominirabluejack: Thank you for letting me know! It looks great, and I really like seeing Cecily Kelke's name up there! The matriarchal side is just as important, and I feel her presence in the article enriches William Farrar's context. Have a wonderful day as well!Wtfiv (talk) 16:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Template:Sfnp

Hello! If you think this template works better than Template:Harvp in ref tags, would you mind updating the other three articles in the Silesian Wars series (Second Silesian War, Third Silesian War, and Silesian Wars) to match what you've changed in First Silesian War? It's a Featured Topic, and the style ought to be consistent among the four. Thanks! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Bryanrutherford0: I was just figuring out whether another first Silesian war-related articles (my current rabbit hole) was worth tackling. While looking over sources in this article, when I noticed the harp/ref template combination. It uses the harp template, which I read somewhere in my meanderings through Wiki-style land is being phased out where possible. I figured the single, more up-to-date sfnp template would make it look tidier and easier to edit in the future without changing how the outward face of the article looks (With one minor exception: periods consistently following all citations and not just Carlyle's)

I have a habit of editing references that look like they could use it. so when another comes up, I'll gladly slog through more Silesian wars. The update is a bit time consuming as I did it manually and constantly compared versions to make sure I didn't disrupt the citations. (Dash preference caught me a couple of times). I didn't expect the change to be concern. However, I was careful to put the changes in a single edit so ensure it is easy to revert.Wtfiv (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

An Overdue Reward

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For your fantastic solution to the cluttered references on Frederick the Great! It really made the article far more enjoyable to edit, thank you for your tireless work. Chariotsacha (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frederick the Great

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Frederick the Great you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of CIN I&II -- CIN I&II (talk) 16:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Frederick II's Portrait change

Hi there, regarding your response to CIN I&II's question on the Frederick II talk page, I cannot help but ask whether or not its "accuracy" or "atmosphere" we're aiming for on these Wikipedia portraits of historical figures/rulers? For instance, Graff's portrait is more "kingly", in my opinion, in denoting Frederick II's status, whereas this current portrait is rather low-key and doesn't denote Frederick as that significant of a ruler even if its more accurate, though that might just be due to the bad dimensions of the current portrait and my own subjective opinion. A bit of a protest vote here but I'll accept it if this is the preferred option for others. Cheers. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Your locallordandsavior: I replied here, but saw you posted there as well. I figuring posting my reply on the Frederick the Great talk page may be the more appropriate place for the discussion, so I deleted the comments and moved them there. Wtfiv (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frederick the Great

The article Frederick the Great you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Frederick the Great for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Citations

As promised, or possibly threatened, on the review page for Frederick the Great, these are my general thoughts on citations. The first priority is accuracy, of course, and the second, ease of use by the reader. To the latter end, I think – and so, I find, do many other regular contributors to FAs – that the citations should be quite distinct from the bibliography. My own practice – rather old-fashioned, I concede, is to put web pages and short articles in the citations and long articles and books in the sources section.

Thus in the references:

• Smith, Fred. "Name of a short article", Name of publication, date, page number
• Jones, Susan (if page has an author's name). "Name of web page", Name of website, date if given and/or date retrieved
• And where the reference is to a long article (more than a couple of pages) or a book: Robinson, Jacques, page number.

And in the sources

• Robinson, Jacques. "Name of long article", Name of journal, publishing date, vol etc. (using cite journal), url if online
• Robinson, Jacques. Name of book, publishing date, location, publisher, ISBN (using cite book)

An example of my simple, early-Bronze-age, style can be seen here.

Other editors prefer a template-based system such as the one here. I rather dislike it because of the sea of blue that smacks you in the eye when you look at the list of citations, but it is I think becoming the predominant style for FACs if it hasn't already become it.

Either way, all the bibliographical information for books is kept in one place, and not divided between citations and sources. I am sure this makes it easier for our readers.

Of course you are completely at liberty to ignore all this. I just offer my two-pennorth. Best wishes and happy editing! Tim riley talk 17:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I appreciate your sharing the options and particularly taking the time to share options. It encourages me to give unifying the citations a try. I've been puzzling this beast of a Frederick article: balancing a citations, respecting editor voice, and yet trying to create a sense of unity in the article. Personally, I like your "Bronze Age" format a bit better. When it comes to the citations, I think the editors will let me do either. The edit sensitivities are almost exclusively about content. Wtfiv (talk) 18:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frederick the Great

The article Frederick the Great you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Frederick the Great for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 18:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar of National Merit for Germany

		The Germany Barnstar of National Merit
		This barnstar is awarded to you for taking the High-Importance article Frederick the Great to GA, and for your ongoing FAC of the article. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Frederick is Great and now "Good"

Wtfiv, as you are one of the main leaders and pioneers responsible of getting Frederick's legacy to G.A. status. I want to thank you for your sincere communication and sensational ideas, especially in the realms of organizing citations and that neat little flute composition playlist! it was always a great sign when my emails would pop up saying that you edited the article, impeccable job! I genuinely hope to work with you again. As a little flair for your talk page which is beyond warranted, here's a medallion of the Order of the Black Eagle. Congratulations mate, we did it! Chariotsacha (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Presented to Wtfiv for leading the G.A. work of Frederick the Great

@Chariotsacha: Thanks! I want to say that your jumping in was of incredible help, and continues to be. I'm not sure we would've gotten there without you. I didn't want to be working on it alone. I appreciate your active role in taking care of things. Bryan Rutherford has been a good, more quiet but observant partner, and it seems we've drawn in Buidhe, whose help with Wikiexpectations and cleanup were also invaluable. By the way, I think it is great that you created the Keith article. Well done, there! (And it gets rid of a red link, I have a particular dislike of red links.) Wtfiv (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Pour le Mérite for everyone, I say! As I told Wtfiv at the start, I'd been trying to work up my courage to attempting this GAN ever since I first got the Silesian Wars series there, so I really appreciate and admire everyone who made this happen. Well done to you all! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Wtfiv:, thanks! I was wondering if that Peter Karl Christoph article would tidy up things, I appreciate your kind words, this G.A. was my first serious wikipedian endeavor so I'm very happy with it! @Bryanrutherford0: Thanks for your help Bryan, especially in the early developments of this G.A. project and the conversion to British English (I didn't know that EngVar script existed, saved loads of time! Bravo!) as Wtfiv said you were a quiet but a very important contributor. Chariotsacha (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I wish now to interject myself and make my own congratulations to the three of you. The work you have done and continue to do is of the highest quality, and as the Coordinator of WikiProject Germany, I thank you for it. I would also ask: would you be interested in collaborating with me on Sanssouci? It is a former FA and, as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, also a pretty important article. I think it could definitely be an FA once again, especially with your subject matter expertise and my own experience with writing about palaces. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vami IV:. It could be an interesting challenge. When editing the Frederick II article, finding good material on Sanssouci was tough. However, I will definitely take a look and try and help out- and it'd be great if you take the editorial lead. Please keep in mind that my participation may be minimal during the Frederick II FA review. Why not mention some of this on the Talk:Sanssouci, ping me again and ping the others as well. I'll reply again over there. Wtfiv (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Fortunately, I happen to have a copy of Kaufmann 1995 in print, so we've got a starting point. At the moment, though, I'm busy working on the Palace of Versailles and anticipate that I'll still be such for a few more weeks. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 19:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vami IV:. Ping us when you are ready to dive back in. I'll try and take a peek in the meantime. (Or you can just ping from the Sanssouci talk page, and see what happens! The worst would be silence. And, if there's action, you may be surprised at how it might energize your return to the article! (And for you, the energy of both projects may feed off one another, as Sanssouci is the child of Versaille!) Wtfiv (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vami IV: I'm a little late to the party, but I would love to assist with the Sanssouci article in anyway I can and I have added this to my watchlist, ping me on my talk page whenever you're ready, cheers! Chariotsacha (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Benjamin Ursinus von Baer

Benjamin Ursinus von Bär is done! Its a stub and relies on one source but it'll be improved soon, moving on to Valori in the meantime. Cheers! Chariotsacha (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Chariotsache: That is fantastic! I'm not sure poor Benjamin of the bears will get much more work, but there is the link, which is great! Thank you so much for your work with this! Wtfiv (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Marshall Plan

Things are going well. Thanks for the help! I haven't yet made up my mind whether I'm gonna commit to the next step: looking at all those sources. That might take weeks! Sorta depends on whether anyone wants to take it to FAC or not. Most likely I'll put something on the talk page asking if anyone wants to take it farther. The editor who took it to FAC 16 years ago, SimonP, seems to be somewhat inactive at present. There are also a couple other possibilities. But I dunno... ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lingzhi.Random: It looks like one of a couple you've adopted, so go for it. As we mentioned, I'll work on sfn cleanup right now, and I do most of it manually. I probably won't mess with the lead at all, since it shouldn't have citations, but I don't want to touch them as some might be useful. I'll keep plugging through it a bit. If you decide to take it on, let me know...Wtfiv (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

• perhaps this is useful: sandbox ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
  • 99.99% done! But I'm getting sleepy. There are still two harv errors... and I might sort the refs into book, journal, web tomorrow. Don't do the latter by hand; I can do it programmatically in 3 minutes... THANKS! More later. ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

@Lingzhi.Random: Looks like the first round of getting rough sfn is almost done. Is there a User script for citation sorting, or do you use your own Python script? The next would be citation cleanup and verification. Wtfiv (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

The ultra-cool and ultra-useful user script that I wrote (User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck) indicates unsorted cites, amidst doing many other super-useful things, but some people find that cite-sorting output annoying. Actually sorting them is written into my program to clean up the refs. As for a "lead editor" on Marshall, I currently have this and several other tsks going on. But I will post there. Thanks! ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the script! Wtfiv (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

The da Vinci Barnstar

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		I hereby award you The da Vinci Barnstar in gratitude for your help standardizing references on Marshall Plan  ♦ Lingzhi.Random (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Citation help

Hi Wtfiv! I hope all is well with your business, I've done as much tidying as I could on the F.A. page, frankly I'm a major novice so I couldn't do a-lot with a couple of issues but I've resolved any issues with claims or oddities in the article, most of the citation trouble had more to do with the article than the citations themselves. Please swoop in if I made a blunder anywhere. Thanks! Chariotsacha (talk) 18:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC) @Chariotsacha: Thank you, you don't know how much you've helped. I can get on the computer but I'm not able to do my usual research right now. I'll wrap up the remaining bits and pieces as soon as I can. Wtfiv (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

James Joyce

I queried the James Joyce Centre in Dublin, Ireland, about the change of name and they replied, "At his baptism (5 February 1882) he was given the names James Augustine; at the registration of his birth (20 March 1882) the clerk mistakenly wrote Augusta instead of Augustine. However, when he was confirmed in June 1891 he took the name Aloysius. So his full name (from 1891 at any rate) was James Augustine Aloysius Joyce." - I could not find a printed reliable source for this information - there is a discussion in Archive 3, 13 November 2018, of the James Joyce Talk page - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Epinoia: Thank you for making the enquiry. I had found a website that points us to a copy of the photocopy of the birth registry, but I was unsure if we could actually use it. It seems that the Irish government has some copyright restrictions on genealogical information, and I'm not sure how to navigate even requesting permission. I very much appreciate your looking this up! Wtfiv (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Frederick the Great

Congratulations, Wtfiv! The article you nominated, Frederick the Great, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:07, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Featured Article Medal
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this special, very exclusive award created just for we few, we happy few, this band of brothers, who have shed sweat, tears and probably blood, in order to be able to proudly claim "I too have taken an article to Featured status". Gog the Mild (talk) 00:34, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

For your work on James Joyce

		The Article Rescue Barnstar
		for the work you are currently doing to make sure James Joyce keeps its featured article status. Realmaxxver (talk) 12:01, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Frederick the Great scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 9 November 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to comment on the draft blurb at TFA. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Novalis

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Novalis you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

JJ redux

Hello Wtfiv. Congratulations on your efforts on this article. I have made a few minor suggestions and hope to make more soon. It looks like you have good access to sources; if you need anything from those I have available please let me know.

Best wishes, Kablammo (talk) 01:28, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Kablammo Thank you for your suggestions. I implemented most, as best as I could, but please feel free to modify as you see fit. In particular, I haven't touched the lead much at all at this point. Thanks for the sources. I think I haven't much used the Kelly or Levine, so I need to look at them. Your list on Freedom of expression is particularly interesting, and points out a needed addition to the article. I briefly covered the tribulations of publishing, but I think the books in that part of your library point toward a key part of Joyce's legacy, I think an article on Joyce and censorship/Joyce and sexuality/Joyce and freedom of expression would be particularly invaluable. Particularly as my attempt to work on the "Joyce and Politics" section starts making it clear to me that Joyce clearly seems to combine sexuality with the politics of Irish colonialism. I'll be winding down on the revision after I moderately rework the "Politics" section, but I do think "Joyce and freedom of expression/sexuality/or something similar would be another worthwhile section. Wtfiv (talk) 02:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

One of the problems with a subject as vast and as studied as Joyce, the problem is not what to include, but what to leave out. A separate article on freedom of expression may be appropriate with a mention in this one, or a section on his importance in some other article on that subject. Regards, Kablammo (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For taking Frederick the Great to Featured! JackFromWisconsin (talk | contribs) 15:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

frederick the great

hello, Wtfiv! i had a few questions regarding this article and the associated blurb.

Hello dying, I don't know if it was appropriate to do so, but I made changes directly in the blurb based on your comments. Could you see below? Please let me know if I have to do more or undo what I did.

oh, yeah, editing the blurb directly is fine. from what i understand, it's basically a space for nominators to showcase the article they worked on, so there is significant deference to the nominator regarding what they want to include there. the blurb is fully protected via cascading protection the day before it shows up on the main page, but administrators tend to fulfill any edit requests from nominators at wp:errors. dying (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

thank you for letting me know how the process works.

of course, glad to be of help. dying (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

• do you know the criteria that was used to determine that frederick was the longest-reigning monarch of the house of hohenzollern? i have yet to seriously look through the list, but carol i of romania appears to have reigned as monarch from 1866 until 1914, a total of 48 years, while frederick reigned for 46 years. however, i believe romania did not formally declare full independence until 1877, even though it was de facto independent when carol became domnitor. note that carol's predecessor alexandru ioan cuza is also categorized as a romanian monarch on wikipedia. interestingly, carol's change in title from domnitor to king echoes frederick's change from king in prussia to king of prussia.

This is a major point. I realize now that this statement, taken from the lead, is an artifact of a much earlier version of the article. He is the longest reigning Prussian Hohenzollern (i.e., Brandenburg-Prussian branch), but it is not sourced in the article and wasn't caught until now. I chose to delete it from the blurb. Or just delete it altogether both in the blurb and the article. If this works, I'll delete the sentence from the article as well. To compensate for the character count, I added some extra language regarding correspondence that addresses a later point.

Alternatively, I could either extend it by saying "Brandenburg-Prussia branch of the House of Hohenzollern", modify and source the article. But that would extend the character count.

My preference is the former. Do you have any thoughts?

i completely understand if it was simply an artifact of an earlier version. i'm actually pretty impressed that you were able to bring this article to featured status, and much of the praise on your talk page shows me others feel the same! i believe the tfa coordinators prefer if the blurb stays between 925 and 1025 characters. the "(Full article...)" is counted, but any caption is not. right now, the blurb is at 1039 characters. removing the second sentence completely would lower it to 973 characters. so, i think either shortening the sentence or removing it completely is better for the blurb. the additional detail, however, could be useful in the article. dying (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

thank you, I'll leave it deleted then. I'll delete from the article as well.

• in the blurb, does "European capital" mean "center of europe" or "capital city of europe"? if it means the former, i fear that the phrase may be confusing, as the disambiguation page for the phrase does not appear to consider it a common interpretation. if it means the latter, i am assuming that you are using berlin as the point of comparison, but admittedly, that does not seem clear in the blurb.

Thanks for pointing this out. I think this needs to be more nuanced. I changed this to "expanded the freedom of the press in Berlin" This more accurately reflects what he did.

• do you know how the 31 volumes of frederick's writings were counted? this source appears to present 30 volumes of his works, although one appears to be presented in three parts. also, this source appears to present an additional 46 volumes of his political correspondence, which, i am assuming, would also be considered part of his writings. was use of the phrase "including poetry, histories and philosophy" intended to exclude political correspondence from being counted?

Yes, it should have been 30 vs. 31. So I corrected this. Here, I wanted to emphasize his works as a writer of the enlightenment since most kings have correspondence. AS I deleted the "longest reigning monarch" I added a separate clause regarding the political correspondence, which keeps his more cultural writing separate. (I'm not sure the repeated use of "volume" is appropriate.

was this intentionally rounded down to 40? i'm also not sure if it matters if you repeat "volume", but i wouldn't worry about it unless it pushed the blurb over the length limit. dying (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I think it was just distracted editing. Thinking about the 30 volumes of poetry, histories, and philosophy. I just put in 46.

• lastly, do you have a preference regarding the oxford comma? in the blurb, it appears to be used at least twice and omitted at least twice, and i did not know if that was done deliberately.

I prefer the Oxford comma. I think I caught both and made the changes

apologies for all the questions! i hope they're not too much trouble to address. dying (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Please let me know if these changes address the issues you noticed or whether I need to do anything else. Wtfiv (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I think we are set for now? Thank you again!Wtfiv (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

yep, your edits look good, Wtfiv. thanks for addressing these issues! dying (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Precious

the greats

Thank you for quality articles about giants in history, such as Frederic the Great and (improved) James Joyce, for Treaty of Nymphenburg, created with an exquisite edit summary, for expanding William Farrar (settler) and Novalis, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2657 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

November songs

Thank you today for Frederick the Great, introduced: "King Frederick II of Prussia (Frederick the Great), a monarch whose influence on European history has been substantial. His reign is seen as the exemplification of a rulership when early enlightenment ideology was pervasive. He is seen one of the key figures in the rise of Prussia, which eventually led to the rise of Germany. In addition, he is seen as unique because his individual characteristics are seen as putting a stamp on how Prussia, and to a lesser extent, Germany is seen to this day." - a great day for German history! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! 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) 00:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Novalis

The article Novalis you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Novalis for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Novalis

The article Novalis you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Novalis for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Whiteguru -- Whiteguru (talk) 21:01, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Article suggestion

Hi Wtfiv, I saw your fantastic work bringing James Joyce back to FA standards. Thank you for your time on that article. There's a working group called WP:URFA/2020 where editors review and fix up older FAs. One such article is W. B. Yeats, another Irish author. Are you interested in bring Yeats back to FA standards? Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Z1720. I saw this group mentioned on Sandy's talk page, and I'd like to look more into its deliberations once things free up. Fixing Yeats sounds like a great project. Right now I'm working on Joan of Arc, which may take a while as I my non-Wikipedia world has caught a bit of my time. But I would gladly put Yeats on my queue after finishing Joan of Arc. I'm imagining that JoA may take until mid-January, assuming the other invested editors are comfortable with the changes. Does that work? Should I register my interest somewhere? Thanks for pinging me! Wtfiv (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, no one has reviewed Yeats yet, so you have lots of time before working on that project. Let me know if you ever need a reviewer. Z1720 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeats is not in bad shape, and we sure do need Wtfiv's talents elsewhere :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Pali-Aike volcanic field

Greetings, I have nominated Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pali-Aike volcanic field/archive1 for a featured article candidacy but so far it's languishing without much input. Do you have time to review the article? Thanks in advance. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Wtfiv! Your work on James Joyce has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 2

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joan of Arc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Beaugency.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Request for input on a featured article candidacy

Greetings, I have nominated Lake Estancia for a featured article nomination. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. The instructions for the review process are here. Thanks in advance for any comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Help with another article

Hey Wtfiv! Hope you're well. I'll just cut to the chase, I'm interested in trying to get Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington to G.A. in 2022. He's an incredibly important and well known British historical figure, and it seems rather strange that his article is B-Quality, I was wondering if you were interested in perhaps joining me in trying to improve his article? Its in a similar state Frederick was- not terrible, but weird quirks of tone and language that stick out like sore thumbs, and I'm certain there will need to be work done in its citations. I'm certainly going to make a post on his talk page asking if anyone was interested, but we've worked together before so I thought I'd ask if you're interested first, cheers! Chariotsacha (talk) 00:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Chariotsacha! Wellington does sound like a fun challenge. I have to wrap up the one of working on, Joan of Arc, and there's a slight chance I may be taking William Butler Yeats. But I'd have to say you picked a gem. Wellington is a complex character and it would be really fun to get to know him better. I think it'd be great if you could get started. I think you'd make a great editor, but then I can jump in later. And if need be, help out with the citation and references too! As you can see, life outside of Wikipedia has caught me, so my progress here has (hopefully temporarily) crawled to a snail's pace. But I do like the idea! Thanks for thinking of me and I'll do what I can! Wtfiv (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you plenty Wtfiv! Wishing you the best on all your other ventures! Chariotsacha (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Joan – starting in

I think I'll finally get started today (after some household errands)!

Initially, I want to do two things:

1. There is still image sandwiching, clutter and images pushing into later sections: I'd like to experiment with combining some to multiple images.
2. We've got to get past not one, but two editors objecting to too many footnotes. I see some of them that can be worked directly in to the text (the article is only at 7,000 words of prose). Perhaps others, that are forced to be there per socking, can be converted to inline (hidden) comments and only revealed if socking resurfaces? That way, we preserve for posterity what the issue is, without having a visible footnote. I will look as I go.

I will work on the talk page of the FAR, listing the queries where I need your feedback, but otherwise edit the article directly. As I know nothing of the topic, PLEASE feel free to revert anything I do.

Anything else I should know before I start ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Thanks Sandy. In I appreciate you going in to edit. In the reviews,

• I addressed the footnote issue 5 April 2022, here's the note: (Addressed: ~36 footnotes/wordcount of ~1,398. For comparison, the footnotes for James Joyce are ~54/1,920) That was down from ~58 footnotes/wordcount ~26,250. Much of what was trimmed was quotes to address socking. I think the sock issue in footnotes has been handled. So any of the remaining can be removed without inline comments as editors see fit. Aza24 went through them and removed one. (ANd I later removed the supporting source.)
• The more difficult issue are the minor changes. The FAR record shows made all the ones that seemed appropriate. But I don't want to be required to make ones I don't agree with or are unclear without suggest. I've let reviewers know that I'm amenable to the changes they suggest, but I'd like them to make the changes. Wtfiv (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Have been working gangbusters around the house (my downsizing mission) and will now turn my attention to Joan. I do see some footnotes that I think can be reduced; feel ABSOLUTELY free to revert anything I do. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks you, no hurry. I seriously doubt I will change much that you put your hands to! Wtfiv (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

  When I work on images, I look at the layout simultaneously on my desktop, iPad and iPhone. I do see some places where the footnotes are distracting, so suggest we compromise there to make the naysayers happy. Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... I picked up some malware on my desktop so need to clean that before I can start work <grrrrrrrrr ... > SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Ouch! It sucks when we get caught by malware! I'm kind of curious how you got it, as you seem savvy about avoiding such things and it may catch others of us. Hopefully it doesn't require major operating system surgery. I have no problem with removing the footnotes. Because I left them in or put them in, I think they all do some good work, so I wouldn't know which to remove. So I think it is best that others make the choice of what is disposable. So please go for it. I'm sure any you remove will be fine. Wtfiv (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how I got it, but I'm pretty sure it was when I was checking some stupid non-reliable source on Alzheimer's article ... at any rate, it's not terribly malicious ... just a popup demanding that I buy McAfee, when I already have McAfee ... phishing to get the dummies who fall for it and givwe them a credit card. Hopefully I'm rid of it now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

That one seems pretty common. It sounds like it just got the browser and its now deleted, thank goodness! The deep dive into Alzheimers must be interesting in its own right. Probably eye-opening. I'd be interested in hearing the adventure, but I think that'd be for another day and an alternate venue. But if you ever get the time, which seems unlikely given life and FAR responsibilities... Wtfiv (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No, not for another day ... easy to see that mess, multiple scandals that have kept me busy for weeks, during Darjeeling ... interesting stuff ... see Sylvain Lesné, Karen Ashe, Cassava Sciences and the drug linked from Cassava ... three different Alazheimer's scandals at once, because that's where the money is ... with the govenment throwing indiscriminately huge amounts of money into AZ research, it's rife for corruption and fraud.

Computer seems fine now.

Wow, working on Joan is hard because the citations are so chunky, but I see why you had to do that because of sock, but wow.

Please have a look at my comments on Joan FAR talk before I continue ... I'd like to reconfigure the Legacy section to only three or four sub-heads, and see if you approve of what I've done on images before I move on ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Stopping to eat dinner; if you hate what I'm doing, please speak up :) We need to get by the reviewers who are complaining about footnotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't see the comments in the FAR, and saw you were working, so I wanted to stay out of your way. Now that you are taking a break from this beast of an article, I will comment on FAR, and make a couple of edits following up on what you have done. This is a lot of work, I know, so thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I started a section on the talk page of the far ... I see you are at work so I will hold off ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I continued to dabble last night, working more on the big picture, still not starting my read-through. I have an engagement this morning, then another this evening, then another all morning on Tuesday, so maybe you want to dabble with my comments so far on the LEAD, until I can return full attention on Wednesday. Please don't let the volume or tone of my comments discourage you-- I tend to become a dog after a bone on a FAC or FAR-- I have no doubt the article will remain featured, but it needs a serious close look to overcome Hchc's and Buideh's oppose. I think it quite doable though! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

No hurry. I did see that you continued to dabble last night, which was fun. It feels good to have you and your expertise active on this article, and I'd really like to get this done. It's been sitting too long. I'm not sure, but I think Buideh's objections have been addressed. The lion's share of the remaining concerns are in the lead, with issues on citations and their validity. I'll continue to ponder the points you made so we can strengthen the lead. Wtfiv (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I am at election judge training, but have my iPad ... what is an SPE ?? You keep mentioning it on Joan FAR talk ... ??? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, it's a private anacronym I used once with you, and then expect you to remember as if you weren't working on thousands of things at once. It stands for SockPuppet Editor. (It may have begun as PSE, "possible sockpuppet editor"). My way of quickly denoting in a single term the sum effect of all those various accounts- both identified and only suspected- on all those Joan of Arc articles over the year. You saw it in "alternative interpretations of JoA", right? The pattern of users in histories look different than in Joan, but the overall result is similar. If memory serves, many of the other articles related to JoA are in a similar state. Wtfiv (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

got it ... sorry to be so distracted ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I think being an electoral judge- amongst all your other non-WikiWorld obligations- is far more important! Wtfiv (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Wow, I Am So Tired Today. And hope I'm not reinfected with COVID. I will dig back in to Joan once I catch my breath. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm so sorry to hear you are wiped out. It could be the residuals of the infection. There is no rush whatsoever with the JoA article. It's been sitting for a long time, and can keep sitting. What is most important is your own well-being. Thanks for the heads up, and please get a chance to rejuvenate! Wtfiv (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Melody

July songs

thank you for all your help with the Duino Elegies! - today: violin solo and you can listen Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda! It'll take some time, but its a pleasure to work in an area near your expertise! And thanks for the link! Wtfiv (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

My pleasure! - I just - by chance found this, telling me that we could possibly give our readers easier access to the biography than this archive thing. I haven't checked how much is available online. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing the link. I do use Google Books when archive.org is not available. I think there are two I added to the Duino Elegies because archive.org did not have the books. I like archive.org because a person can register for free and access the entire work if they so choose. And, unless there are unexpected outcomes from archive.org's pending suit suit with the Author's Guild, it should stay stable. Google usually limits the view to a few pages, if it allows it at all, and linking the page often prevents scanning the rest of the book for context. And, the links at archive.org are a bit more stable. Wtfiv (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Understand, and should probably register. (But feel others might be as shy.) - I found this which isn't exactly ref #34 but possibly has the essence, so might be better than only offline. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

yesterday I attended a unique concert - the 18th Thomaskantor after Bach conducting - and with some good luck caught him happy afterwards! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Gerda, hat must have been a great event to see! Better yet, to hear! (I'm apologize for not responding more to the Elegies, but I've been on the road and my participation will be a bit on and off for the next few weeks.) Wtfiv (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, it was, and I just put the review on my talk, with a close-up pic expressing the same joy. Take your time, - I'll do the same, expecting guests for more RMF concerts. Will there be archive versions of Rilke's letters, cited often? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

... and another 14 July: Voces8, pictured - I have a FAC open, in case of interest --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

more July songs, from Swiss Alps and a funeral where the pastor picked a Rilke poem to summarize - We are making progress with the FAR, slowly but steadily, and now that I'm back I hope to speed up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much Gerda! I'm finding myself in a bit of a mire in Wikipedia world right now, myself. I've only been able to focus on this the last few days. One FAR I'm working on is stalled, and I found myself tracking another topic for a bit. However, I will get back to the Elegies and keep working to clean up the citations and find links when possible. I'm glad for the opportunity to work with you! I also appreciate your good work, and your endless efforts to provide kindness in the Wikipedia world! Wtfiv (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you think you could transform the many editions of Rilke's letters to various correspondents? I'll go after the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• For Hesse's Essay, in My Belief, I couldn't find the text yet, but it has an article, and I found the TOC with the details mentioned in the ref. Can we use that somehow? The exact quote is also in this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• Kinnell: is this good enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
• What is the doi no. in this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Gerda, I've gotten distracted with another article, but I'll come back and work on the Elegies today. I'll try and take care of those references, the letters, and the other points you raised. Wtfiv (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

I did what I could. In the list of poets influenced, searching was more difficult because no long quotes easily found. Some seem more influenced by Rilke (in general) but the Elegies in particular. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Gerda Thank you for your patience for my whirlwind through the article. I hope I didn't get in your way. Here is a reply to your points:

• I did a check regarding your point on the poets being influenced by the poems themselves Some advocate for his work, others were mentioned as translating the elegies but don't mention the influence of the Elegies on their own work. I tried to find sources for each, and if I didn't find something touching on the Elegies, I deleted them. If think some need to be replaced, let me know.
• I think I took care of the Hesse source.
• The formatting of Rilke's letters in the citations is now consistent and linked.
• Your catching the Małecka source is great. I noted that it was subscription, and used a google snip in the citation page as a verifiable link.
• I'm pretty negligent with doi's, and tend to avoid them. But I think I found this one: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562022.003.0010 (I may have deleted the citation, though. I checked it, and it seems on pg. 195 of Kendall's chapter, he mentions that Keyes's poem "The Foreign Gate" includes his translation of the opening line of the Elegies. But the accessible Roy (2004) mentions the relationship between "The Foreign Gate" and "Rilke" too. If you think we should put the Kendall in, let me know.

Feel free to fix or undo anything I did. Please note that because I link in 'Citations', I only link the books and journals in 'Sources' when the full work is available (noting type of access if not free). I deleted the URLs in the sources to partial books (e.g., Google pages) that I found. But if you think they should be kept, please let me know and I won't remove others if they appear.

Also, I'm still available to help out in any way that you think is useful. (I went light on the middle of the article, as criticism is so subjective. I just checked the source-text integrity, which seems to be okay. The criticism seems to mainly rely on Leishmann and Spender's commentary. It could use updating, but I'll steer clear of that for now.) Wtfiv (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much for doing that. I think it might be good to restore the links to Google books for as long as the FAR is going, for easier verifiability. The author is said to have been bad in referencing, and I'd like to show that for most of what I saw, he was diligent. - I wonder if the "influences" might serve the Rilke biography better than this article. (Haven't checked what's there.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gerda I think we are set with referencing. Part of what I did was ensure that every page reference in citations is linked. This allows any future reader or editor to click the link while reading to verify the accuracy. I also modified the prose to strengthen text-citation links. (Also please note, I kept most of the Google links for pages verifying references, but moved them to the actual page number in the citation.)

With respect to the references now, it'd be great- but not necessary- if an editor could spot check to make sure my citation page links are correct. If there are errors, I'll gladly fix them.

I'm okay with Influences at this point, as I removed everything that I couldn't find related to the Elegies specifically. (I'm glad I was able to save the Gadamer section in particular.) But I trust your opinion: please remove any or all if you wish, I respect your decision with this.

At this point, my biggest concern is Further Reading and Translations. They seem large, arbitrary and vulnerable to endless increase. But I won't touch them if there's no consensus to remove them

I also want to say that as I edited, I could see all the work you had done so far. I appreciate it. It made my work so much easier!

.Wtfiv (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, and also for the last comment on my talk, and the detailed clarification in the FAR. On my talk, you didn't sign - as the discussion is linked from the other perhaps do, for transparency. Normally I wouldn't be fussy, and I knew it was you by the content ;) - My mistake with the "wrong" Gass: the same page number. I really thought I was in the Gass book, because that was the only place I expected the line. Sometimes I'm that blind ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Gerda Sorry about forgetting to sign. I try to sign everything, but my editing history shows that sometimes, it lapses! I'm glad you knew it was me, and I'll go back and sign now. I very much appreciate the comments you have made throughout the entire process of trying to salvage Duino Elegies! Wtfiv (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

"don't be a waster of sorrows" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

August songs

in friendship
Non, je ne regrette rien

... that was the song quoted on the announcement that my friend died, - she suffered from dementia (if I still may say "suffered", - and sure we around suffered differently), and was supposed to perform it for her birthday at the home where she lived, with a red rose, but came COVID and no performance for two years - her therapist performed is now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Gerda, it's always hard when we can't complete the grieving process. I was just talking to another editor about my own attempt to bring a loved one's death full circle. The idea I was offering- the balancing of presence, time, and grieving in what is beautiful. It was inspired by the shared editing you and I did on Duino Elegies. I do hope that the therapist's performance brought a wholeness to something that the past few years had made incomplete. Wtfiv (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

yes it did, and again you said that well - opening movement of Bach's Christmas Oratorio: "lasset das Zagen, verbannet die Klage", "let go of fear" and then "ban lament" or "stop complaining", and music is so much better in in expressing emotions --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

new pics and thoughts on 13 August - the day that Palladian architecture is on the Main page --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

could you talk to Hog Farm about the elegies, or should we just leave them mistrusting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gerda,

I think the Elegies may have to rest for now. It was fun learning about them, though! Fortunately, there is so much beautiful art out there to learn about! Wtfiv (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Returning from a great concert: yes, so much beautiful art, Howell's Requiem, and I knew nothing. - I'd not mind rest for the elegies, but if he is followed they would be reduced to an earlier (inferior) state (in unrest, I believe). I don't have the words to argue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The glory is being able to be part of a lovely concert. I envy you that. I hope it was enjoyable. As to the elegies: They are okay. Rilke is beloved by many. The world has lost the origin of many beautiful phrases. It's in the nature of language. But the phrase itself lives, even on the Duino Castle website! The nature of wikipedia is transitory, the epitomy of buddhist transitory phenomenon. I think your desire not to argue is the best, as there is so much you still have to offer in Wikipedia: Creating an awareness of beauty that some may have previously not seen. Wtfiv (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

FAC

August songs

I have a Bach cantata FAC open, would you be interested? The coordinator wants to see action, and as you know, I was a bit occupied. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:21, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I'm not sure I'll be able to help, as things have just got busy for me, and I need to finish a couple of projects here. But I'll see what I can do! Wtfiv (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Do it next time, - this one attracted enough eyes by now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Today: "my" concert of the year (so far) is on the Main page, but not pictured, and I don't understand why --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The last week brought more outstanding concerts and bike tours, - how is your summer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Dab links

Wtfiv, you frequently enter links that are to disambiguation pages. If you click on "Preferences" at the top of your screen, and scroll down to the Appearance section, you will see where you can click on

• Display links to disambiguation pages in orange

And then you may need to hit save (can't remember). Then if you add dab links in text you will see them in orange rather tha blue, and you can go back to the dab page to find the correct link. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy. They moved it to gadgets, but I found it! I appreciate the tip! Wtfiv (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I have so many things I installed so long ago that I never know where to find them :) Just glad I have them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm slowly growing my set too!

• I just learned that your timing to work on this article is perfect! The Globe is putting on a Joan of Arc play, where she will be represented as non-binary. If it piques people to look here, it'll be nice that they'll have a decent site to go to.
• I appreciate your pushing the balance between "Joan the agent" and "Joan the victim" further toward the former. The SPE version was very strongly oriented toward the latter, and the edits before your active engagement hadn't moved it far enough. Wtfiv (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the dates of the play in that announcement??? We should get that so we know when the article will be hit. PS, she gets so many views that I don't want to start fiddling with the lead although I think it needs a rewrite ... I plan for you and I to work through the lead via talk page proposals as we did at J. K. Rowling ... I have had one darn thing after another today which has kept me from finishing up Legacy, but hopefully will get that done in the next few hours ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yep ... https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2022-08-01&end=2022-08-12&pages=Joan_of_Arc SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

It's already moving up! What timing! Wtfiv (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The show opens August 25. And no hurries and no worries. I've got a lot going on too! I'm just trying to research the images to get ones that are copyright secure. I'll look at the Rowling talk page to get a sense of what you mean. Wtfiv (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

don't waste your time trying to find that on JKR page ... it has about six archives ... it will be obvious when I get to it ... I am having fits of starts and stops today because of stuff going on around the house ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I looked through the Rowling talk and notices! I think I found material about the lead. Wow, that was an article to navigate! I'll work on the image issues that Nikkimaria shared. Wtfiv (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Sandy I thought I'd let you know that I invited a couple of co-editors I had a good time working with on the Frederick the Great page to review the FAR. I hope that's okay. One said they'd take a look, but isn't too experienced with reviews. I haven't heard from the other yet, but I know he's a very experienced editor. Wtfiv (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

By the way, thank you so much for cleaning up behind my recent edits. I'm sorry I'm leaving such a mess. I'm just trying to address concerns as they come, to the best of my ability. Saves me from having to do another pass, where I'd probably miss things anyway. Wtfiv (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

No probs! When I get home in the evening, I try to catch up on anything from the day, and I'm sorry my timing sometimes creates edit conflicts for you! If I put things off, i forget to come back to them when busy ... Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Your edit haven't created major problems for me! I just don't want to cause them for you! Wtfiv (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The only thing that makes me tear my hair out is when you forget to sign, because I've gotten used to the ease of using the reply tool when I am iPad editing (it just hurts my back too much to sit at a real computer for any length of time), and the reply tool is invalidated when there is no sig.

At any rate, I will probably stop following as closely as I had been now, so don't count on me to catch the little things like puncutation, missing spaces, etc. I believe you are over the hump now, and have fully competent editors on board (eg @Victoriaearle, John, and Johnbod: et al), and I must move on now to other articles with pressing problems, that do force me to sit at a real computer. Keep the faith; you're almost there ! I will still be keeping a close eye on the FAR and the sock issue, and I believe Guerillero will as well. I think after Victoria goes through this weekend, we'll be positioned for Keep declarations. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen any socking since my ECP -- Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 23:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

D'Arc

Hi. I did my due diligence on the article history. I didn't see a response about my focus on her father, so I'll assume you missed it when you said my focus was on Joan. I think that was the last thing I said on Joan's talk page before the English section. Please, don't misrepresent me. Sinking into reality (talk) 17:43, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Good point, I meant Joan-related topics! The "Du Lys" issue is a mess, by the way. But, it looks like you've researched it, so you've probably already encountered it. Pernoud carefully questions that Joan's family had claim to "du Lys". More radically, Bouzy suggests there may have been no ennoblement, or it was done some other times, as getting a coat of arms is not ennoblement. I think the FARC team's decision to leave it as stating that Joan was ennobled is the best solution; it is the consensus, which includes Pernoud. Wtfiv (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The du Lys name does not appear before Jacques. I got their bible, so I can't wikiedit Joan. If you really mean all Joan-related articles, then the bible is useless and you must rely on Pernoud. Isn't fascinating to see how this renders? Sinking into reality (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

It is fascinating! Wtfiv (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For all your fine work on Joan of Arc. You are good with sources, good at writing, and good at collaborating with others. This is a rare combination, and I congratulate you for it. John (talk) 14:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

September songs

+ support. - Today's recommended reading: Opera in Ukraine! - 1 September: I remembered the Vespro della Beata Vergine, 2 September: the last of the Rheingau Musik Festival concerts, and yesterday we read The Story of Mr Sommer, and followed Ruth Lapide. - What do you think Duino Elegies would need to be at least GA again? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

a rainbow today, and a deer yesterday (but hard to see) - Jubilate Deo --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I'm digging out from being under the weather. I think Duino Elegies is done for me. I feel good about the first part- describing its origins- but I realized I don't want to get involved in literary criticism. Too subjective for my taste. I appreciate the idea of the rainbow...hope at the end of rain! Wtfiv (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Such great work from you, again :) A very impressive rool. Ceoil (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Understand. The rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and this year was full of music that day, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto, and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

Sandy, following your suggestion that the Andrew Jackson article needs trimming, I've stepped forward on the article's talk page to start the attempt as long as there aren't major objections from the active editors. This won't prevent it from going to FAR once the hold time-line is past if there are no other changes, right? Even after trimming, it looks to me like the article is going to need a lot of help from many editors to address the other concerns raised. I I think the energy, collaboration, and relative distance from the topic of the FAR team may be very useful in helping resolve this article's issues. Also, do you have other thoughts or suggestions on how to proceed, given that this article has generated a lot of energy as late? Wtfiv (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It's so unpromising that what is happening there has had me in a funk all week. With a recalcitrant nominator, I am unsure that star can be salvaged, and it discourages me that the nominator has five of them. I've lost my voice for now; you will have to be very brave to wade in there, but there is no reason for that article to not be under 9,000 words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Sandy! Don't be too funked, your attempt to discuss the issue was noteworthy. At this point the nominator is blocked from the article. This may be the time to clean it up a bit. I'll try to respect the nominator's in-depth work but trying to address the size issue so that concerned editors can get to the more controversial issues. By the way, when you say you lost your voice, do you mean in the real world or wikiworld? Wtfiv (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Mostly Wikipedia, but kinda both. Something always kicks me back into gear after a few days respite ... I guess the conversation about the connection with creative psychopathy brought back more bad memories than I realized it would ... along with everything else ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I know those doldrums. I suppose we all do. After we finished with Joan, I needed a break. My body agreed by ensuring I'd be pretty ill and relatively low energy for about five days. But I'm feeling significantly better now. We'll see how it goes. There's an irony there: thinking that one is writing about creative psychopathy but perhaps what seemed like an in vitro exercise became too much in vivo. It sounds like you know the nature of what you are experiencing. It's good to hear you'll be back in form soon! Wtfiv (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I know that if I ponder for a few days, I eventually sort what's bugging me :) We have worked for over a year to get through the very oldest FAs, bringing many back to standard, in what have been mostly very productive and enjoyable FARs. After spending a year at Joan and J. K. Rowling, with such success, realizing that while we work at the end of the oldest FAs, FAC has been churning out new "FAs" like Jackson-- where the prose is just sloppy through and through and nobody cared to look-- and knowing that there are five more just like it, left me wondering why we're working so hard. It would take a Joan/JKR type FAR to pull that article through, and then the rest just like it also need FARs, and then there are so many newer FAs that have also fallen out of standard ... and I don't have the energy to deal with a recalcitrant FAC nominator. Besides my other IRL stuff, I'm also going in to a very busy time now, with multiple doctor app'ts coming up, along with prolonged guests and a long trip and work on a fundraiser ... so I've also been discouraged knowing that I won't be able to be as dedicated at FAR for the next few months. And then, revisiting the old "psychopathy" issue/attacks that so define my time at Wikipedia just put a nice bow on my dejection :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I support your efforts to trim the article. I may be more inclined to support some of the other suggestions of compromises within the article if it didn't seem there was so much content that it obscured significant details. Eventually the reader's eyes will gloss over and they will simply stop reading. The fact is the majority of readers, unless they are researching, won't read much past the lead anyway. Brevity is not my strength so I commend you.

To SandyGeorgia, I wish for you continued health, peace and as much rest as you can get over the next few months as your life gets busier. I felt your discouragement and I also felt the attacks. You are a phenomenal editor here and you have gained far more respect than ire. I appreciate you, your efforts and your continued amazing contribution to discussion and improvement of the encyclopedia. --ARoseWolf 15:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the support ARoseWolf! DN99 did a lot of hard work, but I agree the prose needs to be cleared to get to the heart of the issue. My guess is that if the prose is cleared out, a fair and reasonable solution that all the concerned editors can live with will be clear. Let me know along the way, if you see any problems. And if you want to jump in, please do! Wtfiv (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the encouragement, ARoseWolf! Re I may be more inclined to support some of the other suggestions of compromises within the article if it didn't seem there was so much content that it obscured significant details, that is the crux of the problem. We can't ever hope to solve/address the underlying POV concerns on such a bloated article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, sometimes we just need a break, especially when the non-Wikiworld closes in with its existential worries. As to the sense of futility you sometimes feel: I hear you. But you know from your long experience that its the nature of the beat. Wikipedia explodes exponentially, and its up to other editors to worry about the latest. The apparent futility in being able to tackle the new articles is actually a strength. The older FARs are old for a reason. These are those Wikipedia "standards" that people felt needed Joan and Joyce- the two I was involved with- are just two. Victoria's example of Vincent Van Gogh is another. As you once said to me, these are the "mother load". The world will always outreach our own significance, but what a difference you can make. Rowling sounds like it was a battlefield ladened with landmines. The Joyce garden needed serious pruning in his Irish section, but his European section was neglected and barren. And with Joan, she was so overrun with fabulous and shape-shifting kudzu that it was almost impossible to find her in the article. These frequently visited "standards" are now cleaned up because of your role as FAR coordinator. (We'll not talk about your important role in keeping everyone mindful of maintaining standards in the medical articles.) Don't forget, it's not just what you do but who you inspire as well! Wtfiv (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

"Don't forget, it's not just what you do but who you inspire as well!" This is one of the most significant statements anyone could ever say on any subject. --ARoseWolf 17:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You are both so kind (but Wtfiv, I'm not a FAR Coordinator ... I was a FAC delegate, before we called them Coordinators). Long hard day working on a fundraiser, and too tired to think or type coherently, but appreciate the kindness, and see the talk page of Jackson just got a sensible boost, so that's some nice news after attempts all day were made at hacking my Wikipedia account! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just dropping a note to state that I appreciate the work you are doing with the article. --ARoseWolf 14:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! I'm fairly conservative, so I'm not reducing the article as much as I thought. Other editors are much bolder, and one may be needed later. But there's still plenty to go, so I should be able to get it down to about 9000 words. At least been I've been able catch a number of places where the citations and text don't match up or where the text goes beyond the citations, and I think I've been able the sequencing of events a bit more clear. I appreciate your support! Wtfiv (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Wtfiv! Your work on Joan of Arc has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 02:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Joan of Arc (estimated annual readership: 2,154,224) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Henry R. Robinson (publisher) moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Henry R. Robinson (publisher), is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Henry R. Robinson (publisher) has been accepted

Henry R. Robinson (publisher), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Theroadislong (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

One year!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Jackson and the FAR review

Sandy, I'm of mixed feelings about reinstating FAR. I think the request was put out in response to a particular issue, which I'm hoping is resolved through the internal mechanism of the talk page.

I recognize that FAR would be a good idea, perhaps necessary: My changes may be so substantial- particularly in the legacy and addition of sources- that they need a good peer review. And there is the very fair concern that the article may no longer be FA quality.

My own hesitation is I don't want to be involved in another FAR that feels like the worse of FA, in which I feel like editors withhold approval unless I implement changes that I disagree or don't understand, and do so without further discussion. As you know, I'll argue for my perspective, but if a collaborator feels differently and is insistent, they can make the change and then we can discuss (e.g., when I suggest an editor implement a change themselves). And please understand, I'm not arguing for intranscience. Just as demoralizing are when reviewers make general blanket statements about why the article doesn't measure up without offering substantial suggestions or help. In both cases, where does one go from there? What is clear, is there will be no approval.

In its ideal form, FAR to me is an interactive process of collaborative creation where we all recognize and agree what we are trying to accomplish. Near the end of the year-long Joan episode, we achieved that, which was really nice. Then, the FAR members who pitched in with a what seemed to be a desire to ensure the article was excellent were fantastic! But during the interim, between puppet and final clean up, there were times when it was the process felt more like an exercise in criticism that sometimes did not feel constructive and it dragged out for months. I acknowledge some of that may have been my own doing, but I still don't want to be there again. Thoughts? Wtfiv (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Hannah Jackson (enslaved person)

The very fact that you put "owned" in quotation marks suggests you realize that a human being cannot actually own another human being, even if the law said so. If you're going to call her "enslaved person", you should probably not think of her as chattel in the same breath. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

I totally agree with the idea Drmies! What I was focusing on is that Jackson did not enslave her, as she was already "enslaved", but the point you are making is really important. Can you think of another way it can be worded to catch the sense of what you are getting out without making it look like Jackson did the initial enslaving? It sounds like you are on the edge of the perfect balance of wording. Please put it in! I may jump in again, but I have a feeling its really close!

By the way, thank you so much for jumping into the article! Wtfiv (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't put "own" in quotation marks. Somebody else might have. If they did, they're seeing the same thing you are. There is definitely a better wording. Wtfiv (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey--thanks. The "owned", wait, now I see it was "property" that you put in quotation marks, in your edit summary. So, as far as I'm concerned (and I've worked on this kind of material a bit), "enslaving" is not a one-time act--it is an ongoing process. One does it every day, every day anew, so the way I see it it it's not the original act of someone taking someone's freedom. The biography isn't entirely clear, or complete, but it seems to me she was born into slavery, and thus there was no one person, one act--but of course she was enslaved, all the time, by Jackson and by his predecessor, until she freed herself. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Drmies, I see your point, about enslavement. I think for most readers, it denotes a verb like "caught," which describes a one-time action.

But to another point implied by your point: Why start her description with the adjective "enslaved"? I put your suggested wording back. If people read the article, they should get the sense of the word as you shared.

Also, as you said, she freed herself, escaping in 1863! Interestingly she is not recorded as publically ever saying a bad word about Jackson. And maybe that was sincere. On the other hand, she was a survivor who knew how to make the best of the situation she's in. If she decided to live in Nashville, which is only five miles from the Hermitage, it might be a wise strategy to avoid saying anything negative. Wtfiv (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

And thanks for taking the time to reach out. Wtfiv (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Wtfiv, it took me a while to realize some of those constraints that freed persons had to live under. For instance, I often wondered why Phillis Wheatley Peters wasn't more outspoken in condemning slavery even after she was freed--not realizing that even Boston was small place, and your very life might depend on the standing you have with the people who run that town. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Frederick the Great

You may be interested to know that I have added some notes to the article on the sexuality of Frederick the Great. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I added some further details as you suggested. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Diannaa has now removed some of my additions. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Another year gone

		Best wishes for the holidays
		Wishing you and yours the best over the holiday season, and here's hoping 2023 won't bring as much global trauma as the last few disastrous years. And can you please, for christ sake, create a user page :) Ceoil (talk) 07:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

What a great image! And I appreciate the wishes! Unfortunately, the coming new year looks like it could get messy, I think. But we can only hope! Your note about my user page has me laughing, but I need to be careful, I fear that users without homepages could be the topic of an RfC! Wtfiv (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You must have realised by now that red links to wiki-addicts are red rosed to a bull. This may be a matter I'll take to an international level. Ceoil (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

January music

January songs

happy new year

-- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson legacy section

Hey Wtfiv. Unfortunately, I ended up taking an (unforeseen) wikibreak due to real-life work pressure so was unable to follow up on my promised draft of the legacy section. I see the thread on the talk page has been archived -- do you know whether changes were made to the section, or whether it would be helpful for me to take another look? (What's the current state/status of work on the article?) Best, Jr8825 • Talk 03:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi Jr8825,

It's good to hear from you. Hopefully, the break has been a good one. I know about real life pressures! I tried to address the concerns you had. The legacy is noticeably shorter. I think it is okay. Of course, if you like to take a look at it or edit it, please do. I think the Featured Article Review is still open, but I think most of the concerns have been addressed. Wtfiv (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

December thanks

December songs

happy new year

Thank you for the most constructive comment in any infobox discussion in years - hopefully leading on a way forward where the arb candidates didn't even see a problem. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:37, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Gerda Gerda about your comments on the infobox. With respect to infoboxes, have no strong commitments either way. I noted the issue so everyone could weigh in fairly. I just want all parties who genuinely care to come up with a satisfactory solution that leads to overall satisfaction. To me, the Infobox is less important than making sure we have the facts and citations right, the story comes together fairly, we keep an eye on bloat, and we create pages that are informative and pleasing to look at. But it is clear that there is a lot of passion surrounding this topic. Its clear the whole infobox issue is symbolic of deeper issues perhaps symbolic of different visions of what Wikipedia should be. The value is that the dialectic struggle over these visions bind communities together, bring passion to discussions, and sometimes lead to insights for seeing an aspect of the encyclopedia anew. As long as there is integrity- and I'll think you'll appreciate this- passionate kindness with the assumption of good faith- the ultimate outcome will always be good. One can't lose. Wtfiv (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

May you be right! In 10 years, I haven't figured out the passion in these discussions, believing that a decent well curated infobox and a substantial lead could exist side by side, supporting each other. But the passion is as if a little box was an invasion and the assumption of good faith is not always clearly visible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Enjoy the season, dreaming of peace! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you Gerda Arendt! I'll have to listen to the December songs. Right now, the Wikipedia mood has me listening to a blast from the past: Iva Bittová singing Godár's Mater. Enjoy your holiday season and thank you for being so thoughtful to the folk at Wikipedia. Wtfiv (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting musicians! I try to be thoughtful, thanks for noticing. I hope that a cough that hit me a few days ago will give way enough that I can sing in choirs, but if not, so be it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

... and then I could! - Today, pictured, the soprano of our choral concert of the year. More in the context: User talk:Gerda Arendt#DYK for Talia Or, in case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Interesting to read this a year later, and perhaps we better continue than start from scratch. In the meantime, we discussed Mozart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:52, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

October songs

my story today

Today, it's a place that inspired me, musings if you have time. My corner for memory and music has today a juxtaposition of what our local church choirs offer. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Towards the end of the month, I thought of Brian Bouldton, and his ways to compromise, - with musings about peace there, - feel free to join. Hevenu shalom aleichem. Today is Reformation Day, and I believe that reformation is a work in progress. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia

Hey there! Don't forget whenever you move content from one Wikipedia article to another, you have to include a wikilink to the article copied from, per WP:CWW. I add an after-the-fact partial attribution statement that covers it, but if you remember to link when copying, it's easier. Thanks for coming in there to fix that stampy thing. Best regards, my friend, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Sandy! Wtfiv (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Portraits of Frederick the Great

A new user has added an all-too-critical multiple issues tag to the article on the Portraits of Frederick the Great. I think, this tag isn’t justified. What do you think? See Talk:Portraits of Frederick the Great. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 14:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

There's no question that you put a lot of work into these articles, and they are full of interesting information. But I think the tags are justified as the articles could use more editing to come up to the standards of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The tags provide notice to editors and readers to consider helping out by improving the the article. In the meantime, people can continue to access the work you've done even with the tags. Wtfiv (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

However, it is not O.K that the tag includes false claims. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

You could address the ones you are concerned with on the article's talk page, and make sure to let the user who made them know you would like to talk about it. That's probably a good start. Wtfiv (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

December music

December: story · music · places

Thank you for your patient dealing with James Joyce issues! - Today's story is about Maria Callas, on her centenary. - Aaron Copland died OTD. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much Gerda! I definitely appreciate all you do, particularly trying to keep the back pages of Wikipedia positive! Wtfiv (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, appreciated! Today, to Paris (29 Nov) with a visit to the Palais Garnier, - to match the story of Medea Amiranashvili, - don't miss listening to her expressive voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honour to have known him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for what you do and stand for! I wish you a good festive season and a peaceful New Year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

2024

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Same location pictured as 2019. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible - congratulations to a successful article rescue! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Wtfiv!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Wtfiv! Your work on Jefferson Davis has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

I support the barnstar! - The image, taken on a cemetery last year after the funeral of a distant but dear family member, commemorates today, with thanks for their achievements, four subjects mentioned on the Main page and Vami_IV, a friend here. Listen to music by Tchaikovsky (an article where one of the four is pictured), sung by today's subject (whose performance on stage I enjoyed two days ago). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested

I've begun a consensus discussion on the Joan of Arc talk page on the citation of Andrea Dworkin. Can you offer your opinion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson

I could award any number of barnstars for your efforts and you deserve many of them but I want to say my personal appreciation. You took on a very difficult task. You accepted criticism with class and listened to us as we dumped our thoughts on you. I think we have an infinitely better article today than when we first came upon it.

I've been an advocate and activist supporting American Indian/Native American positions at rallies, powwows and the such, for the better part of my life. Everything I believe or even want is not reflected in the article. I am human, I am biased. But when I fully accepted the Wikipedia way on the encyclopedia I came to appreciate the beauty of discussion, compromise and consensus. I, and some of my colleagues, have experienced serious allegations of collusion, canvassing and "vote" stacking on various articles related to Indigenous topics. Allegations that are simply untrue and hurtful but not completely unexpected. I'm in the somewhat unique position to understand them but also understand Wikipedia. I think the primary issue is people who don't regularly edit here don't understand how the encyclopedia operates. They only see that we aren't complying with their worldview.

It has taken a toll on me, as I am sure it has on you. That's why I am here now to thank you for your time, your energy and your continuing effort. You were the perfect one to take on this challenge and you did so with delicacy and class. --ARoseWolf 14:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your very kind and thoughtful comments, and I appreciate the time you took to do so! For the most part, I enjoyed the project- trying to represent Jackson in a way that all editors with stakes are relatively satisfied with it. And though I doubt the original editor feels it, I tried to respect their contributions even as I addressed all the other concerns. In the process, I have been very grateful that both you and Carlstak have been there keeping an eye on things. I feel you are my guideposts to ensure what I tries to keep the balance in view, and I'm glad that you are keeping an eye on the article.

I totally understand that what you want to see in the article doesn't reflect what you'd like to see. That's the nature of Wikipedia, I think. For me, it is the same. I figure the writing itself puts me in it, but my goal is to try and find that place where the majority of editors can live with what is said. On the way, I very much appreciate what I learn, particularly as I verify or add sources.

Because you have a clear perspective that you are open about, you may be accused of stacking votes are being part of a cabal, but my experience with what I've seen is that you are passionate for Native American issues, particularly Cherokee, but fair, polite and thoughtful. I've noticed a number of times when you were positive and encouraging toward people who see things very different than you do. It is that kindness and thoughtfulness that makes me glad to have come to know you in this Wikiworld. I know that Wikiworld can get frustrating for all of us, and I am sorry that it has taken a toll on you. But know that while you are staying with it, and being one of the voices here, the Wikipedia and the editorial discussion world is a better place because you are part of it.

(I apologize for my late reply, I very much appreciate your kindness in taking the time to write this, and- one more- appreciate your thoughtful passion as an editor.) Wtfiv (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		As I stated I could choose a number of barnstars. A tireless contributor is a good fit for the wrok you have put in with Andrew Jackson but also many articles since 2006. You have made a lasting impact on content and user alike. ARoseWolf 11:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I also should apologize for my delay. I had to take a small break. When I read articles I see colors. I hear the Song of their life. People are not perfect. Lifesong's can be messy but even in the darkest moments when truly horrific actions manifest terribly tragic results there are still Rainbows, still rays of light, even if our natural eyes can not see. Only .0035% of light is what we call visible. There are wavelengths of light we have not even begun to understand as a species. Like a finger strumming the strings of an instrument these waves pass through us and with each one a new musical note of the universe is born. Our symphony joins with that of others and even the entire universe combined. This is what I hear. This is what I see. Music is all around us. So we do have impact. We do matter. This project matters. And you do wonderous soul work, my friend. --ARoseWolf 11:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Tinian

I know you are flat out with the Battle of Saipan, but your effort prompted me to overhaul the subsequent Battle of Tinian, which I have up for review at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Tinian, and there is no one better qualified to review. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye,

I saw! I had started putzing with that myself, considering it for a "next project", but what you did looks really good. It has also helped me out, providing me with insights on how flexible I can be with a Pacific War article. (e.g., It addresses my misperception that those OOB sections were an informal best practice for these articles, something like an infobox.) I'm moving fairly slowly on the Saipan, but I think it's worth it; the reviews raise points worth considering. I had planned on reviewing the Battle of Tinian as soon I finished with Saipan, but I'm not sure how soon I'll get that done. If you'd like me to review sooner, I can do that.

As an aside, I envy that you have access to Hayes, 1982! I've never seen it; it looks like it is out of print, rare, and incredibly pricey used. But even the description and your hints make it seem like an insightful read of decision-making at the highest level. Your mention of it up made me realize how little the essential guiding role of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in WWII is understood. Wtfiv (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

For a next project, there always the Battle of Guam (1944). I suggest reading through the review of Battle of Tinian, because there might be some points that also apply to Saipan. Saipan is much better known and documented than Tinian. One history vs hindsight point that came up: there is an impression that the islands were seized primarily as a base for the B-29s. In fact that was a secondary priority, and on 6 August Nimitz even issued a directive that work on naval installations was to have priority over airbases for the B-29s.

I don't know where I got my copy of Hayes. It sits on the shelf here, within easy reach. Regrettably, the third work in the series, on the war with Germany, was never written. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I'll look at it more carefully in a couple of days. And I agree about the capture of the Mariana's. Miller in Plan Orange assumes it to be a base, and I understand that to the chagrin of the Army Air Forces, Nimitz gave priority to making Guam an advance naval headquarters whereas they wanted. I allude to the point when talking about Saipan as an interdiction site, but it sounds like I need to be more direct. I'll look at what the points you got in the Tinian article, and see what else could be added to Saipan. Thanks again! Wtfiv (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between April and June 2024. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

April thanks

Thank you for improving article quality in April! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

today a sad task - memory of Andrew Davis - turned into entertainment (yt at the bottom of his article, actually both) -- the latest pictures capture extreme weather --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Today's story mentions a concert I loved to hear (DYK) and a piece I loved to sing in choir, 150 years old (OTD). --

June music

... forgot to sign the above, sorry. - Franz Kafka died 100 years ago OTD, hence the story. I uploaded a few pics from the visit of Graham87. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Today is "the day" for James Joyce, also for Bach's fourth chorale cantata (and why does it come before the third?) - the new pics have a mammal I had to look up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

New pics of food and flowers come with the story of Noye's Fludde (premiered on 18 June), written by Brian Boulton. I nominated Éric Tappy because he died, and it needs support today! I nominated another women for GA in the Women in Green June run, - review welcome, and more noms planned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

July music

story · music · places

My story today is - because of the anniversary of the premiere OTD in 1782 - about Die Entführung aus dem Serail, opera by Mozart, while yesterday's was - because of the TFA - about Les contes d'Hoffmann, opera by Offenbach, - so 3 times Mozart if you click on "music" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Today's story is about a photographer who took iconic pictures, especially View from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, on Manhattan, 9/11, yesterday's was a great mezzo, and on Thursday we watched a sublime ballerina. If that's not enough my talk offers chamber music from two amazing concerts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Deletion of Plumb book review in Frederick the Great

Hi. You say that the review "Sounds like an interesting tertiary source discussing biographies of Frederick, but not used as citations in the article." What do you mean by "not used"? Is there a rule proscribing its use? If so, what exactly does the rule proscribe? Or is it merely your judgment that it should not be used? If so, why?

I think that the key word in your comment is "interesting." My view is that the fact that it is interesting is a sufficient reason to include it. It doesn't take up a lot of space or otherwise do any harm; it's just one more of more than two dozen articles listed. If including it violates a rule, then I disagree with the rule, but I must submit to it. If it doesn't violate a rule, then, unless you had a good reason to delete it, I'd like to put it back. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll answer on the talk page of the article. Wtfiv (talk) 23:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Now I think I understand. "not used as citations" means that it should not be under "Sources." It should be under "Further reading," but this article has no "Further reading" section. I don't know whether it's worth creating one just for this article, although other editors may supplement it in the future.

I also wonder whether we must take "Sources" so literally. I don't know, but I suspect that not every article listed was used as a citation. Maurice Magnus (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Maurice Magnus, since we started here, and you've added a bit more, I figure it's best to reply here.

When I mentioned the review looked interesting, it did, at least the little bit I could access freely, but that doesn't mean its appropriate for the Frederick article. The article's focus is not Frederick the Great. It is a tertiary article about biographical writing, which happens to be Frederick in this case, that compares Mitford's and Ritter's treatment of their shared subject. Plumb seems to focus particularly on how they handle Frederick's sexual life.

Yes, all the articles in the sources are linked to citations; there are no uncited articles. Had the Plumb been formatted using the appropriate citation format, it would have appeared as unlinked. If you are interested, there is a great tool you can add to your user scripts to see if a source is uncited: User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.

As to adding a section on Further Reading. When we did the review for Featured Article for the Frederick article, we realized that "Further Reading" would be a mess, and it is better not to have one. The secondary literature is vast and could go on for 1000s of books and journal articles. It would be longer than the article itself, and the list would be based on individual preferences.

I hope that answers your concerns. I did very much appreciate you fixing and linking the sources that you did., such as Paret. His contributions are too important to be lost in a misspelling. Wtfiv (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Wtfiv (talk Thank you for explaining all this; yes, it answers my concerns, and I'll drop the matter and not create "Further readings." Maurice Magnus (talk) 00:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Jonathan Israel citation

The reason that I moved [Review of the Encyclopedia of Enlightenment] outside the citation template was because of the quotation mark at the end of it. [Review of the Encyclopedia of Enlightenment] is not part of the title of the article, so it should not be within the quotation marks. Is there another way to solve this problem? If there is, then please fix it. I'll defer to you on this. Maurice Magnus (talk) 01:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I think because review is bracketed, it should not be a problem. The bracket within quotes denotes added information. Given your concern, I've tried a slightly different format that may work. It brings Review part out of the quotations but keeps the citation integrity. Wtfiv (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks; that's perfect. I've never understood the point of templates, which often impose unwanted punctuation. Why not just type what we want to see: author (year) title, journal, etc.? Maurice Magnus (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)