User talk:AleatoryPonderings/Archive 1

Please verify
I made the following change, please verify those are correct. Coumans in particular should be fine, the original version was published in 2010, and was online afterwards (2011), but I don't know if the Janda changes are correct or if you had another source in mind. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, both right – thank you very much! Those were definitely oversights on my part. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, AleatoryPonderings! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:


 * Introductory tutorial
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Writing an article
 * Five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community portal
 * Task Center
 * Help pages
 * The Teahouse (newcomer help)
 * Main help desk

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes ( ~ ) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much ! I really appreciate it :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

QPQ check at DYK
Hi! Thanks for reviewing a submission at Did you know!

In the review, you mentioned that you don't know how to check whether someone is exempt from the QPQ requirement.

People are not required to do a quid pro quo review for the first five submissions they make at DYK. You can see how many reviews someone has made by clicking "QPQ check" in the toolbox on the left side of the nomination. That will take you to this page. Just put in the nominator's username, and it will show you how many DYK credits they have. If they have 5 or more, they need a QPQ. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Will be sure to use that in future :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, AleatoryPonderings, and welcome to Women in Red. Although you've only been contributing for a couple of weeks, I see you have already created a variety of articles including four interesting biographies of women. As you are interested in law, you might find some women deserving coverage in our Wikidata list of redlinks on law or in the other topics covered by our redlists. If you haven't already done so, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 10:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for the welcome! I really appreciate it :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much! And thanks for your help on the article! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Just minor perfunctory categories, this was well rounded when you placed it in main space. I see you placed it at Template:Did you know nominations/Annie Rothwell, and I think this would be great on the main page! I do suggest you try a more catchy hook, like maybe: "... that Annie Rothwell was a renowned Canadian War poet?". -- Eostrix  (&#x1F989; hoot hoot&#x1F989;]) 16:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Done! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of R v Zora
Hello! Your submission of R v Zora at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! Responded at the nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya
Hello! Your submission of Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 08:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada/The 10,000 Challenge
Hi, I'm enjoying your Supreme Court of Canada articles and wonder if you are aware of this project and would like to add your new articles to it? Best, Yoninah (talk) 08:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! I wasn't aware of that project, but now I definitely have some inspiration for my next article/destubbing attempt. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for R v Zora
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

 * I love baklava—thank you! Was a bit nervous about creating an article for the author of a single, somewhat bizarre, work, so glad that it turned out OK :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of legal abbreviations, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Court of Exchequer ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/List_of_legal_abbreviations check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/List_of_legal_abbreviations?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Sarah Chapone
Hello! Your submission of Sarah Chapone at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Olive Stott Gabriel
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Civil investigative demand
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Réjane Laberge-Colas
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, AleatoryPonderings

Thank you for creating Jael Pye.

User:Whiteguru, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Whiteguru (talk) 01:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks—I appreciate it! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Cecelia Goetz
Hiya I've made a review and some comments over at Template:Did you know nominations/Cecelia Goetz, looking forward to seeing what you think. Mujinga (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping and extremely thorough and thoughtful review! I think I've addressed all your comments at the nom. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Annie Rothwell
— Maile (talk) 12:02, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Sarah Chapone
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for The Hardships of the English Laws in Relation to Wives
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, AleatoryPonderings

Thank you for creating Holmes v. Walton.

User:Gazal world, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~.

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Gazal world (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was a little nervous about creating my first article adapted from a public domain source—glad it worked out :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Hello, I am sorry, but I unreviewed the page. There seems some copyvio. Can you please fix or explain it ? Dont't worry. The page will be reviewed later. --Gazal world (talk) 18:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Happy to explain. The text is adapted from this source (flagged in the sources section of the article) which is in the public domain in the United States, since it was published in 1899. By my understanding, all works published in the United States before 1925 are in the public domain, and can be used for any purpose. When I checked the page on the Earwig copyvio tool, it picked up this source as well, which is definitely in the public domain because it is a law from the 18th century. Hopefully this clears things up? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I checked it now. Thanks for explaining. I have reviewed the article again. Sorry for inconvenience. Keep doing good work. Happy editing. Regards. --Gazal world (talk) 18:21, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

DYK for William Nauns Ricks
Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  12:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Your work convinced me...

 * Thanks so much, ! This was a fun one to work on—thanks for giving me the opportunity to work on it. Are you also digging through CAT:NN to find old questionable articles? I know there's a drive on at the moment. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It was fun to go through. I've always loved docudramas and pseudo documentaries from the 50s, 60s and 70s and Bigfoot had a lot of those from the 70s The Legend of Boggy Creek, The Mysterious Monsters, etc. How I found it, I was actually just going through the new pages feed for AfD (I just pick a random day) and saw Specs (creature) and discovered more from there. Hope all is well.  // Timothy ::  talk  20:17, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. Hope all's well with you too! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Nevsun Resources Ltd v Araya
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Cecelia Goetz
—valereee (talk) 00:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested Technical Move
✅ Seamen's Haven → Seamen's haven (closed by non-admin page mover)    Kadzi    (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your help! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Proper Cup of Coffee, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Springer.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:25, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

A request if you have time
Hello again :). Hope you're doing well. I had a small request if you have time. There is a user Leesaaisath on my talk page that is discouraged and thinking about leaving. They received a few dings from users and I nominated an article for deletion. I tried to encourage them, if you have time I thought you might be able to offer a word of encouragement and advice also, in hopes of retaining a potentially good editor with under-represented language skills. Again hope you're doing well.  // Timothy ::  talk  14:52, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry if the ping is annoying; wasn't sure if you were watching. Thanks for thinking of me, and I hope you are doing well! I responded on your talk—hopefully it's somewhat reassuring for them :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:08, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Never annoying to be reminded of you my friend :)  // Timothy ::  talk  15:11, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

My recent Draft was not verified, plz help the person i had mentioned is really a professional football coach i had given sufficient References plz help.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darzubair (talk • contribs) 16:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC) If you've made sure all these criteria are met, your article should be ready for mainspace. Happy editing! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi ! Looking at the draft article, I can see three potential problems:
 * 1) You did not give inline citations, which is required according to the biographies of living persons policy.
 * 2) You may not have clearly indicated how the subject of the article satisfies our notability criteria, in particular the notability criteria for football players.
 * 3) You may not have cited reliable sources. Please make sure that sources you use are generally considered reliable. If you have a question about the reliability of a source, you can ask at the Teahouse or the reliable sources noticeboard. If you use the reliable sources noticeboard, you should first search the archives to make sure your question hasn't been asked before.

A barnstar for you!
Very much appreciate it! Was about to give you a barnstar for taking on the boring work—please consider this your barnstar as well :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Welcome back!
Hi, AleatoryPonderings,

I was just working with a page you tagged and found that you were a longtime editor/admin who was returning to work on the project. So, I thought I'd welcome you back! I'm sure many things have changed while some of the old problems remain. I see few old-timers return after leaving years ago so thanks for doing so and connecting this account with your previous identity. Liz Read! Talk! 21:01, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks ! It's been a very long while, indeed. Some things feel exactly the same; some things entirely different. In any event, I'm glad to be back. Thanks again for your note :) And sorry for messing up that speedy—I never really worked much with CSD even when I had the tools, so I'm not super familiar with the intricacies of policy in that area. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Budlong Pickle Company
—valereee (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Photogenic


A tag has been placed on Photogenic requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. A. Shohag (pingme||Talk) 16:07, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I replied at Talk:Photogenic. I probably just misinterpreted the guidelines or the closing comment? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Debra Satz, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Market.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Technical Jed
May remove this PROD, haven't decided if I want to spend the time editing the article, but found at least AllMusic, CMJ, The Washington Post, and Billboard, thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 18:07, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! If the sources are there, feel free to contest the prod. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:09, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you still want to work on it? Happy to deprod it myself to avoid having the prod expire if you think there's enough sourcing. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes, thanks, I will take another look at it this afternoon. Thank you. Caro7200 (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, added some refs. I also saw some newspaper articles that I couldn't actually read.  It needs work, but I try not to totally rewrite articles.  Feel free, obviously, to add a "close association" template, or whatever, thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 14:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work! I'll take a look and see what tag(s) make sense. Always appreciate when someone deprods and substantially improves the article :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * So you like Pigmeat Markham? Listened to "Here Comes the Judge" yesterday, on an old mix CD I came across.  Interesting old userpage. Caro7200 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Tbh I don't think I ever actually listened to him? I was just interested in old music/entertainment at the time, I think. A very interesting figure, definitely! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:19, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

ANI
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Just a formality. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 05:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Reconsider vote
Hello! I’ve added a detailed comment and some sources on the Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid discussion page. Following your comment - Id be happy if you read my comment and tell me what you think. Thanks! DEgnel (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! I responded at the AfD. I am not convinced by the points you raise, but please don't take that personally. It's just one person's opinion about the sources. Others may well disagree. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:30, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please...
email me so I can reply, with great appreciation. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Odd Balls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Oddball.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

September Women in Red edithons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

DYK for Martha Moulsworth
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Alice Sutcliffe
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Very Much Appreciated
Thanks for this. Nothing more important than editors constructively working together. Cheers colleague 🍾 Celestina007 21:34, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Of course :) Thanks again for your detailed and helpful responses. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

 * Aw, thanks! I'm not sure I entirely resolved it, but hopefully I untangled some of the many knots. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:10, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Photogenic (disambiguation)


A tag has been placed on Photogenic (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either
 * disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
 * disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
 * is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Bon Ami
Just wanted to say thank you for your contributions at the AfD and on the article. I appreciate the hard work you put into this. You did convince me, this is notable. I would have commented as such at the AfD, but it was closed. Best wishes, Waggie (talk) 14:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note—I appreciate it! It took a bit of digging, but the secondary sources we needed finally emerged :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:41, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

De-prod
Hey, hope all is well. I'm curious about your redirection of Urban Research Program. I actually considered that, but ended up deciding to PROD, given that the URP isn't mentioned at the target article at all, and doesn't seem to merit a mention. What was your thinking? Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, that's completely fair—I really just saw that it was hosted at Western Sydney University and thought that, in the (unlikely) event that someone was searching for it, they'd have somewhere to go. Nothing much beyond that. Feel free to revert and take it to AfD/RfD if you think that makes sense! I just saw a vaguely plausible redirect target and decided to go for it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Huh, I guess I can understand that that. I'm embarrassed to admit that I'm not that familiar with RfD, so will probably rv and take it to AFD, because I really couldn't find sourcing to justify a mention there. I agree that almost always redirection is a good outcome. Again, I'm pretty impressed with your contributions -- you remind me a lot of myself actually (in a good sense, please don't take offense at the comparison!). Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:11, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Makes perfect sense—go right ahead. And no, certainly no offense taken :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for David Graeber

 * Thanks, ! I only did a bit of cleanup; feel a bit sheepish getting official recognition :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:08, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your alert on Illuminism !
Hi, sorry for the long delay answering and missing the discussion. A redirect to Illuminati is neither wholly wrong nor wholly right. I really don't understand where the proper venue would be to discuss this as the pages I found were marked closed, so please bear with me for writing to you instead. I'll gladly repost if I can find the proper place. :-) Illuminism is still today pretty much a nonword in English, it got a minimum of traction only because the word for enlightenment in some big Romance languages is illuminisme - illuminismo, making it a tempting false friend for nonnative writers, like "today I didn't become my mail' (bekommen = receive in German). It even had a WP entry, which was clearly a forgotten stub for enlightenment when a very thorough entry for it already existed. After long notice I deleted the stub and put in the redirect. I still find no usage referring to illuminati, either the conspiracy theory or the original, actual group of people. Wikitionary has an unimpeacheable entry that references the French and lists all the related terms. To align WP to Wikitionary I'd prefer the redirect to enlightenment, but illuminism is so marginal, and the WP Illuminati entry so thorough, that it might not really matter. Spamhog (talk) 16:11, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your detailed reply! (forgive the ping, Narky Blert, but I wanted to credit you) made a similar point at the RfD. It seems, all things considered, like the best result in this case would have been delete, given the vagaries and subtleties at play. Such are the perils of seeking consensus among non-experts, I suppose … AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping!
 * False friends are a pain. I'll add German See/sea (where there's some overlap), Knecht/knight and Knabe/knave; and if your Italian shower is too hot, do not increase the flow of caldo. False friends in English can be even more deceptive, because unexpected: wikt:Table #4 and 5, watershed and Rubber (disambiguation).
 * I'm not any sort of expert on C18 thought, but had come across "illuminism" before somewhere. Concepts like the Enlightenment itself and freemasonry differ markedly either side of the Channel. All this is a long-winded way of saying that I've tagged as R with possibilities, and added a soft link to German WP. Narky Blert (talk) 18:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi AleatoryPonderings, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AAleatoryPonderings added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! –&#8239;Joe (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I appreciate it :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 11:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Tagging of Sierra Chart
I recently removed a speedy delete tag that you had placed on Sierra Chart. I do not think that Sierra Chart fits any of the speedy deletion criteria because '''This is an article about a piece of software, not about a company. A7 does not apply.'''. If you wish, you may try using the simple proposed deletion (PROD) process, or the full articles for deletion (AfD) process, instead, if this was an article, or another process such as MfD or XfD as appropriate. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:04, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, . I just prodded it. I used Db-inc because it looked as if the software and the company making it were basically coextensive and functionally identical for notability purposes, but I agree the criterion was not a great fit. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:09, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks I don't disagree mwith teh Prod. Please remember that the CSDs are construed narrowly and strictly, and if an article or page does not clearly fit a criterion, it should not be tagged with that criterion. There are good reasons why A7 does not apply to software or other creative works, such as books. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:12, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Dairy in India
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Re: Prod
Noted—thanks for the clarification. Kyuko (talk) 17:10, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem! Also, just for future reference: you can prod with Twinkle, which automatically puts Old prod on the article's talk page. That way, editors in the future won't accidentally prod the article a second time; Twinkle will abort the prod procedure if it finds Old prod on a talk page. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Anarchism
Hi AleatoryPonderings,

I saw your work on articles related to anarchism and wanted to say hello, as I work in the topic area too. If you haven't already, you might want to our noticeboard for Wikipedia's coverage of anarchism, which is a great place to ask questions, collaborate, discuss style/structure precedent, and stay informed about content related to anarchism. Take a look for yourself!

And if you're looking for other juicy places to edit, consider expanding a stub, adopting a cleanup category, or participating in one of our current formal discussions.

Feel free to say hi on my talk page and let me know if these links were helpful (or at least interesting). Hope to see you around. czar 19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Per "WP:ITSINTERESTING", just saying, if you're interested ;) czar  19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Definitely interested :) Thanks for the note! Not an area in which I have extensive knowledge, but would love to learn more—giving a stub some love would be a great way to do that. Look forward to crossing paths with you again, at AfD or elsewhere. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Templates
three if you post templates without help please notify the pages creator or help by adding text and information thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ginrei (talk • contribs)
 * I did notify you that I had nominated Eiga (website) for speedy deletion. Please see this diff. As for adding text or information, my view is that the page qualifies for WP:A7, which means that it does not establish a credible claim of significance based on the information provided in the article. My view remains that it does not establish such a claim. You are welcome to contest my claim on the talk page of the article if you disagree. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rosie Carpe, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page La Nouvelle République.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

If you get a minute
Hi, hope all is well. I saw you prodded an article created by looking at that users page creations, many seems suspect. I PRODDED one, thought you might be interested in taking a look at some, of the others if time allows. Of course, please don't feel obligated. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 11:48, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ah, didn't realize we were dealing with a serial creation issue. Yeah, I'll take a look in the next while. No chance of WP:G5ing any of these, I suppose? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it doesn't seem CR actually violated their block in creating the articles, more that they were blocked after creating the articles? However, I think they should be uncontroversial deletions all the same. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Ah, that's so kind of you! I really appreciate it :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:36, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon the talk-page-stalk . I echo this sentiment. You have been a pleasure to interact with in all my interactions with you, more specifically in many of the recent AfDs. Thanks AleatoryPonderings. Ktin (talk) 00:27, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks ! It's been great to work with and "meet" you too :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:29, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Piling on—nice work! czar  19:23, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, didn't see this till now! Thanks so much—it means a lot. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:47, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Paul Atherton
You made an error in your edit in respect to Atherton's award of the post nominal FRSA. This relates to being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts and has nothing whatsoever do to with the Royal Society which you used as evidence for your edit.83.216.75.225 (talk) 22:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Thirsty?
Some thoughts on drinking in Philadelphia. 1) I don't think Atlas Obscura is a reliable source, their FAQ states Anyone, anywhere in the world can add to Atlas Obscura. However, they do state all contributions to Atlas Obscura are reviewed by our editorial team.. Still, not the best source, imo. 2) Might be a good idea for us to start using in use to avoid edit conflicting. 3) How do you feel about converting the 'list of notable fountains' to table form? Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:47, 24 September 2020 (UTC)


 * 1) Agreed, but the statement it's sourcing seems readily source-able with something more reliable so it's just a question of finding that.
 * 2) Agree. I'm leaving it be for the moment due to impending off-wiki obligations, so feel free to put it In use} now.
 * 3) Unsure. What would the table entries be, besides name and date?
 * AleatoryPonderings (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Re to #3: probably 'name', 'date', 'image', 'description', and 'Ref(s). Mostly a way to 1) provide a merge target, if that's how the AFD turns out, and 2) ease of incorporating images, because it seems like we will have more images than can fit into the likely amount of prose. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ah, got it. Now agree, especially re: images (seems like there are a lot of nice PD images we can use). AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:03, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Certainly lots of good images! Do we consider this a RS? Eddie891 Talk Work 16:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Ah, thanks, ! You're too kind—I hardly did that much … To be honest, I still don't understand what his research is actually about? But always willing to lend a hand with copy-editing. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:06, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Missing cite in Holmes v. Walton
The article cites "Austin 1889" but no such source is listed in bibliography. Can you please add? Or is it a typo and should be "Scott 1899"? Also, suggest installing a script (explained at Category:Harv and Sfn no-target errors) to highlight such errors in the future. Thanks, Renata (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , I fixed the problem. It was indeed "Scott 1899". Thanks for pointing that out. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 04:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

DS are in effect
Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  23:52, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the message. I've always wondered: why is there a cutoff at 1932? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We were trying to find a line between what is politics and what is history. My original proposal was 1980, but that was seen as a too recent cutoff so we went with FDR's election. -- Guerillero &#124;  Parlez Moi  00:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ah, gotcha. Seems as reasonable a date as any. Thanks :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Better Than Working, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Telegraph.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There's a gadget "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" which is handy to avoid accidental links to disambig pages. – SD0001  (talk) 10:37, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Aha, thanks! These bot messages have been getting a bit annoying … Congrats again on your great work on dairy in India.
 * Fwiw, my 2c re: FA worthiness is: some of the sections (mainly the ones about history and culture) read a bit like collections of information without a clear narrative. I'm thinking, for instance, about Dairy_in_India and Dairy_in_India. It would be good if we could find a way to make these read more smoothly/coherently. I guess that would require finding some general background sources about ancient history and religion, respectively, although maybe we could borrow sources/content from related articles.
 * Tldr: I don't think this should go to FAC immediately. Might help to get some other eyes on it, if there's anyone at WP:INDIA who'd be interested in helping out. I have a number of substantial offwiki obligations coming up soon so, unfortunately, I doubt I'll be able to help too much in the next couple months. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had the same thoughts. #Early period definitely needs sprucing up (heck, the distinction of what is early vs what is modern itself could be questioned at an FAC!). Some content in #Religion could probably be just dropped given that there is enormous coverage of the matter in Cattle slaughter in India. #Trade, #Processing and the lede are the other places with at least some level of prose issues, that come to mind. – SD0001  (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hmm, yes, I hadn't even thought about the possible WP:OR-ish-ness of the distinction between early and modern. It doesn't seem graceful to change it to like == Ancient history == and == 20th century ==, even though that's basically what it is atm, because then the question would be: and what happened to the intervening millennia, pray tell? We might be able to get away with just putting Main to History of India or one of its many subpages at the top, but it would be cool/look less odd to have at least something between the Vedic period and the 1900s …… AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I had the same thoughts. #Early period definitely needs sprucing up (heck, the distinction of what is early vs what is modern itself could be questioned at an FAC!). Some content in #Religion could probably be just dropped given that there is enormous coverage of the matter in Cattle slaughter in India. #Trade, #Processing and the lede are the other places with at least some level of prose issues, that come to mind. – SD0001  (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hmm, yes, I hadn't even thought about the possible WP:OR-ish-ness of the distinction between early and modern. It doesn't seem graceful to change it to like == Ancient history == and == 20th century ==, even though that's basically what it is atm, because then the question would be: and what happened to the intervening millennia, pray tell? We might be able to get away with just putting Main to History of India or one of its many subpages at the top, but it would be cool/look less odd to have at least something between the Vedic period and the 1900s …… AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Wave-by!
Hola! Wanted to wave-by and say hello! Hope all is well! Ktin (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks! Hope you and yours are well too :) Happy autumn. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , All is well here too :) It seems like summer just started and fall is already here. Time sure does fly. Ktin (talk) 16:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi AleatoryPonderings. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. signed,Rosguill talk 20:33, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
 * , Thanks so much! I appreciate it :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

D. Narcisa de Villar
Nice work on D. Narcisa de Villar. Always a pleasure to see such well sourced articles in the new pages queue. Have you considered applying for New Page Reviewer permissions? From what I've seen, your content creation and AfD work is excellent, and we could always use more active reviewers :) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks—you're too kind! Re: NPP, I may apply at some point, but I just applied for and got autopatrolled rights so I was thinking I'd take a bit of a break from applying for things for now. Actually, I'm a little confused as to why my articles are still in the queue—I guess autopatrolling isn't retroactive? In any event, glad you enjoyed my little article :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the articles you created before you were autopatrolled will still show up in the queue. And no pressure regarding NPP—just something to consider if you're so inclined. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Just wanted to let you know that I've taken the plunge into NPP! Please let me know if you have any helpful hints about how to do the job well :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Aw, thanks :) I appreciate it. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

help
how did you become so big so fast in wikipedia? how did you do all that? they have declined all my requests everywhere please help me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk • contribs) 15:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * This editor has had most of edits reversed, has been warned on Talk, has had a draft declined several times but then main-spaced it anyway (since draftified and then Speedy deleted), pestered editors on their Talk pages to help with that same article, asked for Extended confirmed only days after registering as an editor, and most recently applied to be a Pending changes reviewer despite showing no experience to justify that. David notMD (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the detailed explanation. In response to your question, the best way to contribute on Wikipedia is to start slow, developing your own articles bit by bit, being sure to comply with our policies including WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. Asking for permissions before you have demonstrated a good track record of article development is not likely to be successful. You don't need advanced permissions to contribute to Wikipedia: all you need is a keyboard and some reliable sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

wow that is a very detailed explanation of me. okay i will start slow and stop misusing wikipedia thank  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alvin kipchumba kosgei (talk • contribs) 16:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC) i love the art of never giving up could i ask you questions in the future about things that i do not know in wikipediaAlvin kipchumba kosgei (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes, I'd be happy to answer questions. To get a faster response from a wider variety of editors, I'd suggest visiting The Teahouse, which is designed to help editors early in their Wikipedia careers. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your support154.154.88.131 (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, i am mostly a wikipedian in swahili and i kind of saw that they did not have 'methali' in english proverbs could there be a way to open up a knew sister for wikipedia for showing language expressions not only for proverbs but also for various language expressions that will help a lot of people who are writing or reading essays, articles and even makes them understand it much more better.Alvin kipchumba (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused. Are you referring to sw:Methali? It looks like it's an equivalent of the English article proverb. If I'm mistaken, and methali is a specific Swahili proverb, you're free to create the article. A proverb would have to meet WP:GNG in order to remain on Wikipedia. In order to show that your article meets GNG, you'd need to include two or three reliable sources to support specific claims in the article. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:26, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

ooh yeah! i`ve seen it in english but not in swahili, but dont you think that there should be a seperate side for language expressionsAlvin kipchumba (talk) 14:42, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Still not sure what you mean. If you think there should be an article titled, for example, List of Swahili proverbs, you are free to create it, provided that you have reliable sources to support the claims made and provided that the list meets WP:LISTN. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

do you think the whole of wikipedia should be updatedAlvin kipchumba (talk) 14:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes, that's the point of Wikipedia. If you have specific, constructive questions to ask, please ask me or the Teahouse. I am not interested in responding to general, speculative queries. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

okay, thanks a lot for your helpAlvin kipchumba (talk) 15:09, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hello, I am following up with the issue. We can discuss it on my talk page. Cheers Megan☺️   Talk to the monster  22:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

hey, if you still remember about the swahili wiktionary i have a problem in it there is no special user access granted such as extended confirmed users, administrators or even burueacats so that means that there is no maintanance in it because you cannot delete articles that are not relevant to swahiliAlvin kipchumba (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please stop messaging me. You are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia or receive advice. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Do you think the competitions in wikipedia are true? Alvin kipchumba (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Old user page
Welcome back. Your old user page still says that the account's an admin. I'd forgot the Phantom Tollbooth character; time to re-read that excellent book. Cheers, BlackcurrantTea (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ah, thanks for pointing that out, and thanks for the welcome back :) It's good to be editing up a storm once again. I just struck that bit on my old page, as it hasn't been true for … over a decade? Better late correcting it than never, I suppose. Thanks for your note. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Pilar Ribeiro
Thanks for your message. The third source is undoubtedly the most reliable but the other two are consistent with it. I rejected other sources that were largely repetitious but more or less consistent. The first source is a website that is a project from the Portuguese Association of Women in Science, so I believe that can also be regarded as reliable.Roundtheworld (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks! I appreciate your letting me know :) With respect to the first ref, I was probably judging the book by its cover too much, as the website didn't look that "official". My bad on that one. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:39, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Sources Added
Have added few verifiable sources to the shakti plastic industries — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhananjayrv (talk • contribs) 20:28, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You have added one reliable source, namely . Please familiarize yourself with our notability guidelines for companies, and follow the articles for creation review process for the potential recreation of your article. Please also ensure that the article complies with our manual of style. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Weird Speedy Nomination
For nominating a draft for speedy deletion because it duplicates an article, which is neither a speedy deletion reason nor a reason to delete a draft.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Haha, thanks. What should we do with it, then? Do drafts just stick around indefinitely even if they have corresponding articles in mainspace? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:56, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect the draft to the article. The article will stay in mainspace indefinitely.  If an AFC reviewer accepts the draft, they move the draft to article space, which automatically creates a redirect.  If a reviewer finds that there is a draft and there already is an article, either they redirect the draft to the article, or they tag the draft to be merged into the article if it has additional information.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:10, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletions of Suzanne Vega album articles
In reference to your proposals for the deletions of the articles Suzanne Vega: Live in London 1986 and Suzanne Vega: Sessions at West 54th, I will say the following. I have been through a deletion process before, and merely "let it go" (with the outcome of the deletion process being that the article that I created and put a lot of hard work on got deleted), and this was regardless of the numerous violations of Wikipedia standards that the various critics of that article (and critics of me) made. I have kept a record of this in case I need it. Already, in this case, you have violated core Wikipedia tenets by not first conversing or offering help about the albums or making any suggestions whatsoever. You went straight to a deletion proposal. That is *not* how the process is supposed to start.

I had never heard of the WP:NALBUM protocol before, so I went ahead and consulted it. I can see how the two articles I created might fail at least some of the notability standards articulated therein, but a thorough review has not yet been done with respect to all those standards, and you certainly didn't get into specifics yourself before your *hasty* deletion proposal. I would also like to ask you why you singled out those articles (that I just created earlier today) for deletion, whereas multiple other of the "Live Albums" on that category in her discography would also probably fail those same WP:NALBUM standards seeing as there is no mention of any charting positions for any of them, nor are any reviews posted of them (2 of the standards articulated in the WP:NALBUM protocol), and those articles have been up there for *years*.

Please be helpful and be more specific (step up your game), or I will report you to several other admins and we shall see where that goes.QuakerIlK (talk) 03:08, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I "singled out" the articles because you created them without including any reliable sources, and they showed up on the new pages queue. You are of course free to remove the prod template if you think there are reliable sources that support notability. Yes, perhaps I should have looked for some sources before proposing deletion. But, in fairness, you should also look for reliable sources before you create articles. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:16, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Why didn't you include the issue of reliable sources in your original deletion proposal, especially if that is what your are citing now as your leading rationale? If I make improvements towards these articles in question that mitigate the broad, unspecific rationale you originally provided, are you going to look for *new* reasons to hastily propose deletion again?  As to reliability of sources, again, yes, I could easily include "Amazon" as a source as was used on other articles in that area (that have not been challenged or at least deleted) that I specified.  Would you care to point me to something *specific* that outlines what a reliable source of information is for this particular subject?  Also, these articles in question are *official* releases by a Grammy-nominated (and, adjunctly, a Grammy-winning) singer who also has RIAA-awarded albums (one gold, one platinum), and singles (one gold).  They're not just "obscure" albums created by somebody from a shoestring budget without any corporate backing whatsoever.QuakerIlK (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , A reliable source that would establish notability for an album would be, for instance, a review of it in a mainstream publication. I'm not disputing that Suzanne Vega is notable—of course she is. I'm disputing that these particular albums are notable, because they appear to be obscure live recordings. Not every album by a notable artist is notable: see WP:NOTINHERITED. And WP:NALBUM does explain what I've just said. The first criterion states that an album will be notable if it [h]as been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent from the musician or ensemble who created it. And no, I'm not going to hound you by proposing deletion again. I can assure, though, that if you don't add reliable sources to those articles that establish notability for each album in particular, someone else will probably nominate them for deletion for the same reasons I'm citing now. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I have already added Amazon as a source for the Suzanne Vega: Sessions at West 54th article, and if you are to get really specific about the reliability of Amazon as a source of information, it is acceptable to refer to it as a source for release dates as per External_links/Perennial_websites ( "As a reliable source: Nota bene Sometimes. This website is usually used for past or upcoming media release dates." ) Also, among the several criteria listed in the WP:NALBUM criteria, *only one* is necessary for any album to meet that criteria, except in certain specific cases of criteria #5 being the only applicable one.  In this particular article, not only is criteria #5 applicable (the album was featured in Sessions at West 54th, but also #1 - it has an official AllMusic rating.  Additionally, several other artists have released their Sessions at West 54th albums, if you were to consult Amazon and look.  Also, I have *NO IDEA* why you proposed the deletion of Suzanne Vega: Live in London 1986 in the first place, because in the WP:NALBUM criteria, it *clearly* meets criteria #2 absolutely and unequivocally, and this was stated on her main discography page before I ever even created the article, and the source for it was already provided.  Her main discography page links to that article.QuakerIlK (talk) 04:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Eroticisation
What you deleted as "entirely uninformative" was a sentence that I had included that was later edited by another user to remove relevant information for some reason and appeared to be out of context. This has been added back in its entirety. Liberalvedantin (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)Liberalvedantin

Neutering of WFP criticisms section
Imho the Revision of 15:13, October 9, 2020 by AleatoryPonderings ("→‎Criticisms: rm essay-like and thinly sourced content, consolidate") takes out several value-added points, and makes the article read like a press release on behalf of WFP. The criticisms deleted touch on serious issues that are worth raising.JCJC777 (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Revision deletions
Thank you for your work in detecting and removing copyvios, and for asking for revision deletions. I have declined your request for revision deletion in relation to Canadian Cancer Society because the violation was relatively minor, was not one that the society would likely have objected to, had been in the article for ten years and I thought came under the "large-scale use" exception mentioned here. Don't let me put you off from asking for RDs in the future, because I am relatively new at this and may be wrong. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your note! That makes sense; I was unclear about whether it was worth requesting that myself. I'm also new at this, so I was probably the one who got it wrong :) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Controversial topic area alert
—  Newslinger  talk   15:31, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ah, because of Special:Diff/983094869? I just like to archive controversial articles like this, given that they tend to be sourced to online sources that are prone to link rot. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:35, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Even though it was automated, that edit added quite a few characters, which made your username show up in the XTools report as one of the top editors of the page. But, don't worry – this is just an informational notice, and not a warning. —  Newslinger  talk   15:38, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

The Politics of Evangelical Identity
Hi I was wonder if you plan to add an image to the book article, The Politics of Evangelical Identity?  scope_creep Talk  00:27, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I wasn't planning on it, as it didn't seem like having a cover would add that much to the article. Should I? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yip, why not. Most other book, tends to have the cover eventually. It completes the article and it looks reasonably decent. There is a way of doing to ensure it stays up, by positing its a book cover.  You see these huge rationales that cover it very carefully. It is specific example of that type of rationale. I only came across them quite recently and it is quite cool that way it is done.    scope_creep Talk  07:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Done :) It's actually a pretty cool cover, now that I think of it, so thanks for the suggestion. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:40, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you, ! This was a fun project to work on. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This is such a difficult task
Following this the problem is like I described in Interplay of UPE, Sockpuppetry & Advanced User Rights, most Nigerian UPE editors  are master minds & know how to mix their UPE with legit productive good work such as this Yemi Blaq scenario & it may take honest volunteers involved in WP:WikiProject Nigeria such as I, &  to say “nahh this is blatant UPE” or to say “too bad the creator was a UPE but this actually doesn't appear to be UPE & is on a notable subject”  I haven’t checked all the articles created by them, probably technical editors like  might have, but I certainly haven’t, but if you have, & aren’t sure of something or might want to confirm anything you can definitely ask me. Thanks for taking on this daunting task of weeding out what you may consider thrash as it certainly is a difficult one. Celestina007 (talk) 12:29, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Appreciate your taking the time to explain. Will definitely ask you in the future if I'm unsure about how to distinguish legit work from spam. Would certainly be a more productive use of all our time than starting apparently incorrect AfDs like that for Yemi Blaq! Thanks again. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the nice words Celestina007, it always motivates me to continue to do the little I can. There are still a lot of cleanup that needs to be done. Sometimes I wonder why anyone will want to collect [undisclosed] money to write a Wikipedia article, that has never crossed my mind. Sounds like blood money to me! HandsomeBoy (talk) 14:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Drinking fountains in Philadelphia
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Wilson Cary Swann
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

First NPP
Hello, I did my first NPP today at Holy Synod of the Albanian Orthodox Church if you have any suggestions/corrections, please let me know. Just making sure I'm on the right track. Hope things are well.  // Timothy ::  talk  14:12, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes, this looks good to me! To be honest, I usually just avoid the ones that would require tags to pass as reviewed, so kudos to you for taking on a more challenging one. Tags look reasonable and the topic looks notable so I'd say that's a good pass. Hope all is well with you too! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:23, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Dr. Zlatko Tesanovic
Hello dear, hope you are doing well. I am currently working on creating a new article in my sandbox on Dr. Zlatko Tesanovic, and just wanted to take your opinion regarding copyrights before creating the article? Please notice that there's a section dedicated to quotes in the article, which may appear as a copyright violations! What do you think? Do you have any suggestions or recommendations? Thanks in advance for any help you are able to provide.--TheEagle107 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , This tool suggests that the only concerning aspects of the draft from a copyright perspective are the quotes. I'd encourage you to think about which (if any) are genuinely useful or helpful, since it's generally not a great idea to include copyrighted material—even if attributed—without a clear purpose. Otherwise, looks good to me from a copyright perspective. If you're concerned about copyright issues in future, you can use the tool yourself—just drop in the name of the article and click "submit". AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for your prompt response, kind attention and thoughtful advice on this. I have already used this tool, before asking you about your opinion. But I was concerned, and wanted to make sure that there is no problem. Anyway, thanks again and best regards.--TheEagle107 (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Some advices for the right edit
Hello, I've started editing recently on Wikipedia, but, despite my effort to respect the criterias, I had my page Piero Atchugarry Gallery deleted a few days go. I would like to know if it will be possible to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement. And also, what are your advise to get the article approuved ? What I should change, delete or add ? Thank you so much for any help you could give. All my best Donà Anna (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , If you would like to request a copy of the article, you can go to WP:REFUND and submit a request. As for ways to improve, the article was deleted as promotional material under criterion WP:G11. The best way to avoid that in the future is to steer clear of a promotional tone, and simply state the facts about the subject you're writing about. When I'm writing articles, it helps me me to remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: try to emulate the tone of an encyclopedia as much as possible. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:38, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your advices and your explications :. I'll try to follow more strictly the "encyclopedia" rule for the future. As so, this page could be a good exemple ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galerie_Perrotin

Moreover, it would be possible for me to edit the article in the right way ? Should I automatically ask for an editor review ?

Thank you again for all your help !Donà Anna (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Galerie Perrotin is OK, but I think Serpentine Galleries is a better example of a neutrally worded article on a gallery (although it's not perfect either). (Forgive the ping, Vexations, but probably knows more about this than I do.) As far as requesting a WP:REFUND goes, I think you can request a refund to your userspace or to draftspace at any time, but I am not familiar with the details of the policy. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your help and to adresse me to Vexation ! This conversation is very useful for me.

Indeed I can't submit my request in WP:REFUND. Here what is mentioned "Please do not request that articles deleted under speedy deletion criteria A7 or G11 be undeleted here. Requests for the undeletion of pages deleted under criteria G11 these criteria will not be accepted here. Please check the deletion reason by going to the page before posting here. If you feel that an article deleted under any of these criteria was deleted in error, please contact the deleting administrator."

Can I recreate the article with the same title and in the proper way by myself ? Donà Anna (talk) 20:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , I've been watching the Atchugarry article for quite a while, but I don't think I've ever made an edit. I was kind of curious where it would go. My take on art galleries' notability is a bit different from most editors, so please don't take it as representative of consensus. Some art galleries play an essential role in the "Artworld", ( I'm borrowing that term from Arthur Danto). Others are merely retail establishments. The amount of promotionalism, even among "respected", galleries is staggering, and incredibly frustrating to deal with. I've written or contributed to articles about galleries that I regret getting involved with because the galleries won't take the hint that you should not write about yourself or pay someone to do so. My own criterion for inclusion is in fact not the WP:GNG (although you can't argue with it; if something meets the GNG it's notable, but it is just too easy to buy the necessary publicity), but the impact the gallery has on the "discourse" in the "artworld". That's difficult to quantify, but what I look for is work in the primary market, their artists' representation in museum collections, which publications discuss their shows and who takes them seriously. If I can't find a full review of a solo show for (almost) every artist they rep and not at least 2/3 of their artists already have articles (not written by the same folks, obviously)  it's probably not worth the effort. You can request a refund, and I'll take a better look, if there is no conflict of interest. Vexations (talk) 20:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your opinion and your (plus Arthur Santo) words. I understand and - indeed - I mostly agree on all your points, it pushes me to reflect about what criterias define "the impact the gallery has on the "discourse" in the "artworld". For my opinion (and without any conflit of interest), I was/am interested by Atchugarry activity for the way it invests natural environment, for the cultural connections creating by external exhibition programs, for the artistic research concerning space and architecture which involves established artists on the primary market. For now the page refund is not possible. I would like to rewrite the article and I will be grateful if you could take a better look on it. Donà Anna (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * , Thanks for that thorough exposition. I think the general idea that galleries (or, indeed, profit-making enterprises) ought to be subject to a higher standard than GNG or even WP:NCORP is probably right. NCORP goes in the right direction, but it's quite inconsistently applied at AfD and so I'm not clear how useful it is. I think the "artworld" impact is probably more helpful in this area. I wasn't aware of that restriction on WP:REFUNDs. You could recreate the article in mainspace, but be very, very careful about it. Editors and administrators get suspicious when content is recreated, especially so soon after deletion. Probably best to sit on it for a while or go through WP:AFC instead. AfC is probably the best route. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 20:54, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * yes, I think I'll go for the AFC option first, thank you. Concerning the WP:REFUND, as deleting administrator, could you possibly do something on this way ? (Checking my last chance). Thank you(again)! Donà Anna (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not an administrator. I was the one who tagged the article for speedy deletion. As for AFC, there's nothing I or an administrator can really do to help it along in the process. Subject to ' cautionary note below about whether it's really a good idea to try and recreate this, all you have to do is write up a draft of the article and submit it for approval at AfC. There aren't any shortcuts as far as I'm aware. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I forgot that the article was speedily deleted as unambiguous advertising or promotion, so refund doesn't apply. I managed to grab a google cache, and had another look at the sources. They're not great. Anything that begins with "... is pleased to present" is a press release. The New York times piece about Punta del Este is a nice start, but it is not specifically about the gallery. Other sources are too close to the subject, like garzonsculpturepark.com. My advice: Forget the deleted article, and do not try to recreate that. Anything that resembles the deleted version too closely will likely be deleted again. Wait until you have significantly better sources, and then write something that accurately summarizes what those sources say. Avoid prose like "an international platform threading together ... cultural fabric", "fully integrated experience", "different mediums that question the spatial and material limits of our reality", "a considerable number". There was a lot of that. Do not list exhibitions unless reviewed. And then there is this: This business is just a few years old. It's basically a start-up. With rare exceptions, an artist with less than a 15-year track record is an emerging artist. We should not write about emerging artists because they are not yet established artists with a body of work that we can write about. The same is true for galleries. Vexations (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * ok thank you, I'll go with the draft.
 * Note everything, I'll work on it for the new version. Thank you again

Donà Anna (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Christoph Hartmut Bluth for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Christoph Hartmut Bluth, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Articles for deletion/Christoph Hartmut Bluth until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Hola!
Good Morning. Wanted to check one thing with you. This DYK thing still seems super elusive to me. I think I might have a shot with this one here Template:Did_you_know_nominations/J._Michael_Lane. But, then, I think I will fall short on the QPQ thingie. That one seems super complex. Have you encountered a dummy-fied tool or instructions to complete the QPQ? Also, if you see anything that can be edited in my submission, let me know, or definitely feel free to directly make those edits. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hey! You probably don't need to do the QPQ if you're relatively new to DYK, since you only need to do one if you've had 5+ DYKs. Doing a QPQ just means reviewing another person's DYK submission according to the criteria, so it's fairly straightforward. So long as the WP:ITNRD issue isn't prohibitive, you should be good on this one. I copyedited the first book a teensy bit, but otherwise things look good to me. You might want to find a synonym for "trek" since that's what's used in the source—maybe "took a cross-country hiking trip"? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I was also thinking that I hadn't seen the particular image licence on the suggested photo before, but it looks reasonable—maybe just double check that? I've gotten dinged for weird image licensing before on DYK. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks much as always! That image was a cropped image from this one. Will have a look. Hope you are having a restful weekend! Hard to believe but darn time flies by so quick and Monday is going to be here in no time! Ktin (talk) 18:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Alessandro Sette
I rejected the G 12 for Alessandro Sette. I believe the source of the text is a federal government agency and therefore public domain. You think I misread it?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , A slightly tricky one. That source, per the Copyright and License Information section, is apparently licensed CC-BY-NC-ND, which I'm pretty sure is incompatible with WP licensing reqs? (It's also one of several used to build the article, which would be incompatible with the "No Derivatives" CC requirement.) I don't think something that's on PubMed is necessarily in the PD or a federal government work product; they host lots of stuff there, I'm pretty sure, apparently including content licensed under various non-PD CC licenses. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:08, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree it's a tricky one. Looking closer, I see the you identified two sources of information, one of which was his bio here. that is clearly a problem and appears to be used in the professional career section although I haven't worked very closely. you mentioned that the NIH source has an NC and ND license, which is clearly a problem, but I haven't seen the copyright license section. I did find a section Copyright Status of Webpages which makes reference to public domain but does have a caveat about the potential for inclusion of otherwise licensed materials. This makes it very tricky in case any of that material happens to be used. I am puzzled that I was not able to find the creative common's license you mentioned. Can you point it out to me?
 * If you click on "Copyright and License information" at the top of this article, it reads This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did miss that. Thanks for pointing it out. While I realize I can expect the world to organize itself based on our copyright considerations, it's discouraging to find that a site that's generally PD might be or might not be. Given that so much of the federal government's material is automatically PD, I would be happier if they decided when they wanted to incorporate material that was licensed differently, to provide a PD excerpt and then link to the material as opposed to incorporating it, but I bet I won't get my wish. S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * My current view is that there is a lot of material in this article that came from other places and may be acceptable. Although my general position is sometimes on the harsh side — if most of the material is problematic and I think removing it would leave a shell with not much to it, I think it's best to take out the whole thing and start over but I don't think that's the case here. I see the subsequent editor has already removed some material, not the copyright issues but for other editorial reasons. My current thinking is that would be good to take a close look at the professional career section and excise sections that are taken from the bio. (if you or some other editor chooses to rewrite it rather than remove it that would be better but that's up to you.) I would like to see the CC license as I generally work on the assumption that sites with nih.gov are pd. S Philbrick  (Talk)  13:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be best all things considered to stubbify and revdel before that? Based on this licence info I added above, I am fairly certain the copied content is not in the PD. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , OK, can you stubify and I'll revdel? S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:27, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , in an attempt to make lemonade from lemons, stubbifying might also cure the COI problem. S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , Fair point! Now stubbified. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:35, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , RD1 completed. S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:37, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
Hi I appreciate your message about COI in the di Prima page. I don't believe I have one. I'm not the one who added a reference to my interview and it doesn't matter to me if it remains there or not; I'm just trying to set the record straight. The fact is di Prima's page is woefully short of content for a major poet who was active for 50-plus years, and I'll definitely be contributing further (and encouraging others to do so) in the future. Dhadbawnik (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * , If you have a personal connection with the subject of an article, you likely have a conflict of interest. You stated here that I am the person who conducted the interview with di Prima referenced above, so I was assuming that you had some sort of personal relationship with Diane di Prima. The edit of mine you reverted mentions a person whose name resembles your username, which appeared to indicate that you were in fact editing an article with which you have a personal connection. If that is not correct, or if your connection with di Prima was journalistic or otherwise arm's-length, all good, but I wanted to alert you of the potential problem in any event. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:11, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying and I take this very seriously. As I said, my initial intention was to correct deliberately false information that someone posted associated with my interview (yes, I did the interview way back when). All of my edits are factually correct and sourced, and obviously open to scrutiny. I will make no more edits on the page in view of your point about COI. Dhadbawnik (talk) 21:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Audrey Macklin has been accepted
 Audrey Macklin, 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  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Audrey_Macklin 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! MurielMary (talk) 10:11, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted
Hi AleatoryPonderings. Your account has been added to the " " user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember: The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging  pages for  maintenance so  that  they are aware.
 * You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
 * If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
 * Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

Is sos! A job is on air for other wikiprojects
Hi A question which is important

Is apropriate to create a hashtag memory article in wikipedia?(contian populars in social network/trends) Im working in another version of wiki

I asked this of you and ask of others too Cus i didnt get it in laws of wiki and Everyone has his/her option So i need to reach an agreement Thx bro Pls check it fast and if you know a source tell me about it Im await you guy Bigbang2024 (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2020 (UTC)