User talk:AleatoryPonderings/Archive 2

Pages automatically marked as reviewed when nominated for deletion
I've recently been granted new page reviewer rights, and I noticed that it automatically marks pages as reviewed when I nominate it for an XFD process. Is this something I should keep reviewed, or should I mark it as unreviewed, since it's up for a deletion discussion? Hog Farm Bacon 04:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I generally keep it as reviewed, since the XFD will either establish that it should be kept (and hence meets basic policy requirements, though might need some tags, and is therefore properly marked as reviewed) or deleted (in which case it's irrelevant whether it's reviewed or not). I think you can set your Twinkle prefs to not mark things as reviewed when you nominate them, though? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Emily W. Murphy whitewashed?
Would you take a peek at the deletions since your last edit and undo any changes you feel merit undoing. Feoffer (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Welp, so the page is now fully protected, so I can't do anything. Tbh there were so many changes I couldn't even read the diffs very well. I'm inclined to defer to whatever consensus emerges at WP:BLPN and/or the talk page. This has gotten so involved that I really don't know what to think anymore. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Emily W. Murphy
Hi AleatoryPonderings, I'm just letting recent contributors to Emily W. Murphy know that I've dropped the protection level to extended confirmed and added a consensus required restriction. Please see my explanation on the talk page for more information. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for your helpful contribution to Women of the White Buffalo! What do you think of the article? Right cite (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your note and for creating this article! I enjoyed reading it. To the extent there is more, it would be nice to get a little more third-party commentary on the film; it seems a little heavy on plot summary as opposed to critical assessment at present. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed, will do more research on it over time when I next get a chance. Right cite (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!
Hey thanks for being kind in your response about the Taiwan reference on the Antony Blinken page. That was my first edit to Wikipedia (albeit a talk page), and even though it didn't amount to much, I'm grateful for your kindness.

NotARealCowboy (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Aw, thanks! I appreciate it :) Best of luck all your wiki-adventures to come! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)



Following failure with success?
A while back, you did a lot to salvage the article on failure. I just discovered that its counterpart, success (concept), was in a poor state and drastically stubbified it. Perhaps you have thoughts on how to build it back up again. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hmm, I will think on that. I kind of like the grab bag approach we took on failure, with "highlights" from different disciplines. Perhaps we could do something similar with success. Though I imagine we'd have to wade through a fair number of self-help guides to find the real meat of the concept … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's not a literature review that I relish. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought the green check mark was a bit bland for an illustration, so following the example of the failure article I swapped it with one I found more dramatic. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Linda Thomas-Greenfield
The lead and infobox of Linda Thomas-Greenfield both say she will be the next American ambassador to the U.N. Does it really need to be mentioned and linked a third time? Jonathunder (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , It should be stated both in the lede and the body, where it can be sourced. I recently moved cites out of the lede per MOS:CITELEAD so there was no citation for the specific claim that she will be UN Ambassador. My preference would be to simply say "She will be UN Ambassador" with a cite for that claim and avoid the "chief of US Mission to the UN" language. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't hurt to have both wordings and informs readers better than simply repeating the same title a third time. Jonathunder (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I mean, if your beef is with stating the same title in the lede, infobox, and body, you'll need to change virtually every politics article, since that's what they invariably do. I personally think it's confusing (someone might well ask: is US Ambassador to the UN different from chief of mission, and if so how). We can leave it for now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference
—valereee (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Blinken talk page
AleatoryPonderings, do you still have anything else to add at the discussion here? It seems to be a pretty clear case of WP:RSOPINION.

Sdrqaz (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Nope, looks like I got that one wrong. Feel free to add back whatever makes sense to you. Thanks for the message :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wonderful, thank you! I'll make it in due course. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Emily W. Murphy. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I reverted once, and then again (after the content was reinstated) per WP:CRP. I deliberately refrained from reverting a third time to avoid getting into an edit war and running up against WP:3RR. I then posted on the talk to air my concerns. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I understand, but you were both edit warring and it's only fair to post a warning on both of your talk pages. I don't expect you to revert a third time...that's why we issue warnings first. Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

itn
I was wondering if you would be interested in leaving a comment here since you're the main person updating the article.

Thanks,  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 02:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure I'd support ITN at the moment, given that some central key details about his life (was he actually an academic physicist? which of the many secretive nuclear programs was he involved with?) are still hotly contested. As are the narratives surrounding what actually happened during his assassination. And I certainly shouldn't take credit for the page; it's really been doing the lion's share of the work. Ultimately, I'm not sure I'd be weighing in on the "pro-ITN" side, unfortunately. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ah ok. well thanks anyways for doing some of the updating!  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 03:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for my error and thanks for the fix
Sorry for my error in editing an old version of the article for Jeh Johnson. I must have still been absorbing the caffeine from my coffee. Thanks for reinserting the changes into the article. Again, my apologies. Alansohn (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , No problem! Hopefully I read the diffs appropriately and didn't miss any of the other material you had added? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again. I added some more biographical details. Edit as needed. Alansohn (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jutta Brunnée has been accepted
 Jutta Brunnée, 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=Jutta_Brunn%C3%A9e 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! -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, ! That was lightning-fast! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was going to create the page myself with mostly the same sources when I saw the announcement, but you beat me to it. Good job! Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Chad Wolf RfC formatting
For future reference, there was a problem with the RfC formatting that I had previously been unfamiliar with; it was showing up as blank on the noticeboards. I wasn't sure why at first, but, an admin who spends a lot of time managing the RfC system, came along and explained it. Like I mentioned before, the question should be brief (under 2,000 bytes), but it turns out that looks for a timestamp, not a paragraph break, to identify the end of the question. In this case, you signed at the end of the RfC, so the entire RfC was taken as the question, which was too large. Redrose signed the question for you, which fixed the issue. On other RfCs, I've seen editors sign the question with a timestamp only (no signture), which might be best. That's done with 5 tildes instead of 4:. ― Tartan357  Talk 00:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ah, sorry about that! I didn't realize I'd made that error. Will keep in mind in the future. Thanks again! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of primary sources
Hi AleatoryPonderings! I saw that you've been removing information regarding Blinken and Flournoy's opinions from their pages because they're based on primary sources. Per WP:RSOPINION, that should not be necessary, since the primary sources are being used for their opinions, not statements of fact.

Sdrqaz (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I'm not concerned about reliability—I'm concerned about original research. Both Blinken and Flournoy have made countless public statements. In order to avoid selective quotation, we should stick to what secondary sources have picked out as important from what they've said. Otherwise, we risk turning these articles into essays, coatracks, or compilations of quotations particular editors have favored. The only criterion I'm aware of for selecting the important quotations/primary source material is what secondary sources have picked out for analysis, criticism, or other commentary. (For example, that's why I didn't remove primary source quotations from Flournoy's recent Foreign Affairs article that was later critiqued in The American Prospect: precisely because an editor at AmPros thought Flournoy's article was sufficiently important to publish a counterpoint to.)
 * Pinging (forgive this, GW; I'm sure you get zillions of pings a day; you're just the most experienced and fair-minded editor I know on AP2 issues): am I making sense here? For background, I've been cutting back sections of Antony Blinken and Michèle Flournoy that are sourced only to interviews or publications they've written, in favour of quotations republished in secondary sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging (forgive this, GW; I'm sure you get zillions of pings a day; you're just the most experienced and fair-minded editor I know on AP2 issues): am I making sense here? For background, I've been cutting back sections of Antony Blinken and Michèle Flournoy that are sourced only to interviews or publications they've written, in favour of quotations republished in secondary sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see. I'll defer to her better judgement. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that we should rely on secondary sources to determine which statements by an article subject are sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in an article. If a primary source is needed (for example, to provide an direct quote) that's fine in addition to the secondary RS, but they shouldn't be included solely based on a primary source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Understood. Thanks for the clarification! Sdrqaz (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * No problem! I use it all the time—it's so helpful, especially for articles based primarily on constantly updating news sources. I have to thank for introducing me to it! Ktin, consider this your barnstar as well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Ha! Is this the deadlinks / preemptive archival bot? I learnt it by happenstance as well :) Hope all's well at your end. Regards. Ktin (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yup! It's my fave wiki-tool :) Hope all is well with you too. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Jeffrey Zients edit
Hi - I am just wondering why my edits were marked "WP:UNDUE prominence" when there obviously a problem of a Paid company editing this article (13 edits). In fact Saguarostrat had their id changed to Cactus78910 to hide the fact that they were Saguaro Strategies. They describe themselves as [https://www.saguarostrategies.com/#comp-j69ko1qe:~:text=a%20digital%20and%20targeted%20media%20firm%20for%20Democratic%20campaigns%20and%20progressive%20political%20organizations. "a digital and targeted media firm for Democratic campaigns and progressive political organizations"], but that description was reduced to a "a media and consulting firm"

I do appreciate you making the number of changes that you have on this and keeping them in-check. I just feel that things like this should be called out - It is a blatant flouting of the TOU and when they were called out, they changed their ID - not cool.

72.80.201.15 (talk) 03:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:BLP. Although it's especially relevant to us as readers and editors of Wikipedia, a single news article in Politico does not warrant an entire paragraph or section in an article about a living person. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - Makes sense - sometimes I forget we are just people :) - I should probably create a page for Saguaro Strategies since it is their practice. - Have a good night/morning 04:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.80.201.15 (talk)


 * Do you have any connections to the Biden campaign? I see a pattern of you editing articles of people who are highly likely to serve in the Biden administration. I see a lot of quacking here. I would be happy to hear youur side of the story though.125.227.90.115 (talk) 14:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have any connections to Vietnam's ministry of statistics? I see that you're very interested in the demographics of Vietnam. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have no connections whatsoever to any article I have ever edited.125.227.90.115 (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And I see you have just answered your question above. It's absurd to accuse me of being affiliated with Biden when, like millions of people, I have an interest in the officials who will make up his administration. Please do not accuse me of conflicts of interest without evidence. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion
There is currently a discussion at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you.)125.227.90.115 (talk) 17:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Howdy
Just wanted to wish you luck on your RFC, concerning how to describe US cabinet picks. I had participated in it, but decided to leave it. Because of what I viewed as unreasonable behaviour at the Antony Blinken & Lloyd Austin bio articles by 'two' editors. Their refusal to cooperate, turned me off from the topic :( GoodDay (talk) 01:55, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Tbh it wasn't even an RfC when I started the discussion—just an honest question. It became one over time, and now seems not to have produced any consensus. Sigh … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:49, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pardon me, it's not an RFC. But it should be. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter
Hello ,



It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to and  who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to, , and who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.
 * Year in review

has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.
 * Reviewer of the Year

As a special recognition and thank you has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.
 * NPP Technical Achievement Award

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here 18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks in order
Your help on the page for William M. John is greatly appreciated! Formatting citations is not my strongpoint, and you really did a great job fixing the quirks. (As for the question you posted to my wall, I left I response, but I felt it would be good to properly thank you here.) ThrillShow (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

BLPN
FWIW. Your discussion (Blinken & co.) which I later tagged as an RFC, has been archived from the noticeboard-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sigh. Seems no consensus will be reached on this, and the articles will continue to go back and forth until inauguration day, if not later … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What frustrates me, is that it's happening at just that one article. We're not see this happening at the infoboxes of the other Biden cabinet nominee bios. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Copied and pasted from my page:

Citing sources
Please cite a source for every addition to an article you make, particularly a biography of a living person like Xavier Becerra. I added one, but generally speaking editors will simply revert unsourced additions to BLPs. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:53, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

I did. It's at the end of the paragraph. I do agree that additions should cite sources. Do you mean the information should immediately precede the citation? I am confused because you told me I did not add a citation (I did) and then you said you added it by just moving what I had added. Was that just a mistake on your part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemingways pipe (talk • contribs) 06:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Yes, I did miss that. My apologies. But yes, you should generally add citations right after a sentence. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Susan Rice
Thanks for your edit re:Susan Rice party affiliation. However, I would categorize Rice being a Democrat as common knowledge considering, among other reasons, she was widely speculated to be in contention for the Democratic Vice Presidential nomination in 2020. Furthermore, a simple search in the DC Board of Elections will show Rice is a registered Democrat although that is non-citable. I appreciate your effort to ensure credible information, however, I just wanted to explain my rationale here. Cliffmore (talk) 15:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems a reasonable assumption, which perhaps news orgs would find trivial to state. I'm just wary of including information in the infobox of a WP:BLP which is not sourced and stated in the body. Feel free to start a conversation at Talk:Susan Rice if you'd like to re-add; I'd be interested in seeing what others think. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Happy Holidays text.png Hello AleatoryPonderings: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, HAL  333  20:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message
 * Thanks! All best to you and yours :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Thank you so much, and same to you! Was great to work with you this year. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

'Tis the Season
Hi AP, sorry that I'm too lazy to find a good image for you, but I wanted to wish you and yours very happy holidays as we enter a new year. Thank you very much for all the work you've been doing, and our interactions have been a pleasure, really. All the best, Eddie891 Talk Work 18:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Aw, thanks so much. Hope you have a great holiday, and that 2021 turns out to be not quite so horrible as 2020. Great to work with you this year. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy holidays

 * Thanks, and great to hear from you! All the best in the new year, which will hopefully bring much better things than the past one did. Hope that you and your family are all doing well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Thanks so much ! My very best to you and yours as well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Bob Snyder (musician)
Do you feel this article should be kept? I noticed you made some minor additions and this would be pointless if you favor deletion. If you do want to keep it, give your reasons at Articles for deletion/Bob Snyder (musician).— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have no strong opinion either way, so I'm not prepared to !vote on this AfD. I often make minor edits to articles listed at AfD, simply because they catch my eye. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay. Understood.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  17:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Leslie Landau
I have reworked the article. Please kindly review. You nominated it for deletion. Thank you in advance. Adin-Atherton (talk) 15:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi regarding the Leslie Landau article. We have 3 keeps to retain it. As the creator of the article I took would like it to stay. Will you be able to review it again? I spent time on reworking the article and would like to somehow bring it to a close. Thank you in advance. Adin-Atherton (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Given the number of keep votes at Articles for deletion/Leslie Landau, and the absence of any votes to delete, it's virtually certain that the article will be kept. An administrator or experienced user will close the AfD as keep in a few days. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:26, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Happy New Year Adin-Atherton (talk) 18:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Thanks, ! Same to you. With any luck, 2021 will be a serious improvement on 2020. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message


 * Wow, — each time I look at this image, I become more and more confused … What are these elves doing? Happy New Year! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Joan Micklin Silver.png
Thanks for uploading File:Joan Micklin Silver.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Let other people review semi edit requests
Hey thanks for your work :>. However let some other people review semi-edit requests so we can be as inclusive as possible. We don't want to be guardians accepting what does and doesn't enter. The only reason we have it semi protected is to stop vandals. Anyway this is just my opinion, feel free do review whatever you want :) just maybe also let other people review edits as well. Thanks! Des Vallee (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I just reviewed two that I saw; I didn't realize I was monopolizing it. Wasn't intending to take any more—just saw they hadn't been done and wanted to contribute. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cool, cool. Keep up the good work! Des Vallee (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The Doctor and Student DYK
Hello! An article you have been editing –- The Doctor and Student –- was recently nominated by another user at Did you know, to be featured on the main page. The nomination has now 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! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. Tbh, I had no idea that this was going to be nominated for DYK, so I didn't prep it as much before mainspacing as perhaps I should have. I can probably address your comments in the next few days. Fwiw, all the books I cited in the article are available online for free at the Internet Archive, so if you were concerned about any of the citations they should be fairly easy to confirm. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Derrick Evans (politician)
Good call on removing birth year. I was going off of this news article (footnote 2 on wiki), taking the age at which he was recorded and subtracting from 2020. If the birth year thing goes back then maybe it could go with "circa," barring a more reliable source, but upon reflection it doesn't look necessary. Not like the year he was born matters that much. Anyways, just wanted to say cheers mate. RexSueciae (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for pointing that out to me. I just added it back using birth based on age as of date. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:45, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh neat! I never knew that was a template that existed. Thanks! RexSueciae (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Edit conflict?
Was the removal of the clarify tag here due to an edit conflict or intentional? GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , It was an edit conflict—sorry! I didn't even notice that had happened. I will restore. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:06, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's happened to me too! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Jackie Saccoccio
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Ali Alexander
I didn’t change the Birthdate on Ali Alexander, or if I did I didn’t mean to. Also, the fact that he is a convicted felon is as significant as the fact that he is a conspiracy theorist and provides a more through snapshot of his overall identity. Not sure why you’d want to his this, but I think it’s questionable. It’s a relevant introduction to Ali Alexander biography. Cloakjingles (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Please take this to the talk page of the article. I think calling him a felon is WP:UNDUE in the lede of a BLP, as it's not what he's primarily notable for. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Law and Literature
Hi AP, hope all is well. I've just created Justice and Jurisprudence but I fear it's somewhat outside of my area of expertise. I thought it might be in yours and I think it could use a pretty involved copyedit. Can I interest you in taking a look? Eddie891 Talk Work 15:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yes, happy to take a look, and thanks for creating this important article. I'll probably be able to get to it in the next few days. Hope you're well! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:15, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * , thanks, I'm blushing! Really appreciate it, and hope all's well :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

DYK for The Doctor and Student
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:01, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Signal app article
Hi there,

I know that we should use secondary sources by and large, but in this case, I would argue that my wording ("Signal announced that...") fits the policy on using primary sources.

The relevant passage is:

"A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge."

I would say that reporting what Signal announced counts as a "straightforward, descriptive statement of facts". I imagine that if I used a secondary source, that source would just say exactly the same thing, which is that Signal announced something – mainly because they probably could not / would not verify those facts themselves.

Thoughts? Counterpoints?

— TARDIS builder &#128172;  |     16:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have partially restored the content. I don't think we should cite Signal itself for downloads, because it clearly has an incentive to inflate download figures. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

, thanks. In general, I agree. For this case specifically, in that other tweet, they actually show screenshots of the Google Play downloads page with the date and the numbers. Are you thinking they could've doctored those images or something? Despite that they have an incentive, I just don't see how they could fake those screenshots believably (i.e. without getting called out by the community). That's why I judged it okay to use that source. If it does make you uncomfortable, then I imagine it would make others so, and I will see if another source is out there.

— TARDIS builder &#128172;  |     16:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am reluctant to rely on a primary source for anything remotely contentious. I think the tweet is fine to cite as an announcement, but not as fact. Moreover, it's sort of unclear what relevance raw download numbers have anyway—what should we infer from the fact the app was downloaded X million times in a day? Best to let secondary sources settle that, I think. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see the point. I agree that an official tweet definitely does not fact make.

Not in general, but in this particular case, the relevance I see is its tie-in to the next paragraph, which was the service disruption. As for what it means for people's opinions about user privacy, or for competition with WhatsApp – definitely interpretations that require sources secondary.

— TARDIS builder &#128172;  |     17:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Black Canadians
The ref used (94) clearly states that Rev Black was the unit's chaplain. He was not the unit CO (that was Lt-Col Dan Sutherland). If you need another ref, then M. Stuart Hunt, Nova Scotia's Part in the Great War (Halifax: NS Veteran Publishing Co, Ltd, 1920) has a chap on No. 2 (pp. 148-153). P. 149 lists all the officers, including the CO and the chaplain who, as an Hon Capt was not a commissioned officer. You can also check my article in Legion magazine "Pride & Prejudice at the Front" Jul/Aug 2016, pp. 20-27. White's Hon status is described on p. 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.51.1 (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please put your citation in the article. It is not acceptable to add contentious material without citing a source. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I do not understand why correcting an entry IAW the stated ref (94) is "contentious material." I am merely correcting a mistake IAW with the ref provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.51.1 (talk) 19:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The reference states "The Black Battalion's chaplain was Reverend William White, who had also played a leading role getting the unit formed. He was given the rank of Honourary Captain—one of the few Black commissioned officers to serve in the Canadian Army during the war." I have changed the article to conform with that quotation. Wikipedia has very rigorous citation standards; material must exactly reflect the cited sources to be included. See WP:CITE, WP:OR, and WP:RS for more details. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Katherine Garrison Chapin
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Katherine Garrison Chapin 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 23:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Please be more careful...
Some people start AFD, in good faith, read the comments other people leave, and give them full consideration.

If those comments are convincing they go back to the AFD, withdraw their nomination, acknowledge they came around to keep. Sometimes it is not the keep arguments that win them over, but the improvements made to the article.

I encourage you to be one of those people.

You replied to my comment, quoting WP:Who is a low-profile individual. Excuse me?

BLP1E has three numbered criteria, all three of which have to be satisfied, before BLP1E should be applied. You REALLY need to understand this before you ever invoke the authority of BLP1E

The second of those three required criteria begins "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a ' low-profile individual."''

So, Who is a low profile individual is only relevant when the individual "remains, and is likely to remain" low profile.

You aren't REALLY claiming this brave man, honored at the inauguration, has remained a low profile individual, are you?

Listen, it is not my intention to bludgeon you, but I think it is clear you made a huge mistake here. I'd say nothing if I had any reason to believe this as going to be the last time you ever participated at an AFD.

But I strongly suspect you have misinterpreted BLP1E at other AFD in the past, and will do so in the future.

I do my best to own up and acknowledge when I made a mistake. It would be best for the project if we all did that, every time, even when other contributors had been mean to us.

But, if you can't do that, at least be a lot more careful in future, OK? Geo Swan (talk) 17:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think it is clear that Goodman's notability comes from a single event: his actions at the Capitol storming. Criterion 1 of BLP1E is therefore satisfied. Criteria 2 and 3 are less clear. I think the best case for why BLP1E doesn't apply here is criterion 3, because his role (it has become clear) was substantial and has been well-documented. I think it is too soon to say whether he will be low-profile in the future; we'll presumably discover more in the coming days and weeks. In sum, I don't think it's clear that [I] made a huge mistake here; I made a good faith nomination, the rationale for which became less persuasive over time, especially given his role at the inauguration (which was, AFAIK, not known when I made the nomination). You disagreed with me, as is your right. As it turns out, more people agreed with you than with me. Please also AGF with respect to my citation of BLP1E in the past; you are explicitly assuming bad faith because you haven't provided any evidence that I misinterpreted it in other cases. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, are you acknowledging the inauguration was a separate event? Then BLP1E wouldn't apply as there are now 2 events.  If you don't acknowledge it as a separate event then he no longer qualifies for the temporary aspect of BLP1E.
 * I don't think you can have it both ways.
 * So, you didn't anticipate Goodman being honored at the inauguration? Okay, that's fair.  But as soon as you learned he was honored, did you consider withdrawing the nomination?  No one would criticize you if you wrote in the AFD what you wrote above, "When I started this AFD I didn't anticipate he would be honored at the inauguration.  Now that he has I withdraw the AFD."  Geo Swan (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Of course the inauguration was a second event, although I'm not sure it would qualify as a source of notability in itself (people who guard vice presidents in other contexts, such as Secret Service agents, are not notable by virtue of that fact alone). I did consider withdrawing the nomination, but decided against it because by my understanding of standard AfD practice, noms that have received !votes other than keep are not eligible to be withdrawn. Instead, I noted several days ago that I would change my vote to keep per WP:ANYBIO if he received the Congressional Gold Medal. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is the RS coverage that makes the difference. I came to the AFD at 11am this morning, when I watching CNN, and they celebrated his recent honors.  Another AFD contributor noted that CBS had also honored him.  His role at the inauguaration wouldn't matter, even if his bosses told him choosing him was in recognition for his heroism, it would not earn him an iota of notability, if RS hadn't chosen to also honor him, by describing his heroism, his recent promotion to their viewers, and explained that choosing him as a ceremonial guard to the VPOTUS was also an honor.  So, it is the RS coverage that makes the difference.
 * You are correct, an AFD that has some delete opinions will remain open, even after the nominator withdraws the nomination. But, that is not a bar to withdrawing the nomination.  I'd urge anyone who left an early delete opinion to reconsider, if they see that the nominator found new development triggered them to reconsider.  I think they really owe it to themselves, and to the project, to follow the nominator's example.  Just my opinion, I know.
 * You will see nominators withdrawing their nomination, or otherwise signalling they changed their mind, even when there are other delete opinions.
 * Of course a Congressional Medal of Honor would make this AFD moot, as a Medal of Honor measures up to one of the rare, narrow notability factors that makes an individual notable all by itself. That is from WP:SOLDIER - the highest award for bravery or any nation makes someone notable.
 * I have had a lot of discussions over medals with the people at the military project, who started and maintain SOLDIER. It is the position of some of them that medals like the Medal of Honor, or Victoria Cross count very high, and that all lesser awards count for nothing.
 * I strongly disagree. About half of the wikipedia's articles are biographies.  People who check these things said this.  How many of the individuals who have standalone BLP articles had their notability established solely by measuring up to SOLDIER, or WP:POLITICIAN?  I dunno.  A small fraction.  Let's say, for the sake of argument, it is one percent or less.  That means that more than 99 percent of standalone BLP articles had their notability established by adding up multiple notability factors.
 * You wrote: "I'm not sure it would qualify as a source of notability in itself..." IMO everything counts.
 * CBS 60 minutes broadcast a segment on Bob Dole, about a decade ago, that spent a large amount of time on his war record. Dole was what Sergeants called a "90 day wonder".  During peace-time, in the 1930s, the USA's small peacetime Army was mainly commanded by officers who had studied how to be officers for four years at West Point.  In peacetime even platoon commanders were likely to be West Point grads.  During World War 2 there was a need for hundreds of thousands of junior officers, who got a crash course in how to be an officer.  You guessed it, that crash course lasted 90 days.  And experienced seasoned Sergeants who had to serve under them, felt a great tension.  They hoped to get a guy who was sensible enough to defer to their judgment and experience, not try to show off their authority and give bad orders that got people killed.  They hoped to nurse their "90 day wonder" through their first few months, keep him from being killed, until he had enough actual combat experience he was unlikely to give really bad orders that got people killed.
 * You may not know Dole only has one good arm. I knew that, when I watched the segment.  I didn't know his other arm was crippled, in Italy, when he was a "90 day wonder".
 * The segment featured his platoon Sergeant, who managed to keep Dole from being killed. They were still friendly.  Sarge clearly still saw himself as a kind of mentor to a younger, less experienced man.
 * The reason I bring Dole up is that his Purple Heart, the medal earned for a serious wound, was his highest medal. Dole is clearly a notable guy, but, if he were on the cusp of notability, the Purple Heart that reflected that his arm was crippled while he was in combat, defending his country, would be of sufficient significant notability to weigh in when calculating whether he met our inclusion criteria, even though hundreds of thousands of non-notable people also earned Purple Hearts.
 * Thanks for being a good sport about this. I have a user essay on how every question every disagreement is a teachable moment.  My interest in a long discussion is explained there.
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * : I always find notability rather a difficult concept to get a handle on. On the one hand, it's very simple: if there's enough coverage in the right sources, the topic is notable. On the other hand, it's very complex: we have zillions of SNGs, some of which (like WP:NFOOTY) I think are grossly overinclusive and others (like WP:NPOL) I think are grossly underinclusive. I'm not quite sure how BLP1E fits into this scheme. It seems almost like a defeater to GNG: the person would be notable in virtue of the coverage they got, but for the fact that it's in the context of a single event. (I'm not sure if you've participated in the RfC over at WT:N about revising the SNG guidance, but it might be of interest.) This is all to say: thanks for your detailed comments, and I hope to see you around AfD in the future :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I started about one hundred article on the Citizendium, back during its golden age. I liked it.  The thing that first attracted me to try it out was that they did not have a notability policy.  Instead they had a maintainability policy.  It was similar, but it allowed use of references that were stable and reliable, that would not be considered well known enough to be notable reliable sources here.
 * The view you expressed here, "the person would be notable in virtue of the coverage they got, but for the fact that it's in the context of a single event..." You know that is a commonly used interpretation, and one that really concerns me because I think it is in conflict with the actual wording of BLP1E.  Coincidentally, I just raised this at WP:BLPN a few days ago.  Some contributors who agree with my interpretation are cross with me, because they don't remember encountering the view you voiced.
 * BLP1E's actual wording requires the BLP1E individual to meet three named criteria. Wait a second!  I am repeating myself!  This is how I started this thread.
 * I just moved that user essay to WP:Teachable moments. If you have the time, I'd be interested in your opinion of the discussion at WP:BLPN, either here, or at BLPN.  Part of WP:Teachable moments is that I have to be open to considering I might be wrong, and you might be right.
 * Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

all caps
his instagram and many new sources, very reputable ones such as NME all capitalized DOOM's name. so can you respect the fans wishes now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.222.132 (talk) 04:50, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Take this to Talk:MF Doom, please. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lorne Sossin has been accepted
 Lorne Sossin, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class 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=Lorne_Sossin 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! Modussiccandi (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Katherine Garrison Chapin
The article Katherine Garrison Chapin you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Katherine Garrison Chapin 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Source Citation for Senate Seniority
Hi there!

I saw you reverted over one of my edits on the pages for Senators-elect Ossoff and Warnock. The source I have to defend my edits is official government doctrine, from the House Rules Committee website. CRS Guide to Legislative Process in the House -- with the portion regarding Senate seniority highlighted. Just wanted to throw it over to you in case another Anon decides to write over my edits again, at least you know I have a credible source.

Thanks! --Crsbcn (talk) 01:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm not sure what you mean. I think the edit I made restored text you had put in? Fwiw, the IP also had a decent source: . One of the two obviously has to be wrong, and I don't know which it is. The rules doc you linked looks old—are you sure it's current? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah I see, sorry for the misunderstanding. And as far as the recency of my source -- so far that's the only one with a .gov domain that explicitly spells it out. The most recent House and Senate Rules sites and documents either omit rules about seniority or are very vague about it. Will keep looking though. --Crsbcn (talk) 02:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to let you know that after contacting the Senate Historian, he said that "We are informed by the Democratic caucus that for their seniority purposes, they broke the tie between Ossoff and Warnock based on alphabetical order." So that's that. Obviously that's original research when taken alone, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has stuck by its guns in this article. I suggest that this idea of full terms and partial terms is grievously outdated. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Very interesting and thanks for the diligent research! So it seems like it's ultimately up to the Democratic caucus to say who's senior and who's junior, and not determined by pre-existing Senate rules? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:37, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem with seniority is that like many things in the Senate, it's based on historical norms rather than a system that we can pinpoint when it was formed. My understanding of seniority was that its main benefit is committee assignments, which is controlled by the parties' respective caucus/conference. So the bulk of its benefits are up to the caucus/conference. However, I think that the formal designation of seniority is up to the Senate-at-large and I am perplexed by this idea to defer the seniority decision to the Democratic caucus. What if there is some serious split-ticket voting in the same state another year with no incumbents? Very strange. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Very strange indeed. I hadn't thought about the committee assignment aspect; I though it was purely ceremonial. Perhaps one day we can sweep such arcane policies out the door along with other relics of a bygone past like the filibuster … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Mind you, I believe that it is within the caucus's powers to relegate a senator to the worst committee assignments and ignore seniority completely, but that would be highly unusual. This article made it clear to me that committee assignments are basically up to the leaders. I'll pass no comment on whether the filibuster will be abolished and will just say it's unlikely in this climate. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Nathalie Delon
So what do you make of the Nathalie Delon entry, as far as ITN? It’s wonderfully improved and got more than 17,000 views yesterday (!), so the efforts are paying off in any case. But I don’t have a great handle on where the line gets drawn at ITN as to worthiness. I defer to your expertise! Innisfree987 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think it's ready except for the filmography. ITN regulars are very particular about having citations for everything in filmographies/discographies/etc. The remaining uncited entries are ones I couldn't find cites for yesterday. I'll take a pass through and see if there's anything else I can source, but I think citing the remaining filmography bits (or removing them if unciteable) is the only major ITN-readiness thing we're missing atm. Really great job, as always. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah that is good to know—thank you, I’ll also see what others I can source. And thanks so much for the kind words, very appreciated! A pleasure to collaborate. Innisfree987 (talk) 23:10, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for listing at WP:ITN/C—any objection to my adding you for updater credit? I ask because once I added Espresso Addict not realizing it posed a problem for moving the entry to Main Page, so of course I’ll hold off if you’d prefer, but this wouldn’t be half as good without your work! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Oh, sure, go ahead—and I assume it only posed a problem because EA is an admin and hence would be INVOLVED if they added it themselves? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yup that was the issue. But it also reminded me there’s so much I don’t know about ITN that I just wanted to be sure I wasn’t additionally missing something else before giving credit where credit is due! Super, done. Thank you for all your work—another page of the encyclopedia significantly improved! Innisfree987 (talk) 02:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

"served as"
Thanks for the link to this short but interesting discussion about "serving as" that you posted in this thread! I think we ought to have an explicit policy regarding this issue. The words "served as" are the de facto standard in articles about all kinds of office holders (not just in politics), but it would be much better to have a de jure standard for or against them (I don't really mind which). Of course, this potentially affects tens of thousands of articles, so the discussion is bound to be contentious... — Chrisahn (talk) 20:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for your note! Agree that an RfC would probably be worthwhile, but set up two recently I'm not over-eager to start another (which, as you note, would surely be disputed). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks very much ! There's still more to do, but I'm happy to have made a start. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:48, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Authority Control
Howdy AP! Hope you are staying well. Quick qn. Sometime back, I had picked up using the Authority Control template from you. Usually, I just add it to the bottom of the page and all is good. I recently added one at David Washbrook but it links to the works of a different author. Please can you have a look when you get a moment? Cheers and thanks in advance. Ktin (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah! Managed to fix it. Ignore my above request. Thanks much. Hope all is well. Regards. Ktin (talk) 08:37, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , It's not the most intuitive, for sure. Usually what I do for authority control, if the information isn't already on Wikidata, is search VIAF for the person's name and add the VIAF ID to Wikidata. If there's a problem on Wikidata, you can always just link your article to a different Wikidata item, or switch the authority control information on Wikidata to be for the right author. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)