User talk:Chariotsacha

Frederick
Hi Chariotsacha, your edits on Frederick have been great. There's one, however, I'd like to make a request on. I saw you put a citation back into the lead. It was regarding Frederick's sexuality. I understand why as Frederick's sexuality is one of the huge issues in the article that can set off an edit war. What I would ask, if possible is to put the point in the sexuality section with citations. I have no issue with the point itself, I'd just like to see the lead remain citation free and the controversial points in it supported in the body.

I think both the points you put into the article can be easily supported by strong citations (without citation suffocation) As to his focus being on the young men, like Keith and Katte, Mitford has an explicit citation to back up the point. Will Durant in his age of Voltaire implies the same point in a sentence indirectly. Mitford also agrees with the point that making any definite assertions about his actual behavior once he was king is difficult. (The cited article on how Frederick concealed his religious beliefs is illuminating in this regard.) Would you be willing to make the argument in the article and take out the citation from the lead? Wtfiv (talk) 20:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Wtfiv! Yes I placed the citation back into the lead out of a minor fear of huge edit wars regarding Fredericks sexuality. In retrospect it wasn't a great edit and I can absolutely move the point to the body paragraph. However, I think at least a passing mention in the introduction about Fredericks sexuality may be a good idea. It's an extremely important part of his life & legacy. Certainly some aren't aware of it and may be daunted halfway through the article when the reasonably large sexual orientation section is suddenly presented. Tell me what you think. In the meantime I'll move the argument to the main body. Thanks! Chariotsacha (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply! I wasn't suggesting to remove the sentence. Leave it, though someone may try to change it later  Rather, its really just an editorial preference of ensuring that a point in the lead is stated in the body where it is supported., I think if it is embedded safely in the body with a couple of citations, it can hold its own better there anyway.  Even if someone removes it from the lead later, it would remain in the body as part of the argument. The point is a valid one.  Frederick was very careful later in his life.  In spite of what the lead says, it seemed to me that the majority of biographers have their suspicions but are circumpect.  I'm sure you don't need these, but I'll toss a few more here. Here's Mitford p. 187, Durant talks about Frederick's early life p. 440 but leaves the years of kingship unspoken. Asprey tackles the early days here p.42  and the kingship- obliquely here 404. Even MacDonough in his blog treads carefully about asserting what Frederick actually did once he was king.  I think the cited Bodie article on Kingship and Sexuality makes the nuanced point too. (I'm less committed personally to deciding about Frederick's sexuality, I think both sides have merit. But I certainly want to wknowledge and support the idea that your point is well backed by other sources.)


 * I moved the sentence involving Voltaire's suggestions to the section dedicated to his sexuality. I also eliminated the sentence claiming that most modern biographers agree that he was homosexual. It's blatant anonymous authority. I am going to add the following in it's place "Frederick was almost certainly homosexual, and his sexuality has been the subject of much study." I think it sums up the point very well. And if readers want to know more they can go to the orientation section. Asprey's mentions of his youthful affairs are rather important I think and a great source, and I appreciate the reading you have provided here as I agree that it should not be considered unanimous among biographers that Frederick was homosexual. Mitford's point about it being tremendously difficult to make accusations, judgements, etc. about his possible homosexual behaviour as king is important here. As it's true; we don't quite know what Frederick was really up to. Furthermore, I'm trying to be careful with using reports from Voltaire about his sexuality. As while Voltaire was a prolific and certainly a great writer. He isn't necessarily reliable about those he disliked; and while he never hated Frederick and was certainly friends with him. Voltaire certainly had his feuds and issues with the king. Hence why I mentioned it is merely suggested by Voltaire and shouldn't be taken as literal fact. Looking more into the relationship with Michael Gabriel Fredersdorf is also very solid evidence for Fredericks homosexuality, the letters he sent are in the tone of an infatuated man rather than just a friend. But it proves nothing if he actually had sexual acts with men. I noticed with most of the scholars and sources they all seem to lean into the debate being not if he was attracted to men. But if he actually slept with them. This is easily the most controversial point of Fredericks life aside from the partition's and figuring out how to display it is an interesting task. But I think it is going well. As always let me know what you think!  Chariotsacha (talk) 22:52, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Your addition looks quite reasonable. (Thank you again for considering my request to move the citation out of the lead.) It'll be interesting to see what unfolds in the debate. This is one of those areas that seem to trigger some passionate responses.  I think this is one of the places that makes it so hard to settle the article into an A or GA quality. It'll be interesting to see what the consensus will come down to. And who knows, maybe it'll stand as you wrote it, as you didn't cancel out any other statements. Here is one possible issue I see: the statement on Voltaire needs its own citations.  Most of the previous citations that are now behind it don't strongly question that Frederick may not have engaged in actual activity.  The two point you raised may need to be supported by their own additional citations, so they can stand if challenged. Wtfiv (talk) 01:20, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I certainly can locate a citation regarding Voltaire's suggestions; no trouble. I think even his memoirs mention such suggestions. Now there is a citation already used in the article that mentions a suggestion of Frederick having sexual acts with men by Voltaire. The citation is a newspaper article, it comes from: "Potsdamer Neueste Nachrichten." But I don't wish to use it exactly. As it's mostly been used as a reference for the Fredersdorf relationship. And exploiting that source again would be at the best, lazy. I know for a fact in my studies of The Enlightenment the article is earnest in it's reporting and doesn't contain misinformation. but a separate citation is absolutely necessary in this case. I agree that this type of information is definitely going to be the worst to sort out to get Frederick to G.A. or A status. But if we can find citations and organize it well, it won't be too hard. Chariotsacha (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Chariotsacha, I just wanted to let you know that I moved some of the citations over as they were supporting the first sentence more strongly than the second.  You may want to add additional citations to the sentence you added soon.  By the way, I see nothing wrong with using the same source twice, as long as the claim can be verified in the source. Mitford is the same way, her biography  wavers between the two perspectives as well.  In fact, the Mitford may be a good additional source. Wtfiv (talk) 22:38, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Great to hear from you Wtfiv. Good call on moving the citations, I reused the source from "Potsdamer Neueste Nachrichten" to temporarily back up the Voltaire argument. The article discusses Voltaire's contributions to Fredericks perceived homosexuality in paragraph two. And how Voltaire wrote: (Pardon my German to English translation)“He had two or three favorites come, lieutenants of his regiment, pages, heathen or young cadets, and took coffee with them. The person to whom he threw a handkerchief was alone with him for a little quarter of an hour." Standing alone this would seem at best suggestive. But given the context, its safe to assume Voltaire was suggesting at Frederick having intercourse with them. There is more strong suggestions in one of his memoirs but tracking it down in an online format has been challenging. I'll keep the hunt going though, thanks! Chariotsacha (talk) 23:10, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like you are on the way. (As you can probably tell, it's finding the references that is one of the parts I enjoy the most!) Frederick continues to evolve! Wtfiv (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Chariotsacha. I think you were right to remove them due to the broken link, but I put them back in with an updated playlist. I think the opportunity for the auditory experience for the music of this time and another side of Frederick II's creativity adds to the article. As long as the link remains, that is! Wtfiv (talk) 18:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If the links are functioning I am more than happy to see them back in the article, good job Wtfiv! Chariotsacha (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

The honing of Frederick the Featured
Hi Chariotsacha, you had mentioned that you'd be willing to help out with editing, if needed. I would like your opinion and then a couple of requests for help. If you don't have the time right now, I more than understand, but I thought I'd reach out and ask.
 * Tim riley pointed out that the mention of Benjamin Ursinus von Bär seemed pretty minor.  I kept it as another editor put it in, and it seemed like a small addition with a small link.  But what do you think?  Is it okay to stay, or should it go?
 * If you think it should be removed, could you strike it an mention that it was in the appropriate part of the fine article review noting we agreed?
 * If you think it could stay, would you be willing to do your magic with creating an English-speaking stub based on the German article so that we can get rid of the ugly red link? If you choose this options, could you put it in the Featured Review.
 * Would you be willing to build an English-language stub for Louis Guy Henri de Valori based on the French article? That would allow the deletion of another red link. The challenge with him is that he is an interesting diplomat with an interesting history, but his biography is pretty much unavailable in English?

By the way, I want to again state that very much appreciate your point to Taksen, as well as your support for the decision. Your comment about the lead was succinct and to the point! Wtfiv (talk) 20:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello Wtfiv!

First, thanks for your thanks! It's good to be appreciated, now referring to your points.
 * I've always been an inclusionist, but honestly its quite rare that we see mentions of whom baptized figures of history. The issue I have with it right now is that its a red link. So yes! I'd be willing to make both stubs for Benjamin Ursinus von Bär, and Louis Guy Henri de Valori. The former would be a a treat as my command of German is getting better, and the latter is a wee bit more difficult due to my broken understanding of French. I have rapid access to a university library which might have some English sources that might be of good use! Peter Karl Christoph von Keith was an easy one to write for similar reasons so I'll get to work on these promptly, thanks for reaching out! Chariotsacha (talk) 00:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Very cool and thank you! Here's the stack of ironies in my request:
 * Ursinus von Bär (doesn't his name basically mean Benjamin Bear (in latin) of the bear (old German)) is more minor than Valori,
 * But Valori who is a plays a walk-on role in Carlyle is important, and plays a kind of narrative second-kick to Frederick (his Holmes to his Sherlock). Yet, Bär, being German is easier to tackle! (My German though not strong is better than my French, too.)
 * Valori, being French is harder to translate. But, here's stacked irony: Learning the French brings us closer to Frederick, the "great 'Prussian'"! All the movies and images have Frederick speaking German, but his language of heart and mind is French!  The double irony is almost over the top, do you think?

Again, thank you so much. I'm going to be challenged with handling Frederick the musician, and trying to argue for using sources not locked behind paywalls! Wtfiv (talk) 04:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh how history loves its irony! I'll do Bar first as I already found some german sources which I can translate and use, and his article will be not much more than a stub, Valori is also on the way! Chariotsacha (talk) 15:22, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * You probably saw I pinged Buidhe, for more input. There's been no reply... though ambiguous and possibly due to many different things, a lack of response doesn't bode well for a "support" for changing the image. That said: I certainly don't want to dampen your enthusiasm, though! What are your thoughts at this point about changing Frederick's picture? (BTW: since I started this FA review, it seems that there has been more interesting edits to Frederick.  Maybe just coincidence, since I doubt most editors pay attention to such things?) Wtfiv (talk) 04:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm not so good with these, but let me send this your way!


 * Hahaha! These bear puns are sweeter than berries, thanks for the barnstar! Also yes I've noticed far more interesting edits on Frederick since his nomination but I think there are plenty of "potential F.A. stalkers" who are always eagle eyed for them. I guess for either the security of an already good article or genuine interest editors come out of the woodwork to pounce on these F.A. candidates, which I'm frankly very happy to see! To give you my input I am still steadfast in my opinion about using the full portrait on the Frederick the Great article as its A) Not anywhere else on Wikipedia and B) its the same picture; just larger. It's not a big deal and I wont be some old curmudgeon about it. However if you could bear with me and spare a couple more days for consensus I'd appreciate it, but I agree that the lack of response kind of makes it seem like most editors don't want to go back to the days of Camphausen to Graff to (insert cool German portrait painter here), so yeah! I'm fine either way but still think the full body painting is best for the article. Cheers! Chariotsacha (talk) 22:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Forgot to tag you Wtfiv, sorry! Chariotsacha (talk) 02:13, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * sounds a good plan! Wtfiv (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Frederick the cited
Hi Chariotsacha, Another reviewer jumped on board and did a citation spot check. I was pleased that my editing was not worse! But he noted some of the cite numbers have problems. I'm heading off for a couple of days. I'll be checking in, but I won't be able to do detailed clean up. Do you think you'd have time to fix the one's that are a problem over the next few days? Here's the list: I think we don't have to worry about p.216 on 145. This is archive.org and can be accessed via registration. Most might just take a quick change. 55 might require a bit more searching or perhaps another source, 185 and 280 might need a bit of language change in the article proper. Do you think you have time with your busy school schedule to take care of these while I'm out? If so, could you go to the FAR discussion, and list the changes you made? It would help a lot. And, if you- like me- are just able to keep above the surface these days, I more than understand! Thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 19:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 25: OK.
 * 55: I take that the information on Frederick's goals is on p.18?
 * 62: OK.
 * 64: Can I get a copy of the page that this is sourced to?
 * 81: OK.
 * 90: OK.
 * 112: JSTOR does not seem to have a p.85?
 * 121: OK.
 * 145: Can I have a copy of p.216?
 * 152: OK.
 * 185: It seems like the source emphasizes the contradictions more than the balance.
 * 186: The mint and northern Germany claims seem to be on a different page.
 * 199: OK.
 * 217: OK.
 * 233: OK.
 * 249: OK.
 * 262: OK.
 * 280: The source notes that this battle was a bit more tactical than strategic win.
 * 291: OK.
 * 307: OK.
 * Hey Wtfiv! I think I have some time! I'll take a look at tidying these up, I'll nail as many as possible before I suddenly get slammed with another project (my last report on Ancient China clocked in at 4000 words! Which for a grade 12 report is ludicrous.) Thanks for bringing this to my attention and good luck with wherever your off to! Chariotsacha (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That's awesome! Thanks!  Just personal business that needs attending...  Report on Ancient China?  I don't track your interests on WP, but do you contribute in depth to some articles there?  And 4000 words!  It makes me feel good that I'm not the only wordy one here! Wtfiv (talk) 19:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Despite my love of it now I don't actually contribute that much about Ancient China! My class allowed us to focus on Rome, China, Greece or Egypt and I just thought "Oh well I know the least about that one, how hard could it be?" Three terms later now the politics and social structure of the Qi, Han and Zhou dyansty's are engrained in my memory forever. On Wikipedia though, I mostly just do 1500s-1900s Europe, Middle East and Canada. I'm still a bit of newbie so my WP portfolio for major contributions can only really be Frederick the Great, but I plan to become a far more prolific contributor once my studies become more laxed! Chariotsacha (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Wordiness for the win! Always makes everything more interesting and fun to read :P

Equestrian statue merger
Hey, I got ahead of myself and went ahead and sandboxed out a merger for the two statue articles, but I see that you were planning on doing the merger. I can post what I've already got and you can improve on it, or you can go ahead and do the merge and then I'll add to your version? Either way is good with me! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 14:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh brilliant! Just checked it out, I don't see any issues! It maintains aesthetic quality while also being informative, I'd say you can just go ahead and post it. Chariotsacha (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Discuss
I guess we'll have to go over each edit. For one thing remain is grammatically incorrect.Justanother2 (talk) 05:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that tidy up on remain, its always funny how little errors like that can fly over ones head! No need to go over every edit, I just removed your earlier one because it damaged sentence flow. Chariotsacha (talk) 14:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The site has some of the worst "flow" anywhere. You're talking to people who are proofreaders and journalists. Justanother2 (talk) 15:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * A journalist can essentially be anybody, and although proofreaders are useful, your edit concerning the Prussian weakness' sentence had limited need and just made the sentence clunky. Furthermore, there was no error in the original sentence:

"When Frederick became king, he was faced with the challenge of overcoming Prussia's two weaknesses, vulnerably disconnected holdings with a weak economic base." Although it seems like lumping the two weakness' together, there is nothing wrong with the sentence and it is more comfortable to read in my opinion. Chariotsacha (talk) 15:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Relax, I am talking about professionals. You seem eager to discount your lack of experience vs. others who have careers. Justanother2 (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem is that your sentence is factually incorrect. It says two weaknesses and the way it is now could be misinterpreted as one flaw. Justanother2 (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I feel your opinion is wrong; you said yourself that it could be seen as "lumping them together" and you are correct. This is an error. Justanother2 (talk) 16:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Credentials are not mandatory on Wikipedia, nor is a career, the vast majority of this project is amateurs and for good reason. Regardless, I agree that the sentence is weird, it does seem to combine the flaws into one clause. Heres a few suggestions that still read well:

"When Frederick became king, he was faced with the challenge of overcoming Prussia's two weaknesses, vulnerably disconnected holdings, and a weak economic base." "When Frederick became king, he was faced with the challenge of overcoming Prussia's weaknesses, vulnerably disconnected holdings with a weak economic base." "When Frederick became king, he was faced with the challenge of overcoming Prussia's two weaknesses, vulnerably disconnected holdings, and Prussia's weak economic base." The last one in particular is essentially your sentence but removing the "they had" and replacing it with "Prussia" for clarity and flow purposes. Chariotsacha (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You could pick one. I suppose leave out the word "two". Justanother2 (talk) 10:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Long absence, it looks like, But are you available for a review?
Hello I'm just pinging you on the off chance, that you still check in. I just took a look and it looks like you stopped editing on Wikipedia since summer. I hope you haven't walked away from editing for good. Working with you was fun, and I think you have a lot to offer!

I pinged you because I've been working on the Joan of Arc article for a while. It's been quite the adventure. I thought I was getting caught in just doing clean-up of an already featured article, but have found myself working with a page that had been "sock puppeted" to death and required a near-complete overhaul instead of a vigorous gardening session. It's been nearly a year, and Joan may have acquired a contagious disease, as nobody wants to touch her article any more. And worse yet, because of all the changes, I'm back having to do a featured article peer-review, ugh! (Something I was hoping I wouldn't have to be involved in. I much prefer the idea of gently gardening articles that have run a little rampant without be subject to the FA process. It's not too bad though. A very kind veteran editor has joined in collaborative editing, and has really helped the article. I think it is almost good to go, and the collaboration brought back good memories of working with you!)

Anyway, if you are out there somewhere, do you have time to take a look at the Joan of Arc article and review it? If you do, I've linked the Review page where you would post your comments. If not, I totally get it... (And its quite possible this may go unseen for a long time!) Wtfiv (talk) 23:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello @Wtfiv!
 * Wonderful to hear from you! I'm delighted to hear from an old wikifriend again after being a bit absent for a while. Speaking of- I haven't walked away from editing for good at all. I've just been busy with university matters (everything went perfectly though, I'm going to be studying a double major of history and biology) and only had time to revert vandalism or check my emails for quickie edits. I haven't done anything really substantial since my Wellington tidy ups before I had to shelf him for a while. (I ought to use the 'busy in real life' userbox more often!)
 * Wonderfully, all this busywork has been wrapped up and I have far more time to work on fun projects. Joan of Arc looks amazing! I've seen your edits all over it in the history a month back when I was reading it and you've really been putting in an inspiring effort. I'll gladly review it, I've never reviewed before- but there's a first for everything! I will get on it very soon, shame that as in her life, nobody wants to help the poor maid of Orleans. Wild to hear about sockpuppetry appearing in such a major article, even if its one of Wikipedia's most rampant  and oldest plagues.
 * We make a great team and it was always a joy working with you, so I appreciate you reaching out! Chariotsacha (talk) 05:34, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's great to hear from you. I hadn't seen major edits when I reached out, so I was a bit disappointed. I'm glad you haven't given up.  I've been going crazy trying to get the Joan page going.  As I last remember, you had been working hard on the history, but now you are diving into biology.  Part of me wonders how you put them together!  I'm sorry Wellington got shelved.  Do you think you'll be able to take him back on at some point! Thanks for being open to reaching out with Joan too!  If it does seem to be a hassle though, it's not a big deal!  I think more so, it's just a good excuse to reach out! Wtfiv (talk) 05:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Its a perfect excuse to reach out. I'll do Joan first (starting tomorrow morning) because that's the most interesting by far. Wellington I'm thinking probably I will take off the shelf in the near future, he's a figure I'm relatively well read in so he'll be less of a challenge. Happy to be back at it! Chariotsacha (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Chariotsacha! Thanks for being willing to help out. I may have asked just a bit too soon, as I'm not sure how the process works. I think it's winding down, so don't worry about jumping into it.  I'm not sure I'm into tackling anything big, but if you do jump into an article and want me to help in a section or with citations and the like, let me know.  And, I'm glad you are still on Wikipedia! Wtfiv (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update @Wtfiv! I'm sorry to report that I've been recovering a sprained ankle since we last talked (near miss with a distracted driver) and couldn't look over Joan because I was stuck in my bed. Now that I'm healing and feeling better, I'll give her a read through and try to get involved in the review process. If its too early to properly review- what areas are in need of attention in her article right now? I'll comb through the edit history and talk pages to get a lay of the land but I'd appreciate your thoughts.
 * As for light projects we could work on together. I'll send you a ping when I'm back to working on Wellington in case you're interested; as he still needs a bit of a tidy up with some sections. Another article I have my eye on is John Snow, an old hero of London. His article is just simply missing some information about him that I'm currently gathering sources for, although the article will likely not change terribly in size and could be a good G.A. candidate with some appropriate 'gardening' as you aptly put it. Chariotsacha (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * A sprain! I'm sorry to hear that! Worse yet, it was almost a car accident, and you weren't driving! The idea that you are recovering sounds like you are okay now.
 * Like I mentioned, I think Joan is wrapping up, so don't worry about taking a look. Again, the best thing was it gave me a reason to reach out!
 * Supporting you with Wellington sound do-able. I would definitely be willing to be a second pair of eyes on any edit you do! Wellington is more of a challenge, as he has a fan club committed to various images of him.
 * John Snow may be perfect for you testing out your own abilities to be a lead editor who gets an article through Featured Article Nomination. He's an unsung hero. (A friend of mine went to London just to see "his pump".  That's when I first learned about him, I should have known about him earlier!) And, I'm willing to bet that the community would be open to your editing, as fewer people are committed to his image.  Though I wouldn't want to be primary author, I'd definitely support! Wtfiv (talk) 00:48, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm doing quite well! Although I've been asked by a doctor to be put on a cane for a while. Thank you for your kindness.
 * A second pair of eyes would be perfect for Wellington, especially regarding citations as I have trouble sometimes with standardizing them on Wikipedia. Wellington's image is probably going to be an upset as you mentioned but I hope through careful editing and pruning it can still be balanced or at the minimum subdued in lionization [In terms of correcting balance and image issues the sections on his campaigns in India are very much the worst.]. I already noticed that in the Waterloo section which was terribly hard on Carl von Clausewitz for little to no reason other than Clausewitz wrote a criticism of Wellington's actions at Waterloo. I corrected it earlier in the year and it seems that nobody reverted or touched it. If I can ask now and again for your eyes on citations I'd be grateful.
 * I wish to lead the charge on Snow, with the hopes that other members of the community might notice the poor doctor and pump breaker. Cheers! Chariotsacha (talk) 03:55, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Chariotsacha. I updated the formatting of the article up to "Later Life". It struck me as a messy hodgepodge of sources, and  once I got a whiff that I was looking up citations for "Beau Douro" and "Beef Wellington", I thought I'd leave that to more formidable editors.  I think these can be cleaned up if the editors ever consider featured article status.
 * I researched a couple of the references to get them complete. But I didn't verify almost any of them, and I didn't flesh them out in full. I mainly used what was given, unless it was too thin to find the source. There's a chance I may have introduced some page errors, though I tried to be careful.   But the active life of Wellington is covered.  The only thing I left in its format is the London Gazette. It might have to be changed some day, but the method used struck me as the most parsimonious for now.
 * I'm hopeful that the core of what you wanted was done. I updated the Clausewitz, but swapped out the primary source citation in German with an English-Language secondary source discussion of the source.  If you want to keep the German source, it is in history, and can be moved to further reading or a footnote.
 * I hope you are continuing to recover, and the cane won't be an accessory for too long, though if used correctly, it can look very cool! Best with your studies! Wtfiv (talk) 22:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Wtfiv!
 * You went above and beyond what I expected, really appreciate the formatting on the citations! Todays my birthday so I'll mark that as a gift from you. With it cleaned up it'll make it easier for Arthur to develop over the next few months (don't even worry about the hodgepodge or verifying sources. Its on my list of to-do's after I'm done triple checking some things and copyediting). I think I'll insert the German source into further reading as I took a look at it with a German fellow of mine and it's verifiable.
 * Again, thanks for the great work- I know its tedious sometimes! Chariotsacha (talk) 01:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy birthday! I hope you are doing something enjoyable! Enjoy Wellington, and let me know if you need any help once you tackle Snow. I'm not sure I'd want to jump in too deeply, but I can help out a bit. Wtfiv (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Added the German source for Clausewitz in "Further Reading". Wtfiv (talk) 05:42, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Wtfiv, pinging you here for the sake of not cluttering your talk page.
 * I am using the sfnp template for citations as I was going through Wellington. I know how to use them very well for book sources, but large chunks of his political career/later life are newspaper sources which don't seem very compatible with the sfnp format- do you know of any other format I could use for those? Thanks for inserting Clausewitz back into further reading by the way! Chariotsacha (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Frederick's Picture
Hi Chariotsacha. I definitely want to applaud your attempts to keep the featured article picture. I agree for a large number of reasons. And, I think the full-length is good. (Viewers could click on it and enlarge the image to see the face). I reverted to the crop because that one approved as a featured article. The full-length was added without conversation. So there is a silver lining: once the RfC runs is course, its possible to go with the full-length. This is the third RfC on articles I worked with. (Pictures and infoboxes seem to be notorious bringers of RfCs). My understanding of the RfC process is that it probably needs to run for at least two weeks, and may go for 30 days or more if really active. It's best to let a disinterested party close it. The issue of Frederick's picture- like his sexuality- are forever recurring.

Worse yet, one of the pinged people, who participated in the FAN, went in and did a mega-copy edit. Most of what they cleaned up was okay, but it made me laugh that they went after the article without commenting on the picture!

And in the end, the chips will fall where they will. Let's see how this unfolds. I am very grateful you are keeping on eye on it and chiming in to make sure Frederick stays fairly stable. Wtfiv (talk) 05:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi Wtfiv,
 * Thanks for the message and explanations! I was unaware that RfCs generally run that long so that's why I closed it prematurely, lesson learned. Also fully agree with keeping the original crop up for the time being as it was the portrait used when the article reached FA.
 * I saw the copyedits too and I agree that they were largely fine, except for the citation upheaval! Thank you for taking care of that. I might go talk to them regarding the portrait caption, since '1763 portrait' feels remarkably devoid of context for an initial image, given especially that most images in the article have a bit of explanation about their artist or medium. I'll wait on that until the consensus is reached as to which portrait to use. The article has had enough back and forth for the time being! Chariotsacha (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree about the lack of content, but a number of editors have let me know that the brief format is what is used in the portrait caption. I guess the silver lining is that if the less preferable Graff portrait goes back up, we can put the caption back on Ziesenis.  But I have gotten used to the portrait we have, and as you noted in one of your comments it points toward a different Frederick: Less the old, dark warlord and more the enlightened monarch, (though the warlord is very much there too!) Wtfiv (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)