User talk:Wtfiv/Archive 1

RE: Cecily Kelke Farrar
Hello, ...

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

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

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


 * Hello, ...


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


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


 * Best wishes,


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

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

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


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


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

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

Frederick II's Portrait change
Hi there, regarding your response to CIN I&#38;II's question on the Frederick II talk page, I cannot help but ask whether or not its "accuracy" or "atmosphere" we're aiming for on these Wikipedia portraits of historical figures/rulers? For instance, Graff's portrait is more "kingly", in my opinion, in denoting Frederick II's status, whereas this current portrait is rather low-key and doesn't denote Frederick as that significant of a ruler even if its more accurate, though that might just be due to the bad dimensions of the current portrait and my own subjective opinion. A bit of a protest vote here but I'll accept it if this is the preferred option for others. Cheers. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I replied here, but saw you posted there as well. I figuring posting my reply on the Frederick the Great talk page may be the more appropriate place for the discussion, so I deleted the comments and moved them there. Wtfiv (talk) 03:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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


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


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


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

I wish now to interject myself and make my own congratulations to the three of you. The work you have done and continue to do is of the highest quality, and as the Coordinator of WikiProject Germany, I thank you for it. I would also ask: would you be interested in collaborating with me on Sanssouci? It is a former FA and, as a UNESCO World Heritage Site, also a pretty important article. I think it could definitely be an FA once again, especially with your subject matter expertise and my own experience with writing about palaces. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  06:37, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . It could be an interesting challenge.  When editing the Frederick II article, finding good material on Sanssouci was tough.  However, I will definitely take a look and try and help out- and it'd be great if you take the editorial lead.  Please keep in mind that my participation may be minimal during the Frederick II FA review.  Why not mention some of this on the Talk:Sanssouci, ping me again and ping the others as well.  I'll reply again over there. Wtfiv (talk) 16:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a plan. Fortunately, I happen to have a copy of Kaufmann 1995 in print, so we've got a starting point. At the moment, though, I'm busy working on the Palace of Versailles and anticipate that I'll still be such for a few more weeks. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  19:22, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
 * . Ping us when you are ready to dive back in. I'll try and take a peek in the meantime. (Or you can just ping from the Sanssouci talk page, and see what happens! The worst would be silence. And, if there's action, you may be surprised at how it might energize your return to the article!  (And for you, the energy of both projects may feed off one another, as Sanssouci is the child of Versaille!) Wtfiv (talk) 00:44, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a little late to the party, but I would love to assist with the Sanssouci article in anyway I can and I have added this to my watchlist, ping me on my talk page whenever you're ready, cheers! Chariotsacha (talk) 14:49, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Marshall Plan
Things are going well. Thanks for the help! I haven't yet made up my mind whether I'm gonna commit to the next step: looking at all those sources. That might take weeks! Sorta depends on whether anyone wants to take it to FAC or not. Most likely I'll put something on the talk page asking if anyone wants to take it farther. The editor who took it to FAC 16 years ago, SimonP, seems to be somewhat inactive at present. There are also a couple other possibilities. But I dunno... &diams; Lingzhi.Random (talk) 03:21, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like one of a couple you've adopted, so go for it. As we mentioned, I'll work on sfn cleanup right now, and I do most of it manually. I probably won't mess with the lead at all, since it shouldn't have citations, but I don't want to touch them as some might be useful. I'll keep plugging through it a bit. If you decide to take it on, let me know...Wtfiv (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)


 * perhaps this is useful: sandbox &diams; Lingzhi.Random (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 99.99% done! But I'm getting sleepy. There are still two harv errors... and I might sort the refs into book, journal, web tomorrow. Don't do the latter by hand; I can do it programmatically in 3 minutes... THANKS! More later. &diams; Lingzhi.Random (talk) 13:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks like the first round of getting rough sfn is almost done. Is there a User script for citation sorting, or do you use your own Python script? The next would be citation cleanup and verification. Wtfiv (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The ultra-cool and ultra-useful user script that I wrote (User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck) indicates unsorted cites, amidst doing many other super-useful things, but some people find that cite-sorting output annoying. Actually sorting them is written into my program to clean up the refs. As for a "lead editor" on Marshall, I currently have this and several other tsks going on. But I will post there. Thanks! &diams; Lingzhi.Random (talk) 23:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing the script! Wtfiv (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

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

James Joyce
I queried the James Joyce Centre in Dublin, Ireland, about the change of name and they replied, "At his baptism (5 February 1882) he was given the names James Augustine; at the registration of his birth (20 March 1882) the clerk mistakenly wrote Augusta instead of Augustine. However, when he was confirmed in June 1891 he took the name Aloysius. So his full name (from 1891 at any rate) was James Augustine Aloysius Joyce." - I could not find a printed reliable source for this information - there is a discussion in Archive 3, 13 November 2018, of the James Joyce Talk page - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making the enquiry. I had found a website that points us to a copy of the photocopy of the birth registry, but I was unsure if we could actually use it.  It seems that the Irish government has some copyright restrictions on genealogical information, and I'm not sure how to navigate even requesting permission.  I very much appreciate your looking this up! Wtfiv (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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


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

frederick the great
hello, Wtfiv! i had a few questions regarding this article and the associated blurb.
 * Hello, I don't know if it was appropriate to do so, but I made changes directly in the blurb based on your comments. Could you see below?  Please let me know if I have to do more or undo what I did.
 * oh, yeah, editing the blurb directly is fine. from what i understand, it's basically a space for nominators to showcase the article they worked on, so there is significant deference to the nominator regarding what they want to include there.  the blurb is fully protected via cascading protection the day before it shows up on the main page, but administrators tend to fulfill any edit requests from nominators at wp:errors.  dying (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you for letting me know how the process works.
 * of course, glad to be of help. dying (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)


 * do you know the criteria that was used to determine that frederick was the longest-reigning monarch of the house of hohenzollern? i have yet to seriously look through the list, but carol i of romania appears to have reigned as monarch from 1866 until 1914, a total of 48 years, while frederick reigned for 46 years.  however, i believe romania did not formally declare full independence until 1877, even though it was de facto independent when carol became domnitor.  note that carol's predecessor alexandru ioan cuza is also categorized as a romanian monarch on wikipedia.  interestingly, carol's change in title from domnitor to king echoes frederick's change from king in prussia to king of prussia.
 * This is a major point. I realize now that this statement, taken from the lead, is an artifact of a much earlier version of the article.  He is the longest reigning Prussian Hohenzollern (i.e., Brandenburg-Prussian branch), but it is not sourced in the article and wasn't caught until now. I chose to delete it from the blurb. Or just delete it altogether both in the blurb and the article. If this works, I'll delete the sentence from the article as well. To compensate for the character count, I added some extra language regarding correspondence that addresses a later point.
 * Alternatively, I could either extend it by saying "Brandenburg-Prussia branch of the House of Hohenzollern", modify and source the article. But that would extend the character count.
 * My preference is the former. Do you have any thoughts?
 * i completely understand if it was simply an artifact of an earlier version. i'm actually pretty impressed that you were able to bring this article to featured status, and much of the praise on your talk page shows me others feel the same!  i believe the tfa coordinators prefer if the blurb stays between 925 and 1025 characters.  the "(Full article...)" is counted, but any caption is not.  right now, the blurb is at 1039 characters.  removing the second sentence completely would lower it to 973 characters.  so, i think either shortening the sentence or removing it completely is better for the blurb.  the additional detail, however, could be useful in the article.  dying (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * thank you, I'll leave it deleted then. I'll delete from the article as well.


 * in the blurb, does "European capital" mean "center of europe" or "capital city of europe"? if it means the former, i fear that the phrase may be confusing, as the disambiguation page for the phrase does not appear to consider it a common interpretation.  if it means the latter, i am assuming that you are using berlin as the point of comparison, but admittedly, that does not seem clear in the blurb.
 * Thanks for pointing this out. I think this needs to be more nuanced.  I changed this to "expanded the freedom of the press in Berlin"  This more accurately reflects what he did.


 * do you know how the 31 volumes of frederick's writings were counted? this source appears to present 30 volumes of his works, although one appears to be presented in three parts.  also, this source appears to present an additional 46 volumes of his political correspondence, which, i am assuming, would also be considered part of his writings.  was use of the phrase "including poetry, histories and philosophy" intended to exclude political correspondence from being counted?
 * Yes, it should have been 30 vs. 31. So I corrected this. Here, I wanted to emphasize his works as a writer of the enlightenment since most kings have correspondence. AS I deleted the "longest reigning monarch" I added a separate clause regarding the political correspondence, which keeps his more cultural writing separate. (I'm not sure the repeated use of "volume" is appropriate.
 * was this intentionally rounded down to 40? i'm also not sure if it matters if you repeat "volume", but i wouldn't worry about it unless it pushed the blurb over the length limit.  dying (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think it was just distracted editing. Thinking about the 30 volumes of poetry, histories, and philosophy. I just put in 46.


 * lastly, do you have a preference regarding the oxford comma? in the blurb, it appears to be used at least twice and omitted at least twice, and i did not know if that was done deliberately.
 * I prefer the Oxford comma. I think I caught both and made the changes

apologies for all the questions! i hope they're not too much trouble to address. dying (talk) 11:34, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Please let me know if these changes address the issues you noticed or whether I need to do anything else. Wtfiv (talk) 17:27, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we are set for now? Thank you again!Wtfiv (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * yep, your edits look good, Wtfiv. thanks for addressing these issues!  dying (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Article suggestion
Hi Wtfiv, I saw your fantastic work bringing James Joyce back to FA standards. Thank you for your time on that article. There's a working group called WP:URFA/2020 where editors review and fix up older FAs. One such article is W. B. Yeats, another Irish author. Are you interested in bring Yeats back to FA standards? Feel free to ping me if you have any questions. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi . I saw this group mentioned on Sandy's talk page, and I'd like to look more into its deliberations once things free up. Fixing Yeats sounds like a great project.  Right now I'm working on Joan of Arc, which may take a while as I my non-Wikipedia world has caught a bit of my time.  But I would gladly put Yeats on my queue after finishing Joan of Arc. I'm imagining that JoA may take until mid-January, assuming the other invested editors are comfortable with the changes.  Does that work?  Should I register my interest somewhere?  Thanks for pinging me! Wtfiv (talk) 18:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey, no one has reviewed Yeats yet, so you have lots of time before working on that project. Let me know if you ever need a reviewer. Z1720 (talk) 18:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeats is not in bad shape, and we sure do need Wtfiv's talents elsewhere :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

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

Disambiguation link notification for January 2
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joan of Arc, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Beaugency.

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

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

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

Hi ! Wellington does sound like a fun challenge. I have to wrap up the one of working on, Joan of Arc, and there's a slight chance I may be taking William Butler Yeats. But I'd have to say you picked a gem. Wellington is a complex character and it would be really fun to get to know him better. I think it'd be great if you could get started. I think you'd make a great editor, but then I can jump in later. And if need be, help out with the citation and references too! As you can see, life outside of Wikipedia has caught me, so my progress here has (hopefully temporarily) crawled to a snail's pace. But I do like the idea! Thanks for thinking of me and I'll do what I can! Wtfiv (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you plenty Wtfiv! Wishing you the best on all your other ventures! Chariotsacha (talk) 18:58, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Joan – starting in
I think I'll finally get started today (after some household errands)! Initially, I want to do two things: I will work on the talk page of the FAR, listing the queries where I need your feedback, but otherwise edit the article directly. As I know nothing of the topic, PLEASE feel free to revert anything I do. Anything else I should know before I start ? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  13:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Thanks. In I appreciate you going in to edit. In the reviews,
 * 1) There is still image sandwiching, clutter and images pushing into later sections: I'd like to experiment with combining some to multiple images.
 * 2) We've got to get past not one, but two editors objecting to too many footnotes.  I see some of them that can be worked directly in to the text (the article is only at 7,000 words of prose).  Perhaps others, that are forced to be there per socking, can be converted to inline (hidden) comments and only revealed if socking resurfaces?  That way, we preserve for posterity what the issue is, without having a visible footnote. I will look as I go.
 * I addressed the footnote issue 5 April 2022, here's the note: (Addressed: ~36 footnotes/wordcount of ~1,398. For comparison, the footnotes for James Joyce are ~54/1,920) That was down from ~58 footnotes/wordcount ~26,250. Much of what was trimmed was quotes to address socking. I think the sock issue in footnotes has been handled. So any of the remaining can be removed without inline comments as editors see fit. Aza24 went through them and removed one. (ANd I later removed the supporting source.)
 * The more difficult issue are the minor changes. The FAR record shows made all the ones that seemed appropriate. But I don't want to be required to make ones I don't agree with or are unclear without suggest. I've let reviewers know that I'm amenable to the changes they suggest, but I'd like them to make the changes. Wtfiv (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Have been working gangbusters around the house (my downsizing mission) and will now turn my attention to Joan. I do see some footnotes that I think can be reduced; feel ABSOLUTELY free to revert anything I do. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:15, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks you, no hurry. I seriously doubt I will change much that you put your hands to! Wtfiv (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When I work on images, I look at the layout simultaneously on my desktop, iPad and iPhone. I do see some places where the footnotes are distracting, so suggest we compromise there to make the naysayers happy.  Meanwhile, back at the ranch ...  I picked up some malware on my desktop so need to clean that before I can start work  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ouch! It sucks when we get caught by malware!  I'm kind of curious how you got it, as you seem savvy about avoiding such things and it may catch others of us. Hopefully it doesn't require major operating system surgery.  I have no problem with removing the footnotes. Because I left them in or put them in, I think they all do some good work, so I wouldn't know which to remove. So I think it is best that others make the choice of what is disposable.  So please go for it.  I'm sure any you remove will be fine. Wtfiv (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know how I got it, but I'm pretty sure it was when I was checking some stupid non-reliable source on Alzheimer's article ... at any rate, it's not terribly malicious ... just a popup demanding that I buy McAfee, when I already have McAfee ... phishing to get the dummies who fall for it and givwe them a credit card. Hopefully I'm rid of it now ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That one seems pretty common. It sounds like it just got the browser and its now deleted, thank goodness! The deep dive into Alzheimers must be interesting in its own right. Probably eye-opening. I'd be interested in hearing the adventure, but I think that'd be for another day and an alternate venue. But if you ever get the time, which seems unlikely given life and FAR responsibilities... Wtfiv (talk) 20:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, not for another day ... easy to see that mess, multiple scandals that have kept me busy for weeks, during Darjeeling ... interesting stuff ... see Sylvain Lesné, Karen Ashe, Cassava Sciences and the drug linked from Cassava ... three different Alazheimer's scandals at once, because that's where the money is ... with the govenment throwing indiscriminately huge amounts of money into AZ research, it's rife for corruption and fraud. Computer seems fine now. Wow, working on Joan is hard because the citations are so chunky, but I see why you had to do that because of sock, but wow. Please have a look at my comments on Joan FAR talk before I continue ... I'd like to reconfigure the Legacy section to only three or four sub-heads, and see if you approve of what I've done on images before I move on ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Stopping to eat dinner; if you hate what I'm doing, please speak up :) We need to get by the reviewers who are complaining about footnotes. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't see the comments in the FAR, and saw you were working, so I wanted to stay out of your way. Now that you are taking a break from this beast of an article, I will comment on FAR, and make a couple of edits following up on what you have done. This is a lot of work, I know, so thanks! Wtfiv (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I started a section on the talk page of the far ... I see you are at work so I will hold off ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I continued to dabble last night, working more on the big picture, still not starting my read-through. I have an engagement this morning, then another this evening, then another all morning on Tuesday, so maybe you want to dabble with my comments so far on the LEAD, until I can return full attention on Wednesday.  Please don't let the volume or tone of my comments discourage you-- I tend to become a dog after a bone on a FAC or FAR-- I have no doubt the article will remain featured, but it needs a serious close look to overcome Hchc's and Buideh's oppose.  I think it quite doable though! Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:31, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No hurry. I did see that you continued to dabble last night, which was fun. It feels good to have you and your expertise active on this article, and I'd really like to get this done. It's been sitting too long. I'm not sure, but I think Buideh's objections have been addressed. The lion's share of the remaining concerns are in the lead, with issues on citations and their validity.   I'll continue to ponder the points you made so we can strengthen the lead. Wtfiv (talk) 23:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Sorry, it's a private anacronym I used once with you, and then expect you to remember as if you weren't working on thousands of things at once. It stands for SockPuppet Editor. (It may have begun as PSE, "possible sockpuppet editor"). My way of quickly denoting in a single term the sum effect of all those various accounts- both identified and only suspected- on all those Joan of Arc articles over the year. You saw it in "alternative interpretations of JoA", right? The pattern of users in histories look different than in Joan, but the overall result is similar. If memory serves, many of the other articles related to JoA are in a similar state. Wtfiv (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * got it ... sorry to be so distracted ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:57, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think being an electoral judge- amongst all your other non-WikiWorld obligations- is far more important! Wtfiv (talk) 23:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Wow, I Am So Tired Today. And hope I'm not reinfected with COVID.  I will dig back in to Joan once I catch my breath. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:03, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm so sorry to hear you are wiped out. It could be the residuals of the infection.  There is no rush whatsoever with the JoA article.  It's been sitting for a long time, and can keep sitting.  What is most important is your own well-being.  Thanks for the heads up, and please get a chance to rejuvenate! Wtfiv (talk) 18:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Ukrainian Melody
thank you for all your help with the Duino Elegies! - today: violin solo and you can listen Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:07, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Gerda! It'll take some time, but its a pleasure to work in an area near your expertise!  And thanks for the link! Wtfiv (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! - I just - by chance found this, telling me that we could possibly give our readers easier access to the biography than this archive thing. I haven't checked how much is available online. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing the link. I do use Google Books when archive.org is not available. I think there are two I added to  the Duino Elegies because archive.org did not have the books. I like archive.org because a person can register for free and access the entire work if they so choose.  And, unless there are unexpected outcomes from archive.org's  pending suit suit with the Author's Guild, it should stay stable. Google usually limits the view to a few pages, if it allows it at all, and linking the page often prevents scanning the rest of the book for context. And, the links at archive.org are a bit more stable. Wtfiv (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Understand, and should probably register. (But feel others might be as shy.) - I found this which isn't exactly ref #34 but possibly has the essence, so might be better than only offline. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * yesterday I attended a unique concert - the 18th Thomaskantor after Bach conducting - and with some good luck caught him happy afterwards! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * , hat must have been a great event to see! Better yet, to hear! (I'm apologize for not responding more to the Elegies, but I've been on the road and my participation will be a bit on and off for the next few weeks.) Wtfiv (talk) 05:36, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it was, and I just put the review on my talk, with a close-up pic expressing the same joy. Take your time, - I'll do the same, expecting guests for more RMF concerts. Will there be archive versions of Rilke's letters, cited often? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:49, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * ... and another 14 July: Voces8, pictured - I have a FAC open, in case of interest --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * more July songs, from Swiss Alps and a funeral where the pastor picked a Rilke poem to summarize - We are making progress with the FAR, slowly but steadily, and now that I'm back I hope to speed up. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much Gerda! I'm finding myself in a bit of a mire in Wikipedia world right now, myself. I've only been able to focus on this the last few days. One FAR I'm working on is stalled, and I found myself tracking another topic for a bit. However, I will get back to the Elegies and keep working to clean up the citations and find links when possible. I'm glad for the opportunity to work with you! I also appreciate your good work, and your endless efforts to provide kindness in the Wikipedia world! Wtfiv (talk) 20:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could transform the many editions of Rilke's letters to various correspondents? I'll go after the others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * For Hesse's Essay, in My Belief, I couldn't find the text yet, but it has an article, and I found the TOC with the details mentioned in the ref. Can we use that somehow? The exact quote is also in this. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Kinnell: is this good enough? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * What is the doi no. in this? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

, I've gotten distracted with another article, but I'll come back and work on the Elegies today. I'll try and take care of those references, the letters, and the other points you raised. Wtfiv (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I did what I could. In the list of poets influenced, searching was more difficult because no long quotes easily found. Some seem more influenced by Rilke (in general) but the Elegies in particular. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your patience for my whirlwind through the article. I hope I didn't get in your way. Here is a reply to your points:
 * I did a check regarding your point on the poets being influenced by the poems themselves  Some advocate for his work, others were mentioned as translating the elegies but don't mention the influence of the Elegies on their own work.  I tried to find sources for each, and if I didn't find something touching on the Elegies, I deleted them.  If think some need to be replaced, let me know.
 * I think I took care of the Hesse source.
 * The formatting of Rilke's letters in the citations is now consistent and linked.
 * Your catching the Małecka source is great. I noted that it was subscription, and used a google snip in the citation page as a verifiable link.
 * I'm pretty negligent with doi's, and tend to avoid them. But I think I found this one: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199562022.003.0010 (I may have deleted the citation, though. I checked it, and it seems on pg. 195 of Kendall's chapter, he mentions that Keyes's poem "The Foreign Gate" includes his translation of the opening line of the Elegies. But the accessible Roy (2004) mentions the relationship between "The Foreign Gate" and "Rilke" too. If you think we should put the Kendall in, let me know.
 * Feel free to fix or undo anything I did. Please note that because I link in 'Citations', I only link the books and journals in 'Sources' when the full work is available (noting type of access if not free). I deleted the URLs in the sources to partial books (e.g., Google pages) that I found. But if you think they should be kept, please let me know and I won't remove others if they appear.

Also, I'm still available to help out in any way that you think is useful. (I went light on the middle of the article, as criticism is so subjective. I just checked the source-text integrity, which seems to be okay. The criticism seems to mainly rely on Leishmann and Spender's commentary. It could use updating, but I'll steer clear of that for now.) Wtfiv (talk) 00:45, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for doing that. I think it might be good to restore the links to Google books for as long as the FAR is going, for easier verifiability. The author is said to have been bad in referencing, and I'd like to show that for most of what I saw, he was diligent. - I wonder if the "influences" might serve the Rilke biography better than this article. (Haven't checked what's there.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi I think we are set with referencing.  Part of what I did was ensure that every page reference in citations is linked. This allows any future reader or editor to click the link while reading to verify the accuracy. I also modified the prose to strengthen text-citation links.  (Also please note, I kept most of the Google links for pages verifying references, but moved them to the actual page number in the citation.)


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


 * I'm okay with Influences at this point, as I removed everything that I couldn't find related to the Elegies specifically. (I'm glad I was able to save the Gadamer section in particular.) But I trust your opinion: please remove any or all if you wish, I respect your decision with this.
 * At this point, my biggest concern is Further Reading and Translations. They seem large, arbitrary and vulnerable to endless increase.  But I won't touch them if there's no consensus to remove them
 * I also want to say that as I edited, I could see all the work you had done so far. I appreciate it. It made my work so much easier!

.Wtfiv (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and also for the last comment on my talk, and the detailed clarification in the FAR. On my talk, you didn't sign - as the discussion is linked from the other perhaps do, for transparency. Normally I wouldn't be fussy, and I knew it was you by the content ;) - My mistake with the "wrong" Gass: the same page number. I really thought I was in the Gass book, because that was the only place I expected the line. Sometimes I'm that blind ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry about forgetting to sign. I try to sign everything, but my editing history shows that sometimes, it lapses!  I'm glad you knew it was me, and I'll go back and sign now. I very much appreciate the comments you have made throughout the entire process of trying to salvage Duino Elegies! Wtfiv (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * "don't be a waster of sorrows" ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * ... that was the song quoted on the announcement that my friend died, - she suffered from dementia (if I still may say "suffered", - and sure we around suffered differently), and was supposed to perform it for her birthday at the home where she lived, with a red rose, but came COVID and no performance for two years - her therapist performed is now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , it's always hard when we can't complete the grieving process. I was just talking to another editor about my own attempt to bring a loved one's death full circle. The idea I was offering- the balancing of presence, time, and grieving in what is beautiful. It was inspired by the shared editing you and I did on Duino Elegies.  I do hope that the therapist's performance brought a wholeness to something that the past few years had made incomplete. Wtfiv (talk) 20:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * yes it did, and again you said that well - opening movement of Bach's Christmas Oratorio: "lasset das Zagen, verbannet die Klage", "let go of fear" and then "ban lament" or "stop complaining", and music is so much better in in expressing emotions --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:39, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * new pics and thoughts on 13 August - the day that Palladian architecture is on the Main page --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * could you talk to Hog Farm about the elegies, or should we just leave them mistrusting? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Gerda,
 * I think the Elegies may have to rest for now. It was fun learning about them, though!  Fortunately, there is so much beautiful art out there to learn about! Wtfiv (talk) 09:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Returning from a great concert: yes, so much beautiful art, Howell's Requiem, and I knew nothing. - I'd not mind rest for the elegies, but if he is followed they would be reduced to an earlier (inferior) state (in unrest, I believe). I don't have the words to argue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The glory is being able to be part of a lovely concert. I envy you that. I hope it was enjoyable. As to the elegies: They are okay. Rilke is beloved by many.  The world has lost the origin of many beautiful phrases.  It's in the nature of language.  But the phrase itself lives, even on the Duino Castle website! The nature of wikipedia is transitory, the epitomy of buddhist transitory phenomenon.  I think your desire not to argue is the best, as there is so much you still have to offer in Wikipedia: Creating an awareness of beauty that some may have previously not seen. Wtfiv (talk) 05:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Hi Gerda, I'm not sure I'll be able to help, as things have just got busy for me, and I need to finish a couple of projects here. But I'll see what I can do! Wtfiv (talk) 15:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Do it next time, - this one attracted enough eyes by now. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Today: "my" concert of the year (so far) is on the Main page, but not pictured, and I don't understand why --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The last week brought more outstanding concerts and bike tours, - how is your summer? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Dab links
Wtfiv, you frequently enter links that are to disambiguation pages. If you click on "Preferences" at the top of your screen, and scroll down to the Appearance section, you will see where you can click on And then you may need to hit save (can't remember). Then if you add dab links in text you will see them in orange rather tha blue, and you can go back to the dab page to find the correct link. Bst, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Display links to disambiguation pages in orange


 * Thanks Sandy. They moved it to gadgets, but I found it! I appreciate the tip! Wtfiv (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I have so many things I installed so long ago that I never know where to find them :) Just glad I have them. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm slowly growing my set too!
 * I just learned that your timing to work on this article is perfect! The Globe is putting on a Joan of Arc play, where she will be represented as non-binary. If it piques people to look here, it'll be nice that they'll have a decent site to go to.
 * I appreciate your pushing the balance between "Joan the agent" and "Joan the victim" further toward the former. The SPE version was very strongly oriented toward the latter, and the edits before your active engagement hadn't moved it far enough. Wtfiv (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't see the dates of the play in that announcement??? We should get that so we know when the article will be hit.  PS, she gets so many views that I don't want to start fiddling with the lead although I think it needs a rewrite ... I plan for you and I to work through the lead via talk page proposals as we did at J. K. Rowling ... I have had one darn thing after another today which has kept me from finishing up Legacy, but hopefully will get that done in the next few hours ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:32, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep ... https://pageviews.wmcloud.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&start=2022-08-01&end=2022-08-12&pages=Joan_of_Arc Sandy Georgia (Talk)  20:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's already moving up! What timing! Wtfiv (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The show opens August 25. And no hurries and no worries. I've got a lot going on too! I'm just trying to research the images to get ones that are copyright secure. I'll look at the Rowling talk page to get a sense of what you mean. Wtfiv (talk) 20:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * don't waste your time trying to find that on JKR page ... it has about six archives ... it will be obvious when I get to it ... I am having fits of starts and stops today because of stuff going on around the house ... Sandy Georgia (Talk)  21:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I looked through the Rowling talk and notices! I think I found material about the lead. Wow, that was an article to navigate! I'll work on the image issues that Nikkimaria shared. Wtfiv (talk) 21:56, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd let you know that I invited a couple of co-editors I had a good time working with on the Frederick the Great page to review the FAR. I hope that's okay.  One said they'd take a look, but isn't too experienced with reviews.  I haven't heard from the other yet, but I know he's a very experienced editor. Wtfiv (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, thank you so much for cleaning up behind my recent edits. I'm sorry I'm leaving such a mess.  I'm just trying to address concerns as they come, to the best of my ability. Saves me from having to do another pass, where I'd probably miss things anyway. Wtfiv (talk) 08:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No probs! When I get home in the evening, I try to catch up on anything from the day, and I'm sorry my timing sometimes creates edit conflicts for you!  If I put things off, i forget to come back to them when busy ... Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Your edit haven't created major problems for me! I just don't want to cause them for you! Wtfiv (talk) 17:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The only thing that makes me tear my hair out is when you forget to sign, because I've gotten used to the ease of using the reply tool when I am iPad editing (it just hurts my back too much to sit at a real computer for any length of time), and the reply tool is invalidated when there is no sig. At any rate, I will probably stop following as closely as I had been now, so don't count on me to catch the little things like puncutation, missing spaces, etc. I believe you are over the hump now, and have fully competent editors on board (eg  et al), and I must move on now to other articles with pressing problems, that do force me to sit at a real computer. Keep the faith; you're almost there !  I will still be keeping a close eye on the FAR and the sock issue, and I believe  will as well. I think after Victoria goes through this weekend, we'll be positioned for Keep declarations. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:53, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't seen any socking since my ECP -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 23:57, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Good point, I meant Joan-related topics!  The "Du Lys" issue is a mess, by the way. But, it looks like you've researched it, so you've probably already encountered it.  Pernoud carefully questions that Joan's family had claim to "du Lys".  More radically, Bouzy suggests there may have been no ennoblement, or it was done some other times, as getting a coat of arms is not ennoblement. I think the FARC team's decision to leave it as stating that Joan was ennobled is the best solution; it is the consensus, which includes Pernoud. Wtfiv (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The du Lys name does not appear before Jacques. I got their bible, so I can't wikiedit Joan. If you really mean all Joan-related articles, then the bible is useless and you must rely on Pernoud. Isn't fascinating to see how this renders? Sinking into reality (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It is fascinating! Wtfiv (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

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

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


 * Hi Gerda, I'm digging out from being under the weather. I think Duino Elegies is done for me.  I feel good about the first part- describing its origins- but I realized I don't want to get involved in literary criticism. Too subjective for my taste.  I appreciate the idea of the rainbow...hope at the end of rain! Wtfiv (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Such great work from you, again :) A very impressive rool. Ceoil (talk) 08:45, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Understand. The rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and this year was full of music that day, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto, and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

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


 * It's so unpromising that what is happening there has had me in a funk all week. With a recalcitrant nominator, I am unsure that star can be salvaged, and it discourages me that the nominator has five of them.  I've lost my voice for now; you will have to be very brave to wade in there, but there is no reason for that article to not be under 9,000 words. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  20:59, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, ! Don't be too funked, your attempt to discuss the issue was noteworthy. At this point the nominator is blocked from the article. This may be the time to clean it up a bit. I'll try to respect the nominator's in-depth work but trying to address the size issue so that concerned editors can get to the more controversial issues.  By the way, when you say you lost your voice, do you mean in the real world or wikiworld? Wtfiv (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Mostly Wikipedia, but kinda both. Something always kicks me back into gear after a few days respite ... I guess the conversation about the connection with creative psychopathy brought back more bad memories than I realized it would ... along with everything else ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  03:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I know those doldrums. I suppose we all do.  After we finished with Joan, I needed a break. My body agreed by ensuring I'd be pretty ill and relatively low energy for about five days. But I'm feeling significantly better now. We'll see how it goes. There's an irony there: thinking that one is writing about creative psychopathy but perhaps what seemed like an in vitro exercise became too much  in vivo. It sounds like you know the nature of what you are experiencing.  It's good to hear you'll be back in form soon! Wtfiv (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I know that if I ponder for a few days, I eventually sort what's bugging me :) We have worked for over a year to get through the very oldest FAs, bringing many back to standard, in what have been mostly very productive and enjoyable FARs.  After spending a year at Joan and J. K. Rowling, with such success, realizing that while we work at the end of the oldest FAs, FAC has been churning out new "FAs" like Jackson-- where the prose is just sloppy through and through and nobody cared to look-- and knowing that there are five more just like it, left me wondering why we're working so hard. It would take a Joan/JKR type FAR to pull that article through, and then the rest just like it also need FARs, and then there are so many newer FAs that have also fallen out of standard ... and I don't have the energy to deal with a recalcitrant FAC nominator.  Besides my other IRL stuff, I'm also going in to a very busy time now, with multiple doctor app'ts coming up, along with prolonged guests and a long trip and work on a fundraiser ... so I've also been discouraged knowing that I won't be able to be as dedicated at FAR for the next few months.  And then, revisiting the old "psychopathy" issue/attacks that so define my time at Wikipedia just put a nice bow on my dejection :). Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  14:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I support your efforts to trim the article. I may be more inclined to support some of the other suggestions of compromises within the article if it didn't seem there was so much content that it obscured significant details. Eventually the reader's eyes will gloss over and they will simply stop reading. The fact is the majority of readers, unless they are researching, won't read much past the lead anyway. Brevity is not my strength so I commend you.
 * To, I wish for you continued health, peace and as much rest as you can get over the next few months as your life gets busier. I felt your discouragement and I also felt the attacks. You are a phenomenal editor here and you have gained far more respect than ire. I appreciate you, your efforts and your continued amazing contribution to discussion and improvement of the encyclopedia. -- A Rose Wolf  15:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the support ! DN99 did a lot of hard work, but I agree the prose needs to be cleared to get to the heart of the issue. My guess is that if the prose is cleared out, a fair and reasonable solution that all the concerned editors can live with will be clear. Let me know along the way, if you see any problems. And if you want to jump in, please do! Wtfiv (talk) 15:55, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the encouragement, ARoseWolf! Re I may be more inclined to support some of the other suggestions of compromises within the article if it didn't seem there was so much content that it obscured significant details, that is the crux of the problem.  We can't ever hope to solve/address the underlying POV concerns on such a bloated article. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, sometimes we just need a break, especially when the non-Wikiworld closes in with its existential worries. As to the sense of futility you sometimes feel: I hear you. But you know from your long experience that its the nature of the beat. Wikipedia explodes exponentially, and its up to other editors to worry about the latest. The apparent futility in being able to tackle the new articles is actually a strength.  The older FARs are old for a reason.  These are those Wikipedia "standards" that people felt needed Joan and Joyce- the two I was involved with- are just two. Victoria's example of Vincent Van Gogh is another. As you once said to me, these are the "mother load".  The world will always outreach our own significance, but what a difference you can make. Rowling sounds like it was a battlefield ladened with landmines.  The Joyce garden needed serious pruning in his Irish section, but his European section was neglected and barren.  And with Joan, she was so overrun with fabulous and shape-shifting kudzu that it was almost impossible to find her in the article. These frequently visited "standards" are now cleaned up because of your role as FAR coordinator. (We'll not talk about your important role in keeping everyone mindful of maintaining standards in the medical articles.)  Don't forget, it's not just what you do but who you inspire as well! Wtfiv (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * "Don't forget, it's not just what you do but who you inspire as well!" This is one of the most significant statements anyone could ever say on any subject. -- A Rose Wolf  17:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You are both so kind (but Wtfiv, I'm not a FAR Coordinator ... I was a FAC delegate, before we called them Coordinators). Long hard day working on a fundraiser, and too tired to think or type coherently, but appreciate the kindness, and see the talk page of Jackson just got a sensible boost, so that's some nice news after attempts all day were made at hacking my Wikipedia account!  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Just dropping a note to state that I appreciate the work you are doing with the article. -- A Rose Wolf  14:41, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I'm fairly conservative, so I'm not reducing the article as much as I thought. Other editors are much bolder, and one may be needed later. But there's still plenty to go, so I should be able to get it down to about 9000 words.  At least been I've been able catch a number of places where the citations and text don't match up or where the text goes beyond the citations, and I think I've been able the sequencing of events a bit more clear.  I appreciate your support! Wtfiv (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

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

Your submission at Articles for creation: Henry R. Robinson (publisher) has been accepted
 Henry R. Robinson (publisher), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing! Theroadislong (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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


 * I totally agree with the idea ! What I was focusing on is that Jackson did not enslave her, as she was already "enslaved", but the point you are making is really important. Can you think of another way it can be worded to catch the sense of what you are getting out without making it look like Jackson did the initial enslaving?  It sounds like you are on the edge of the perfect balance of wording. Please put it in! I may jump in again, but I have a feeling its really close!
 * By the way, thank you so much for jumping into the article! Wtfiv (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * By the way, I didn't put "own" in quotation marks. Somebody else might have. If they did, they're seeing the same thing you are. There is definitely a better wording. Wtfiv (talk) 02:38, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hey--thanks. The "owned", wait, now I see it was "property" that you put in quotation marks, in your edit summary. So, as far as I'm concerned (and I've worked on this kind of material a bit), "enslaving" is not a one-time act--it is an ongoing process. One does it every day, every day anew, so the way I see it it it's not the original act of someone taking someone's freedom. The biography isn't entirely clear, or complete, but it seems to me she was born into slavery, and thus there was no one person, one act--but of course she was enslaved, all the time, by Jackson and by his predecessor, until she freed herself. Take care, Drmies (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , I see your point, about enslavement. I think for most readers, it denotes a verb like "caught," which describes a one-time action.
 * But to another point implied by your point: Why start her description with the adjective "enslaved"? I put your suggested wording back.  If people read the article, they should get the sense of the word as you shared.
 * Also, as you said, she freed herself, escaping in 1863! Interestingly she is not recorded as publically ever saying a bad word about Jackson. And maybe that was sincere.  On the other hand, she was a survivor who knew how to make the best of the situation she's in.  If she decided to live in Nashville, which is only five miles from the Hermitage, it might be a wise strategy to avoid saying anything negative. Wtfiv (talk) 03:59, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And thanks for taking the time to reach out. Wtfiv (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wtfiv, it took me a while to realize some of those constraints that freed persons had to live under. For instance, I often wondered why Phillis Wheatley Peters wasn't more outspoken in condemning slavery even after she was freed--not realizing that even Boston was small place, and your very life might depend on the standing you have with the people who run that town. Thanks, and take care, Drmies (talk) 14:47, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Frederick the Great
You may be interested to know that I have added some notes to the article on the sexuality of Frederick the Great. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 16:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I added some further details as you suggested. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Diannaa has now removed some of my additions. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 01:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Another year gone

 * What a great image! And I appreciate the wishes! Unfortunately, the coming new year looks like it could get messy, I think. But we can only hope!  Your note about my user page has me laughing, but I need to be careful, I fear that users without homepages could be the topic of an RfC! Wtfiv (talk) 21:54, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You must have realised by now that red links to wiki-addicts are red rosed to a bull. This may be a matter I'll take to an international level. Ceoil (talk) 08:49, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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


 * Hi Jr8825,
 * It's good to hear from you. Hopefully, the break has been a good one. I know about real life pressures! I tried to address the concerns you had. The legacy is noticeably shorter. I think it is okay. Of course, if you like to take a look at it or edit it, please do. I think the Featured Article Review is still open, but I think most of the concerns have been addressed. Wtfiv (talk) 03:34, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

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


 * Thank you, Gerda about your comments on the infobox.  With respect to infoboxes, have no strong commitments either way. I noted the issue so everyone could weigh in fairly. I just want all parties who genuinely care to come up with a satisfactory solution that leads to overall satisfaction.  To me, the Infobox is  less important than making sure we have the facts and citations right, the story comes together fairly, we keep an eye on bloat, and we create pages that are informative and pleasing to look at. But it is clear that there is a lot of passion surrounding this topic. Its clear the whole infobox issue is symbolic of deeper issues perhaps symbolic of different visions of what Wikipedia should be. The value is that the dialectic struggle over these visions bind communities together, bring passion to discussions, and sometimes lead to insights for seeing an aspect of the encyclopedia anew. As long as there is integrity- and I'll think you'll appreciate this- passionate kindness with the assumption of good faith- the ultimate outcome will always be good. One can't lose. Wtfiv (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * May you be right! In 10 years, I haven't figured out the passion in these discussions, believing that a decent well curated infobox and a substantial lead could exist side by side, supporting each other. But the passion is as if a little box was an invasion and the assumption of good faith is not always clearly visible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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


 * Thank you ! I'll have to listen to the December songs. Right now, the Wikipedia mood has me listening to a blast from the past: Iva Bittová singing Godár's Mater. Enjoy your holiday season and thank you for being so thoughtful to the folk at Wikipedia. Wtfiv (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting musicians! I try to be thoughtful, thanks for noticing. I hope that a cough that hit me a few days ago will give way enough that I can sing in choirs, but if not, so be it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * ... and then I could! - Today, pictured, the soprano of our choral concert of the year. More in the context: User talk:Gerda Arendt, in case of interest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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


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

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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) 00:30, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

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


 * There's no question that you put a lot of work into these articles, and they are full of interesting information. But I think the tags are justified as the articles could use more editing to come up to the standards of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. The tags provide notice to editors and readers to consider helping out by improving the the article. In the meantime, people can continue to access the work you've done even with the tags. Wtfiv (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2023 (UTC)
 * However, it is not O.K that the tag includes false claims. Kunst-Theodor (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * You could address the ones you are concerned with on the article's talk page, and make sure to let the user who made them know you would like to talk about it. That's probably a good start. Wtfiv (talk) 06:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

December music
Thank you for your patient dealing with James Joyce issues! - Today's story is about Maria Callas, on her centenary. - Aaron Copland died OTD. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:49, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much Gerda! I definitely appreciate all you do, particularly trying to keep the back pages of Wikipedia positive! Wtfiv (talk) 18:30, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, appreciated! Today, to Paris (29 Nov) with a visit to the Palais Garnier, - to match the story of Medea Amiranashvili, - don't miss listening to her expressive voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honour to have known him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for what you do and stand for! I wish you a good festive season and a peaceful New Year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

2024


Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

[[User talk:Gerda Arendt#2024|Happy New Year

2024]]

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

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

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

Invitation to join New pages patrol
Hello Wtfiv! Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
 * We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
 * Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
 * Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
 * If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

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

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

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