User talk:AleatoryPonderings/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

May Fisk

I did what I could do. Her death date is truly elusive, but I tried The Times, The Guardian, newspaperarchive.com, newspapers.com, and even the California Newspaper Collection. Looks to me like she was sued and won a case about the development project in 1947 and then abandoned the project around 1953? But I didn't add that info as without being able to see the last source, it might change the analysis. (Would be fascinating to know if any of her development still exists.) My guess is that she returned to England at that time, but I don't know. Lots of stuff in hathtrust.org if you want to weed through it. SusunW (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@SusunW: I remain in awe of your research abilities.

The United States Tax Court case is on Westlaw. The case is Browne v Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 1953 WL 10503 (11 June 1953). It refers to the "May Isabel Campbell-Johnston Trust", which was "liquidated" in 1946 and owned properties in Redondo, California (presumably Redondo Beach), among other places. That must be the trust referred to in Geiselman v Campbell-Johnston, 80 Cal App.2d 492, the case you linked above. I am guessing that this is a real estate investment trust (REIT), although I didn't know that vehicle was used in the 1940s. The Tax Court case says the trust owned a "war housing" project. Perhaps the sort of housing described in doi:10.2307/3158861, but I'm not sure.

The details: Truman H. Browne was a 1/4 beneficiary of the REIT. The case was about whether Browne appropriately treated the sale of his portion as a capital gain on his federal return. As it turns out, it was not a capital gain.

As far as this relates to Fisk: it's tempting to think that the 1946 liquidation was related to a change in her life circumstances (death? moving abroad?) but I don't see any particular evidence of that in these cases. Basically, the trust's assets were sold off in 1946 and Truman thought he could get a federal income tax discount on the proceeds. Perhaps Truman was related to May somehow? Or he could have just been a business associate. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I love researching. It's like a scavenger hunt that I've practiced for decades. It's so bloody frustrating, (and really hard to do from Mexico) but glad you were able to find more info about it. I know from trying to find out more, that Redondo Beach was formerly called Redondo. I suspect that they needed housing for all the service personnel that went to the area during World War II. Would be interesting to know more about her role, but I just don't know if we will be able to find anything. The piece on her son that I added says he lived part time in London and part time in California. My guess is she did too. Can't figure out why he added "Gray" to his name either. His 1960 obit wasn't the least bit helpful. SusunW (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@SusunW: The scavenger hunt analogy is great—I'll use that the next time someone looks at me strange when I say I edit Wikipedia. I feel the same way: it's like finding a gold nugget when you discover some fact you've been searching for. I'm trying to make the most of my law school/university subscriptions while I still have them—legal databases especially are outrageously expensive so I'm glad I could do this search while I still have access. I'm interested in this "war housing" thing too—the 1953 court case refers to it as if it's a known quantity/technical term, and we don't have war housing. It's frustrating but also so gratifying when one research hole turns into several. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:15, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, all research libraries are expensive. It's crazy, but I am glad we have access to things through the WP Library, as there aren't public facilities here and I'd be lost. I still however, end up sending lots of e-mails to authors of articles. In general, the women academics always send me what I ask if they will share and an extra article or two. Sometimes I don't even get a response from the men. But, back to war housing, when I was writing Miriam Soljak, she put pressure on the Auckland government to build family housing during the war because the military had requisitioned all the available housing. So it occurs to me that is yet another type of "war housing". (I have always maintained that historic figures want to be found. Too many times I have searched for info everywhere I can think of and then it just falls in my path.) SusunW (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sometimes I forget that this is the free encyclopedia and that the "free" part is important. It's deeply frustrating how much is paywalled and how copyright, as opposed to the interest of people in knowing things, is allowed to rule the day. I've had mixed luck myself with emails to scholars and research institutions. My favourite success story is a set of photos for Lorraine Monk which the Ford Library sent over lickety-split. This war housing thing is now piquing my interest; will take a look this weekend. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Those photos are great! My best story, got help from an academic while working on my 1st featured article. She not only sent me her material but referred me to another academic who sent me stuff. She asked a ton of questions about WiR and how she might incorporate our project into her course curricula. I put her in touch with Rosie. Now 2 years later, this. An article on war housing could also bring in the aftermath, i.e. redlining, population shifts, etc.[1],[2][3][4][5] This is interesting in that it postulates how housing came to be seen as a reward for war service. I wonder if someone from Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history would have interest in the topic of war housing? It's not his period, but perhaps Gog the Mild knows something about (or knows someone who would be interested in developing) the topic? SusunW (talk) 15:18, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Also interesting in that the US isn't generally though of as especially pro–public housing but the various Housing Acts in the US (and elsewhere) financed a huge expansion in public housing. User:AleatoryPonderings/To create or improve has a bunch more sources for the general topic; strawberry box houses is one on a specific Canadian architectural style related to this. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:44, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't, and can't think of anyone who might be interested. You could maybe put those sources on the MilHist talk page and see if anyone bites. It is a pretty big topic and I suspect would only be done as a labour of love. PS Good to see some sensible academic courses being developed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for your input. I'm sufficiently intrigued that I'll probably tackle this in the next bit myself once some real life obligations are out of the way. Agree it's one of those topics that's likely to take serious research and not something one can just slap together. Perfect for a snowy winter's eve … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

What is wrong with a short footnote regarding ones father-in-law? (re. Ivy Davoren)

Rodolph (talk) 20:13, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

@Rodolph: The article is about Ivy de Verley, not her father-in-law. Information about her father-in-law does not add encyclopedic value to an article about her. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but if you were writing about, say, the late Diana, Princess of Wales you'd be pushed not to mention HM the Queen, even as a passing reference in one sentence? Rodolph (talk) 00:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. If Samuel Messenger Bradley is notable, we can make an article on him. But as it stands the fact that he was Ivy's father-in-law does not tell us anything about Ivy. This is presumably not the case with Elizabeth and Diana. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Wisdom poetry

My research skills really failed me on this one. Thanks for rescuing the article. Schazjmd (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

@Schazjmd: Not a problem—it was an interesting learning opportunity. I find that the Internet Archive is an excellent resource when things don't pop up on Google. Most of its results aren't indexed in the major search engines. As for wisdom poetry, it seems like scholars are a bit unsure of what to do about it—some seem to think it's definitely a genre, while others aren't so sure. I'm still on the fence about whether to present it as "this is definitely a thing" or "scholars use the term but are divided on its significance" or something else. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:29, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Interesting! I've only used the archive for specific URLs, I've never tried it as a search engine. Appreciate the tip. Schazjmd (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Yup, the Wayback Machine is for archiving URLs, but there are tons of fully searchable and freely accessible books on it too. Just have to register for an account to "borrow" the books that are still in copyright. One of the internet's best-kept secrets IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Greg Tate

On 9 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Greg Tate, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 21:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Prise d'Orange

On 10 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Prise d'Orange, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that part of Prise d'Orange was recently discovered in the binding of another book? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Prise d'Orange. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Prise d'Orange), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Ruth Crosby Noble

On 11 December 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ruth Crosby Noble, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that zoologist Ruth Crosby Noble's 1945 book on animal behavior was said to have the "rare quality of combining entertainment with sound scientific value"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ruth Crosby Noble. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Ruth Crosby Noble), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  01:25, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Featuring your work on Wikipedia's front page: DYKs

Thank you for your recent articles, including Jennette Lee, which I read with interest. When you create an extensive and well referenced article, you may want to have it featured on Wikipedia's main page in the Did You Know section (which I already see you are familiar with). Articles included there will be read by thousands of our viewers. To do so, add your article to the list at T:TDYK. This can be also done through this helpful user script: User:SD0001/DYK-helper. Let me know if you need help, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus: Thanks for the reminder. I usually nominate when I can think of a hook-y fact but in this case I couldn't think of anything about Jennette Lee that was easily hook-able. If we get Mr. Achilles above stub length that's a viable candidate ... AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia (If you are resident in the United States)

I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 18:06, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages.

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks for this lovely message - best wintry wishes to you as well :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		I've been following along with parts of your Socrates GA review and wanted to share a note of appreciation for your diligence. This is the stuff that makes Wikipedia great for readers, so thank you! czar 18:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, Czar! Finally, my undergraduate philosophy degree is being put to some use. Cinadon36 deserves a zillion barnstars for their diligent work on this article; responding to a review is a lot harder than writing one. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice words AleatoryPonderings! Your review improved the article drastically in many ways, from paying attention to details to balancing and correcting the text! Cinadon36 07:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Christmas and a prosperous 2022

	Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!!
	Hello AleatoryPonderings, warm wishes to you and your family throughout the holiday season. May your heart and home be filled with all of the joys the festive season brings. Here is a toast to a Merry Christmas and prosperous New Year!. scope_creepTalk 01:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

A somewhat premature New Year's greeting

John Vanderlyn, Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos (c.1812), Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts		Best wishes for a safe, healthy and prosperous 2022.
		Thank you for your contributions toward making Wikipedia a better and more accurate place. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 20:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC) Moral lesson: John Vanderlyn was an American painter who studied in Paris, and his life-sized Ariadne Asleep on the Island of Naxos was one of the first large nudes exhibited in the United States. Peddling the poison as well as the cure, this overtly sensuous work was presented to the public as a moral lesson on the consequences of lascivious behavior. Visible in the distance is the ship of Princess Ariadne's secret lover, Theseus, for whom she has betrayed her people by helping him to escape the Labyrinth and slay the Minotaur. Ariadne's bliss will come to an end when she awakens from her post-coital reverie, only to discover that the faithless Theseus has sailed away without her.

Happy premature New Year to you as well, BoringHistoryGuy. I will endeavour to leave lasciviousness behind in 2022. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:06, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Aww, WHY when it's so pleasureful? == BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 21:08, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Aleatory, thanks for your work this year! I wish you and yours all the best during this holiday season and into the new year. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Likewise! Hoping 2022 will bring with it happiness and at least some more normalcy. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

We can hope, at least. I do still own that book on Hall v. Decuir, but haven't gotten around to writing it, though I have every intention to. If you're interested, I've been doing some work on Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus recently-- rather timely and pretty interesting. There are some gaps I've been unable to fill, such as the history from 1950 to 1970 and RSs about its usage as an idiom, but I think it's approaching comprehensiveness. Hard to search thru all the reprints. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

@Eddie891, you're underselling the backstory of "Yes, Virginia", when at a quick scan I notice "Philip O'Hanlon, a coroner's assistant …". Not that I'm about to go write Coroner's assistant, but my goodness what a horrifying and intriguing occupation. All the awfulness of being a coroner and none of the glory. Regret to say that I'd forgotten about Hall v. Decuir until you mentioned it. Bizarre that we decided to create it and the book comes out a month or two later. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:49, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

Hello AleatoryPonderings, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, TheEagle107 (talk) 18:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

ITN recognition for Thomas Kinsella

On 28 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Thomas Kinsella, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Howdy AP! Hope the holidays are finding you well and in good spirits! Wishing you the best as we head into the new year! Regards, Ktin (talk) 06:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ktin: Same to you :) Hope you have a happy and healthy year to come. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your guidance, words of wisdom, and work on our boy. I cried the first time I saw it on a guided tour, and for an ekphrastic project, wrote about it. That later became its own published story, very different than the original, but still true to the emotional core of the painting. You said, "I love articles on obscure literary or artistic works because it's amazing how much you can say about them if you look hard enough". If you look hard enough, you'll find the shirt almost entirely void of any detail, both in the digitized painting and the real-life one. Wood's effort on Arnold's figure went almost entirely into his face - now, what can we make of that? I don't think we can say much other than love is there, and it's tangible. :) Thanks again. Urve (talk) 04:22, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Urve: What a beautiful message. Grateful to you for your erudition, diligence, and kindness. You've made the internet a brighter place for me and our readers. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for E. O. Wilson

On 30 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article E. O. Wilson, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. —Bagumba (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for J. D. Crowe

On 31 December 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article J. D. Crowe, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Stephen 03:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, AleatoryPonderings!

Happy New Year!

AleatoryPonderings,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Happy birthday

Happy birthday, AleatoryPonderings! Hope your travels are going smoothly . Sdrqaz (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Thanks :) Not travelling quite yet but I definitely need the good luck. Happy belated new year! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy new year! Hope that your 2022 is better than last year. Sdrqaz (talk) 19:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Happy birthday AP! Have a wonderful year ahead. Best wishes. Ktin (talk) 20:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ktin: Thanks a lot and same to you. Great to hear from you both :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:44, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Publication by subscription

On 8 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Publication by subscription, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 18th-century England, buyers could pay to include their coat of arms in some books published by subscription? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Publication by subscription. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Publication by subscription), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Lani Guinier

On 9 January 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Lani Guinier, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Black Kite (talk) 11:58, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for The Canadian Brothers

On 11 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Canadian Brothers, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after it bombed in Canada, John Richardson removed anti-American passages from The Canadian Brothers to publish it in New York? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Canadian Brothers. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Canadian Brothers), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prise d'Orange

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Prise d'Orange 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 Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding this ... I have also nominated Midnight Sun Mosque for GA in order to get it to DYK, after trimming down the part with the building description and adding more from a book I found online that reduces the reliance on some of the questionable sources you had concerns about at DYK (and eliminating one entirely).

Would you like to open the review and do it? You're more familiar with the article at this point than anyone else would be, and the DYKCRIT issues you correctly pointed to are moot at GA. I have actually been able to add some more info to the article, in fact.

I took the liberty of going over a hard copy of Prise d'Orange with my red pen this afternoon at Starbucks, and I bet I could get it turned around by the weekend and get back to you with my comments. Likewise, I don't think the mosque article would need much time, either.

Would this work? Daniel Case (talk) 22:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Yup, that seems a fair trade. I'll claim the Midnight Sun review and should hopefully get to it within the week. Planning some Covid-era travel in the next few days so that will hopefully not delay me too much ... AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:59, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Just want to apologize for not having been able to take this up yet ... an article expansion I've been working since a recent news event changed it is taking longer than I expected. Daniel Case (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: Not a problem. It's a 1000-year-old poem and there is WP:NODEADLINE. Btw, I have been watching the GAN page for Midnight Sun and was planning to respond to everything after your first round of responses is done. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 12:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Heilman

Happy belated birthday! And what a relief your work has been! It is pretty clear we not might have been able to do this without you.

Neither Amazon look inside, nor the TOC here, allow me a full view of which page numbers correspond to which chapter, and I can't covert your sfns without that. Are you able to email me, or post here somewhere, a TOC list with page numbers? The way I did this at DLB was {{sfn|Kosaka|2017|loc= Orimo S, Chapter 9, pp. 111–12}}. In this instance, I would add the author(s) and chapter title to the loc field, and retain the page nos you've already given. And now that I've typed that out, I am realizing it may be faster for you to that yourself than to have to email a TOC to me ... whichever is easiest for you, as I am happy to do the grunt work while you do the writing, as I know zero on literary topics. The deal is to use the loc field rather than just page nos ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Thanks for the good wishes and kindness. Didn't expect to be doing so much on JKR, but it's an important page worth rescuing and allows me to relive my childhood Pottermania through the lens of academic scholarship—and who wouldn't want that.

Probably easiest for me to do the grunting since I'm familiar with what's in the sources. Wasn't aware of loc before, but that seems reasonably simple and has the advantage of not requiring edit conflicts all over the place, and the inevitable flubs of author names and years, when one tries to replace an existing ref with an sfn. If I can amend the cites one by one I will be much less grumpy about it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Great! Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ack … I attached the 30 million to the 1.95 when I was aiming for the 19; thanks for catching that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:08, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

PS, I am starting to realize the article has source-to-text issues everywhere, and copyediting without checking every source is futile. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Np - I assumed it was something like that. (Or the GBP to USD exchange rate has really declined in recent years.) I have noticed the source-to-text discrepancies too. My AGF interpretation is that, over a decade plus, content that was originally right has morphed by a long game of telephone into statements that are half-wrong. My not-so-AGF interpretation is that people never cared enough about accuracy to begin with. Either way, it makes our job substantially harder. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Having been around the FA process for 15 years now, I would say it’s a bit of both. The original nominator was an astonomy editor, so she was perhaps a Potter fan just trying to do her best, and this was one of her first FAs when I suspect she was quite young. It’s in worse shape than I thought (although I believe you have mostly cleaned it up now), but what bugs me is that there are a gazillion Potter GAs out there that are worse. I think I’ve done all I can do for now, unless you all can find some more grunt work for me. Don’t want to think about tackling the transgender section until Victoria, Vandamonde and you are done with lit. Analysis. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I am making notes in sandbox on Smith bio, but you may want to add that material rather than me, as you are a) better writer and b) more familiar with Potter/Rowling, c) and more familiar with how literary articles are built and where to best add Influence info. By the way, one way to minimize the growing citation list is to just use my loc= trick to avoid citing each page number individually, and cite by chapter instead, eg, loc=Chapter 1: Opening the Chamber. See my dementia with Lewy bodies examples, where I cited to sections of articles (also because sometimes medical journal articles are not paginated so one has no choice). That gives you one citation instead of ten or twelve … not sure if others would object too overly broad page range though. Usually at around a ten-page range, people start objecting and wanting specifics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: You're too kind—as a 15-year FA veteran, I'd be inclined to trust any of your contribs over my own.

If I get the chance I may just try to read some of the bio chapters through start to finish and process what we might be missing or over-/under-emphasizing. Our bio drops off precipitously in depth in the late 90s, around when Stone was published. I think Anelli was 2010 or so, while Kirk and Smith are both early aughts, so there may not be a ton of book material after mid-00s, but I'll see.

Citing by chapter would be great to save some space/flow interruption in the prose. I'll probably do single pages or short ranges to start so I remember exactly where things are, but we could consolidate in a final polish. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Don't spend your precious time on stuff like that when I have Errington; he has all of that sort of material. Do you need me to check that, or anything else, because I'm not yet proficient with Google play ... let me know. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Already did it :) Getting my $33 worth (hope you saw the WMF just decided to give me a t-shirt :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

"I've spent over a decade editing and all I got was this lousy T-shirt." Well deserved :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I got more than that ... not in a good way, though ... unless one likes having stalkers. :) Sheesh, we have gone from no biographical info to suddenly needing to sort and balance all of it, so I'll be busy again for a few days! I have to sift through now Sean Smith, and the New Yorker article, and the Pugh stuff Victoria just gave me ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Eek. Sorry to hear about that. Hope that's in the past ... AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Not ... always an active concern. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Horrifying. I'm sorry. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That's what happens when you spend too much time editing around me, the Typo Queen of Fifteen Edits for the Price of One! (I hit a wall today of grief and didn't make much progress; tomorrow is a new day ... the article is looking great!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I am too tired and should not be editing but now it feels like we are So Close once we get (1) awards; (2) political controversies; and (3) lede settled. Progress can wait. It sounds like this week has been all kinds of awful. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep. Taking a day to relax may be a good thing :) I Need Chocolate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

PS, I still have a tonnawork to do on early life, but will try to do it in sandbox, because I make so many typos. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Maria Ewing

On 14 January 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Maria Ewing, which you nominated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 16:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

MF DOOM

Please revert the revert that you made on the MF DOOM page. It should always be ALL CAPS and is quite disrespectful to the dead mans one wish to have his name in ALL CAPS. 2601:44:0:1030:E0D3:F90D:C310:AC11 (talk) 19:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Nope. See the talk page for an extensive discussion of this very issue. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prise d'Orange

The article Prise d'Orange 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:Prise d'Orange for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Prise d'Orange

The article Prise d'Orange you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Prise d'Orange 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 Daniel Case -- Daniel Case (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Donn Piatt

On 16 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Donn Piatt, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Donn Piatt (pictured) threw his math teacher out of the window? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Donn Piatt. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Donn Piatt), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,153 views (1,179.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2022 – nice work!

Great! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Karen Ferguson

On 19 January 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Karen Ferguson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1976, Karen Ferguson founded the Pension Rights Center, a nonprofit pensioner advocacy organization, with encouragement and monetary support from Ralph Nader? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Karen Ferguson. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Karen Ferguson), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Citing Proquest

AP, re this addition, could you teach me how to cite Proquest via template as you do ? I access Proquest through my local library, which allows me to access from home. (Note that the second source I cite there is an editorial. I can't determine from Proquest if that is an NYT staff editorial, but it seems to be, so I think it an adequate source for "near the bottom of the list" rather than an opinion that needs attribution.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, I left notes on the timing of depression at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox6#Chapter 7: The Poverty Trap; no mention of an actual diagnosis, but all sources place the timing within the same range. We are skipping our friend's funeral because there will be too many unvaccinated in an enclosed space, so I plan to push through the rest of the bio today and hope to be adding text by tomorrow. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

So, if you wanted to template "'Potter' author joins Forbes billionaires list", what you need is the ProQuest doc id for the article. That will be in two places. The first place is the URL (which might be messier depending on how exactly you get to the article, but the doc ID should be there.) The URL for this article is https://www.proquest.com/docview/2598664063/4C5EE5EAF00D47AEPQ The doc ID is right after the "docview" bit: it's 2598664063. You can also find the doc ID if you click on the "details" panel on the left of the screen and control-F for "ProQuest document ID" (when I look at ProQuest it's right below "document type".) Then you just drop the doc ID in as the sole param of {{ProQuest}} and put that template in as the value of the id= param on whatever cite template you're using. So here it would be id={{ProQuest|2598664063}}.

The funeral situation sounds like the worst Covid nightmare I could imagine. I am so, so sorry. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, going to try to fix those with your instructions. Stay tuned to see if I mess up :) Funeral, ugh. Such a nice nice man, but was utterly anti-vax, and funeral will be filled with same. I am just sad at the futility, but dear hubby is furious at the man for being so stupid. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:34, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, I found a higher quality version of same (Los Angeles Times). The URL seems to indicate a doc id of 421875391 . And I get the same number with your ctrl-f on details method. So I would end up with:

• "Google Founders Join Forbes' Growing List of Billionaires". Los Angeles Times. 27 February 2004. p. C.3. ProQuest 421875391.

Is that correct? If so, I'm good to go and will fix the others ... do we need access-date when accessing via ProQuest? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks good to me! Link works and corresponds to the article in the template. I never put in accessdate because ProQuest (as I understand it) is an archival database so it would be v odd if the articles in it changed all the time/accessdate is really only useful if you have an archive-link on the WayBack machine anyway. But it's up to you. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Thanks! OK, back to reading Smith and taking notes ... once I do start putting prose together, your talents will be needed (again) for fixin' prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Like I said back on my talk (re "if this is the worst thing that happens"), I absolutely know and respect your well-meaning intentions. You perhaps were not aware of the long-simmering tensions between some of the article's regular editors, and could not have known that we had not yet heard from most of them before you launched the draft, so you probably had no idea at that point what you were walking in to.

I am going to try to work on the early bio today, but I just can't work well with so many distractions, as is showing in my edits, so I am determined to focus in my sandbox today. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: Yes, I was completely oblivious and apparently walked straight in to a pile-on of my own devising. As you observed, my first edit was 11 days ago (was it really that recently? Feels like forever ...), so anything before that would be news to me. Sorry if I've seemed cross. Sometimes I need to remind myself that debating with anonymous people on the internet is not the most consequential thing to be worrying about.

Thanks again for your note. I am stepping back from mainspace editing too. On my list is a section on race in HP—nowhere near done; will require a lot of research—although I am loath to step in to another controversial section at this time. I might also rework the graf on Cursed Child, which reads like a press release rn and would not take too much effort to get up to snuff. I also have school work piling up so I'll be less available generally from here on in; I am not about to let this article make me fail my last semester of law school, no matter how much I'd like to retain the star. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I, unfortunately, have earned my scars over the years of editing, and had an idea of what was ahead. Regardless of the outcome, we will leave the article in better shape, and you should know that is hugely thanks to you. But it's the internet; we can't control outcomes, we can only do our best, and that is what we're doing. Keep your focus on that law degree! All the bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Encouragement

Hi, AP; I'm here to offer some encouragement. Perhaps because by encouraging you and Olivaw-Daneel, I can also drag myself out of my whiney place, where I went after two setbacks in less than a week.

First, always keep in mind that, no matter what happens at JKR, the article is immensely better for your efforts. I don't think that would have happened at all if not for your first bold addition of literary analysis, that kicked the effort off, and O-D's persistent and speedy additions and improvements.

Second, I hope you realize that I mostly stay out of the literary analysis because it's not an area I know. If you can figure out how to make the overall flow of the article work better, I think you should just try it. I wouldn't mind at all being able to read the personal life without having to detour into the literary analysis, which is of less interest to me anyway; I just haven't been able to figure out how to make that work. Rough it out in sandbox maybe? It's hard to know what else to advise when other editors have not been able to fully and consistently engage, and with starts and stops and restarts. I wish we were getting more feedback, but it is what it is.

Third, if we are in a stall, do we let it rest a bit and hope others will catch up, or does it make sense to try to move forward and encourage discussion on sources in the Transgender section, or do we still need to let that rest a bit as well? It's unclear to me why we don't get more feedback on the FAR, other than people being busy and not keeping up.

All in all, just wanted to thank you for all the amazing work, encourage you to try to improve the flow if you can find a way to do it, and remind you to keep your chin up! No matter what, we can't break Wikipedia, and the article is so much better for the effort. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, SandyGeorgia. I've been editing less for two main reasons: (1) not wanting to wade into controversy again; and (2) because a lot of the low-hanging fruit is taken care of. As I see it, the remaining to-dos are: transgender, lede, and overall copy-editing and flow. The first two are controversial and the last is just hard because good writing is hard. And then there seems to be general dissatisfaction with the literary analysis section (or whatever we're calling it these days), which is hard to address because there are few concrete proposals about what to add or remove.

All in all, I feel like I've hit a wall—and maybe the limited FAR participation over the past while indicates that we've collectively hit a wall. I guess trying to tackle the transgender section should be our biggest priority, but having made a bold and unsuccessful proposal for improvement I don't have either the emotional energy or the political capital to restart that discussion. I don't think it's too early to restart it, but I don't want to (or think I should) be the one to restart it. Another option would be to try and find some fresh eyes to look the whole article over and give some concrete proposals for improvement. But, of course, that's what FAR is supposed to be for ...

Again, thank you. My honest take right now is: I want to keep making JKR better, but I don't know what I should be doing. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That's about where I am. Wise old advice; when you don't know what to do next, do nothing! If we aren't yet in the right frame of mind, not a good time to dig in to the transgender work. And I am too discouraged by the starts and stops to want to wade into controversy right now. Maybe something will change within the next week; there's no pressure at FAR. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia, thanks for the encouragement. I don't feel like I've hit a wall – I'm fully engaged with the Literary analysis section, and in the stage of reading (skimming) sources and taking notes rather than editing in mainspace. I'm done with 2 books, and have 2 more to go, and I'm finding some of the HP essays fascinating (my favorite so far is the Veronica Shanoes chapter in Anatol's book which focuses on Snape).

I definitely have plans for that section, and might be done by the end of the week. I just think it benefits from planning/structuring after seeing the consensus among sources, rather than making daily changes, so that's what I'm working on. Olivaw-Daneel (talk) 00:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That is encouraging news! Hope your FLC on the Awards article comes through soon, Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Appreciation for work on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland

I'm grateful for the effort you spent on Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. It's a much better article now by far. It represents all the work I could have done (well, maybe), or would have done (had I been less listless), or should have done (which is a moot point now, thanks to you). Again, thanks much. It's appreciated. _signed, Willondon (talk) 00:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@Willondon: Thanks for your note! I was pretty horrified at the shape it was in when I first took a detailed look, so grabbed my hammer and chisel and tried to carve out something more tractable. GA status is a thought for the medium/long term, but I'd need to do a whack of reading and rewriting before I'd consider nominating. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:05, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Anne Rice Award

		Anne Rice Award
		The Anne Rice Award honors editors who have improved Wikipedia's coverage of women writers by creating a biography of a women writer who used a pen name, nom de plume, literary initials, or pseudonym on the title page or by-line of their works in place of their real name. On behalf of WP:WPWW, thank you for creating the biography on Natalie Anderson Scott, who sometimes wrote as Natalie B. Sokoloff. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Rosiestep! What a pleasant surprise. Sadly it's but a lowly stub right now, but better than nothing I suppose. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Reading books

• User talk:Drmies#Héloïse

Uncle G (talk) 08:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Children's lit

Hi, Aleatory. Hope all is well. I've been following the great work you've been doing on Prise-- let me know if you want me to take a second read through over there. I'm hoping to draw on your experience with children's authors and lit. What do you think of the state of Kate DiCamillo? I'm considering/hoping polishing up to FA, but am not sure if it has the legs. Do you think that's possible? No worries if you dont have the time. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey Eddie. I just picked up a pile of library books on Prise and am hoping to get through them in a week or two, assuming IRL commitments permit. Another look from you or others might be nice once I'm done with that. Have you had any luck with peer review in the past?

Not sure if I have time to commit to doing major help on Kate DiCamillo in the near term but if there's anything specific you'd like a hand with I'd give it a shot. My initial impressions are on Talk:Kate DiCamillo. Great work so far. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

ANI

Well, never noticed the page history for the indeffed user. Oh well, this is giving me problems...A very sneaky move... Severestorm28 01:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Severestorm28: No problem—I wouldn't have checked their talk page history either. All's well. A creative bit of vandalism they decided to engage in, I'll give them that. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Your G. E. Moore edit

I’ve corrected your edit and replaced the reference you inserted, to the subscription–only Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, with something more accessible. If Baldwin’s entry in DNB supports your edit then I’m afraid he’s wrong. This article refers to the number of children of Daniel Moore and Henrietta Sturge. GE Moore was the fourth child of Daniel and Henrietta, although he was Daniel’s fifth child. Daniel had 8 children, first a daughter Annie Harriette (1856–1951) with Anna Miller, who died after childbirth; then 7 with Henrietta Sturge, being Thomas Sturge (1870–1944), Daniel Henry (1871–1948), Henrietta (1872–1962), George Edward (1873–1958), Helen (1874–1919), Joseph Herbert (1876–1955), and Sarah Hannah (1878–1931). regards John beta (talk) 07:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@John beta: The DNB entry is available here, as I indicated by adding a link to the Internet Archive in my reference, and it says "the third son and the fifth child of the eight children of Daniel Moore ... and his second wife, Henrietta Sturge". I trust the DNB over an archive blurb. What high-quality source supports your view? Is it Levy's biography? That's also available on the Internet Archive, and p 29 also indicates that Daniel and Henrietta had eight children. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I explained above in detail the family structure for your information so that you can see why some authors might be confused about the difference between Daniel's children, and Daniel and Henrietta's children. I've also provided a citation for G.E. Moore's personal papers at the Cambridge University Library. I would trust the author of the "blurb" whose detail indicates an interest in getting it right, particularly since a knowledge of the family structure is important in reviewing Moore's correspondence. Another reliable reference is Gwynn's Sturge Moore and the Life of Art, page 9. There are others.

It's no use willfully repeating sweeping statements from third hand observers such as Baldwin, for whom getting Moore's genealogy correct was of no interest. The DNB is only as good as its contributors. There's no peer review of articles - errors are down to the respective authors, so this one is on Tom Baldwin.

I've picked up more serious and obvious errors in the Australian Dictionary of Biography and getting them to make corrections to the online version has proved impossible. If the number quoted in WP is meant to include the total of Daniel and Henrietta's children and step-children then the article should say so. regards John beta (talk) 02:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

John beta, Thomas Baldwin is the foremost Moore scholar working today. What's the issue with the Levy biography, which also reports eight children? [Checked again-Levy does report seven.] The link to the kuscholarworks source does not work for me.

You have indeed listed some names above, but you have not shown to my satisfaction that this list is a correct representation of the facts. I'm not willfully repeating sweeping statements; I'm citing reliable sources—which, in any event, are not making "sweeping statements": they are making narrow assertions of fact. Further, with your permission, I would like to move this discussion to Talk:G. E. Moore, because it is pertinent to the content of the article and not just our personal disagreement. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Baldwin's expertise in Moore's works has nothing to do with any interest in Moore's childhood family life. He has attempted to simplify the slightly complicated family structure by a sweeping statement. I would have hoped two references with a more detailed description of the family structure are enough for this article.

I suggest you look again at the Gwynn reference, the link is https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/bitstream/handle/1808/6344/upk.sturge_moore.pdf - Nelson would have been proud of you. regards John beta (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

That link works; the previous one didn't, because it didn't have the underscore that you added in this new version. I am now convinced of your view. Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONS on my motives and, in future, WP:INDENT replies correctly. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, for Nelson comment forgot to include

John beta (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Changing citation-style

Hello, I saw that you converted the citation-style found in the article Principia Ethica to the sfn-format. This usually shouldn't be done without seeking a talk-page consensus first, see WP:CITEVAR. I don't feel very strongly about the change for this particular article, so this is intended more as a heads-up for future edits. Phlsph7 (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: The style was already all over the place: some CS1 (not done consistently), references named according to an editor's own preference, some using {{rp}}. CITEVAR is only relevant when there is already a consistent style and where refs already provide needed bibliographic data, neither of which was universally the case before my series of edits. I was going through and verifying the refs so I figured I would make it consistent using sfns, which are the easiest and best style for multi-page books.

Btw, the reason I removed Enzyklopädie Philosophie und Wissenschaftstheorie was because it is (1) inaccessible even to someone like me with university subscriptions; and (2) not in English. The combination makes it very difficult to verify whether the information is accurate. Any claim about Principia, including the method of isolation, should be readily verifiable in English-language scholarship, and I did not see the claim verified in my search of the sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that English sources are to be preferred. But that a reliable source is non-English is not a sufficient ground to remove it and the claim it justifies, see WP:NOENG. In this particular case, the claim in question is not controversial: it mainly clarifies and expands the previous claim, which is backed by English sources. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings I have access to (the current version of) this source if you want a third party to verify something from it, and we could supply the original German in the notes to help future readers. But at a quick skim through the article history I'm not sure this is necessary - reads fine to me as it stands now? -- asilvering (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Asilvering: If you have access to the source and would like to add a quotation, feel free! At some point I will look for an English source that verifies the claim. @Phlsph7: I continue to look for an English source because I am not sure the claim is uncontroversial. The claim is The test is meant to remove any considerations of the thing being good as a means by isolating the intrinsic values. This may run into the concern that Christine Korsgaard identifies in doi:10.2307/2184924, namely that intrinsic/extrinsic value and instrumental/final goodness are two different sets of concepts. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

According to this source, Moore uses the terms "good as an end" and "intrinsically good" as synonyms. This would suggest that he does not observe this distinction, which, I think, has only been used in the more contemporary discourse. Phlsph7 (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: Mm, good point. If I get a chance I will read and integrate Duncan-Jones's piece into Principia Ethica. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

We could use it as a secondary source for this claim, but it may not be sufficient alone: I didn't check whether it also talks about the method of isolation. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Exasperation

Sorry for sounding/feeling so short at JKR. It's not JKR. I spent five hours yesterday cleaning up citations for Wikipedia:Featured article review/D. B. Cooper/archive1‎, only to discover most of the text either failed verification or was cited to unreliable sources. And resumed today with continued discussion of same. It reminds me of how I felt the day you discovered how much of JKR was cited to accio-quote, but at least in that case, I knew we had competent editors on board who would get the job done. So, all-in-all, not a good two days to be trying to wrap up the interim lead, which deserves full and good-humored focus :) I am wondering if we need to start over. Or maybe just put something in, knowing that we will fix it on the next round, when the TG section isn't hanging over our heads. I dunno, but too tired, and in too much of a D. B. Cooper-inspired bad mood, to think strategically. So, my reminder to self; tomorrow will be a better day! Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: You took on a thankless task of incorporating criticisms from many editors, including me, into an interim draft. It's only natural that that, plus DB Cooper, would be taxing. I don't think it's necessary to start over with JKR. Maybe once we've all slept on it we can incorporate everything into a single, new, close-to-final version. I think I was the last holdout among the JKR regulars so it's quite close. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Whew, I'm glad you feel we're close; perhaps I was just succumbing to the going backwards feel of the Cooper FAR. Thanks for the good cheer, hasta mañana then! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Bruce Duffy

On 13 March 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Bruce Duffy, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. PFHLai (talk) 14:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Make Way for Ducklings FAR

I have nominated Make Way for Ducklings for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. AP, hoping you might have a look and enter opinions. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Million award for J. K. Rowling

	The Million Award
	For your contributions to bring J. K. Rowling (estimated annual readership: 3,305,284) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

What an amazing collaboration; kudos! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: A highlight not only of my WP career but of my life as a reader and writer. Sometimes this project just works. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Writer's Barnstar
		AleatoryPonderings, you've more than earned this barnstar for your amazing work on J.K. Rowling: initiating and continuing your tireless work on the literary analysis section, contributing to the talk page discussions throughout, helping everywhere, generally being extremely impressive! It's a great achievement. Congrats! Victoria (tk) 23:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Victoriaearle. I know we clashed at times but please know I hold you and your contributions in nothing but the highest esteem. This was a huge group effort and I was glad to work with you on it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks that's very nice. I owe you (and everyone else) a belated apology for being so cranky. It wasn't a clash, it was simply my own frustration at knowing the project required more than I was capable of handling. Sorry about that. Victoria (tk) 15:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No apologies necessary! It was a stressful project at times, these are stressful times, and all's well that ends well. Hope to see you around in the literature area in future. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Eddie891 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

AleatoryPonderings has done remarkable work over the past two-ish years and is a model editor who exemplifies the best of the attributes that an editor can bring to the encyclopedia. Whether it's writing bios on Women in Red (such as Katherine Garrison Chapin, which he brought to GA), writing about court cases and literature, filling in major gaps in our coverage, or doing the leg work at WP:WIR, WP:ITN/WP:ITNRD, and WP:AFD, they bring a great team approach to their work that always makes it a pleasure to work with them. He has fast become an invaluable contributor to the encyclopedia. Whitey Schafer, Prise d'Orange, Seneca mission, and Photography in Canada are just a few examples of his remarkable work. Additionally, he is one of the most friendly people on the site, always happy to help other people out-- just look at the stellar work they have put in (with many others) over at Wikipedia:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1. This nomination was seconded by Ktin and User:Mr Serjeant Buzfuz

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 16:46, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

What a lovely message to receive! I'm blushing :) Thanks a million to @Eddie891, Ktin, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, and Buster7 for this. Highlight of my week. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Well deserved, congrats! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:53, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely well deserved, AleatoryPonderings! Hope all is well. Ktin (talk) 03:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Congrats, echoing well deserved. -- Otr500 (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious

One year!

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, AleatoryPonderings! Your work on J. K. Rowling has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Religious debates over the Harry Potter series Featured article review

I have nominated Religious debates over the Harry Potter series for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Appraisal rights

On 1 August 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Appraisal rights, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that shareholders who object to some transactions can use appraisal rights to make the company buy their shares? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Appraisal rights. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Appraisal rights), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Dan Cherek RfA

It seems that you accidentally removed my vote. Was this intentional? —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@VersaceSpace: Whoops, certainly not intentional - I had an edit conflict and must have overwritten yours. Really sorry! Probably easiest if you just add yours back unless there's a procedure for this sort of thing I'm not aware of. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 03:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Nope, no procedure (least not that I know of), I'll go and re-add it. —VersaceSpace 🌃 03:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP Award for 2020

		The New Page Patroller's Barnstar
		For over 100 article reviews during 2020. Thank you for patrolling new pages and helping us out with the backlog! -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Here is a barnstar to show appreciation for the NPP reviews you did back in 2020. We realize this is late, but NPP fell behind in some coordination activities. We are just getting caught up. If you don't want to receive "old" barnstars, please just ignore this and reply (with a ping) to let us know not to send you any more. Also, we notice you haven't been very active here recently, and hope you will consider increasing your participation. The backlog is relatively high and we could really use your help. Regardless, thanks again for your past effort. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Plutocrats - 2013 - Cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Plutocrats - 2013 - Cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays. ―Buster7 ☎ 20:57, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Woodbridge Company, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Thomson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 13 June 2023 (UTC)