User talk:AleatoryPonderings/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hi there, I noticed you recently edited Brian Krebs and Chris Krebs to remove the distinguish template I had previously added. I think it still makes sense to have the template in there as they are two different people who share a surname and both work in cybersecurity. Perhaps I'm the only one who thought this but I've known about Brian Krebs for a long time - Chris Krebs only became notable more recently, and so when I heard that a Krebs had been appointed to a cybersecurity post in the U.S. federal government, I assumed it had to be Brian Krebs. Without the hatnote, similarly confused readers might make the incorrect assumption that Chris Krebs is the cybersecurity journalist. Brian is also commonly known by his surname due to his website name "Krebs On Security". So I feel like there should at least be some mention on the two pages to help prevent confusion. Curious to know your thoughts. Paradoxsociety 19:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Paradoxsociety, I don't feel that strongly about it, but I just don't really see how readers would confuse two people with different first names who work in the same field. The documentation on {{distinguish}} says, in part, that the template should only be used when the ambiguity exists for a portion of the readership that is sufficient to warrant a hatnote. I won't revert you if you add the hatnote back; I just don't really see ambiguity here. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

This is for your information: Wikipedia policies permit the use of Primary sources when they are used with discretion. See

) 03:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena, His foreign policy views previous to the administration are described in reliable sources and should not be removed without consensus. As for primary sources, they can may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. You were using them to indicate Blinken's views on foreign policy, which is not a straightforward fact that can be presented with primary sources only. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:51, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, by having a referenced link to the YouTube video (a source permitted), all that was added in the edit can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source. This is plain to us, therefore, there was no valid reason to expunge the edit. The "fact" is not what he will do, in essence, but of rather what he said he would do.Davidbena (talk) 03:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena, My point is that it's not a straightforward description of a fact. It's a (vague) statement of his policy, which we need secondary sources to interpret for us. Blinken has made hundreds of public statements; secondary sources are needed to select the important ones and interpret them. If all that were required to include a statement by a public figure were a YouTube link verifying that they said it, Wikipedia would consist entirely of quotes from primary sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you're right that Blinken's statement is not a straightforward description of a "fact," if we say that the "fact" refers to how he intends to implement his projected foreign policy goals, but it is, indeed, an accurate expression of fact when you consider that all Blinken was simply saying was what his goals happen to be, viz. "to pursue a foreign policy that delivers real benefits to American families, protects their safety, advances their opportunities, honors their values, and leaves their children and their grandchildren a healthier, more peaceful world." In your view, Wikipedia cannot cite any person's stated projected goals or ambitions (being that they are too vague, and seeing that we will never know how exactly he intends to implement his goal unless expressly stated in a secondary source). Perhaps you can ask an Administrator whether or not stated goals of a politician can be cited on Wikipedia by making use of a Primary source.Davidbena (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

undue weight to their (self-interested) representations. Administrators are not infallible interpreters of policy; their opinions count no more than yours or mine. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!

) 04:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Still, your view does not accurately represent Wikipedia's policy, and, no, not all will make use of Primary sources, since as a first resort we are to cite Secondary sources, and only as last resort (and with discretion) we can cite a Primary source. And, yes, no man is unassailable.Davidbena (talk) 04:54, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Davidbena, If you wish to include the quotation from Blinken, please take it to that article's talk page. Quite apart from my views on using primary sources, I also think that the quotation would add very little encyclopedic value if it were included—it's very difficult to pin down exactly what it's meant to say. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, in that, my friend, I agree with you. The quote is not so important and, looking back in retrospect, it will add very little to the article. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

• Thanks again for your help on this article-- it means a lot! DYK #50 for me. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:43, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

  Eddie891, No problem—glad to have been able to learn about the topic. Congrats on your DYK golden jubilee! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:46, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick assistance on Shirley Toulson! Possibly (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Possibly, Thanks! Not quite happy hour here, but I'll save it for later :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you explain why you want to delete my page. Itsactuallyrig (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Itsactuallyrig, I explained my rationale at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Akerlof. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:31, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings sorry, I am new to Wikipedia so I don’t really know that much about it. Itsactuallyrig (talk) 19:34, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Wait so how do I write the Wikipedia articles Itsactuallyrig (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I realize there is

) 18:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

United States secretary of state is a perfectly valid link that's just as specific as United States Secretary of State. SPECIFICLINK is about directing readers to the most relevant article. We are agreed that the most specific link is to the article on the position of US secretary of state, which is linked to by both of these links. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!

) 18:27, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: But it still leads to a redirect, which doesn't have to be necessary, that's my point. Snickers2686 (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Snickers2686, I think a redirect that leads to the same page is a fair compromise that conforms as best as it can with both guidelines. SPECIFICLINK is ultimately about, well, specificity, not about whether you see a "redirected from" flag at the top of the page. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Hey AleatoryPonderings,

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!

On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,

-- janbery (talk) 02:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Janbery, Thanks very much for your note! I've just emailed the address above. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi AP, nice work on Iroquois related articles! I did some work on Buck, though you'll have to let me know if its an improvement. I have two drafts in mind of related topics, User:Eddie891/1885 Electoral Franchise Act and User:Eddie891/Seth Newhouse, if you're interested. Do let me know if you plan to work on them and I'll start using {{in use}}. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891, Thanks very much for the work on Buck—definitely an improvement! Hadn't thought to break out Newspapers.com for him, so thanks for doing that. Btw: did you come across anything that explained clearly what the significance of the name Skanawati is? I assumed it was a ceremonial title, but didn't come across anything that set out in detail what it means.

Both drafts, and especially the Electoral Franchise Act, look very interesting indeed. (I normally zealously guard my identity, but I have to note that I'm a law student in Canada, so any articles about Canadian legislation are obviously in my wheelhouse.) I'm a bit overwhelmed with non-wiki stuff at the moment, though, so serious wikiresearch on my end will probably have to wait a bit; no need for {{in use}} at the moment.

I've actually been hanging out on Wikisource the past few days, since it's lower-stress than the 'pedia and gives a nice opportunity to do some non-professionally-related reading while still doing some wikistuff: just started a transcription of Justice and Jurisprudence, as it happens (see wikisource:Index:Justice and Jurisprudence - 1889.pdf). That will be a very long-term project, but I figured I'd at least have a start. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:40, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Good luck on your transcript-- looks like quite the effort! I tried Wikisource out once. It didn't fit well. I'm unfortunately not very well versed in Iroquois naming customs, but this is a relevant article, if you have time. Basically, as I understand it, the Iroquois had no written language (though quite a few spoken ones) and names came from the things around them, like geographic features, animals, plants, occupations. A person might have multiple names if they were particularly prominent. In this case, the name is translated as "beyond the swamp"-- at least according to my contemporary source-- but I don't think there's any particular significance.

Good luck as well with off-wiki life, and if at some point in the future you have more time and interest, well, I'll still be here. Cheers, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:57, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

—valereee (talk) 00:02, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi,

I missed the discussion on page deletion of Sharon Keenan which I edited on Wikipedia.

I was wondering if I can add to the post review about the lack of verification?

I would like to put forward a couple of points if I may?

The reason I put the page together was because, she is an artist of note in England, United Kingdom, where her work is distributed quite widely within the country. She may have not been a vigorous promoter of her talent and she is not a big internet user from what I can see, her work is to be seen in some public and private locations.

While it was noted in the discussion pre-deletion that her work has been located on different auction sites, I came across the artist from an association with her at the Heather College of Fine Art where she gave tutorials and lectures on Art over her many years as well as being on the board of Governors in the college. This is mentioned in her biography.

The picture of the bust of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is a copy of the bust that was presented to her by the artist in Buckingham Palace although I don't have a record of it myself, I know that she presented the statue to her.

I would like to say there is a reference to Sharon Keenan on the Wiki page for Admiral Rooke in Gibraltar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Rooke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Rooke#/media/File:Rooke_1704.jpg

The photo and wiki page has her name referenced so the wiki page could be linked to her (deleted) page, if it was re-instated.

In reply to "Vexations" comment on verification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vexations, there is a link to her Biography on a linkedin page listed here from which I posted most of the information. https://www.linkedin.com/in/sharon-keenan-88563a7a/ This is the best I can do for independent verification on Vexations comments, it may not be a NYT article but she was quite well know in art circles in the UK.

If the page is allowed, and I would appreciate of you can re-consider her for re-instatement would there be a copy of the original page somewhere? I don't have a copy of the page.

I would appreciate your comments.

Much obliged, Karl -- NatrualEdit1888 (talk) 21:25, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:REFUND. Alternatively, Tone, the deleting administrator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Keenan, may be able to assist you. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!

) 18:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea is add the words, "The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article." to what is already there in the template.

Before:

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

After:

This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies. The payer for the editing is not necessarily the subject of the article.

The idea came about from the sockpuppet investigation discussed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/VentureKit/Archive in which over 87 articles got the undisclosed paid editing template, and I'm writing to you because you removed that template from the article on DoorDash on 23:25, 9 December 2020, and so would have some familiarity with the events.

My view is that this is just one additional sentence and provides helpful information to readers about what the situation is (based on how editors are using that template, say for example in sockpuppet investigations).

CUPIDICAE💕 has said that it's silly and unnecessary, and may elaborate further on that.

As of this writing nobody else has responded.

Please feel free to offer any thoughts on it at the RfC.

Also, if you aren't inclined to respond there, just feel free to offer any thoughts at all here on this talk page.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Happy St. Patrick's Day! I hope your St. Patrick's Day is enjoyable and safe. Hopefully next year there will be more festive celebrations. Best wishes from Los Angeles.   // Timothy :: talk  — Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 17 March 2021

Perhaps unsurprisingly, since its cleanup the page

) 18:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Success (concept) back to my watchlist and will keep an eye out for any unhelpful changes. Periodic reversion seems the best/only option, given that the changes aren't so frequent that semi-protection would be warranted. Hope you and yours are well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!

) 18:32, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the well-wishes and can definitely sympathize with the "general life things". I've also scaled back and tried to re-prioritize my wiki work, due to fatigue more than anything else.

talk

) 18:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Howdy!

Saw your edit after a long time. Hope all's well and you are staying safe with the lockdown, variants etc. I myself have not been too frequent here given all off-wiki commitments. Fingers crossed for better times soon. Ktin (talk) 05:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Ktin, Good to hear from you! All is (sort of) well with me, but here in Ontario we're at the worst stage of the pandemic so far, which is quite disheartening. I've also been busy with off-wiki things for the past while, and also just got tired with the wiki-churn for a bit. Now back in a moderate capacity, at least for the moment. Best wishes to you and yours. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:46, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. Just been too overwhelmed and helpless with all the news coming in from back home in India. Fingers crossed and hoping for better times soon. Ktin (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Ktin, No need for apologies. My fingers are certainly crossed too. Hope the crisis passes as soon as it possibly can. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:39, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

) 14:40, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

The article

) 18:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Done some expansion on the case, very interesting story. How do you think it looks? Seriously considering buying the new book, we might be able to get the article to GA or FA... Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:22, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891, Thanks for all your work. Seems like we basically swapped articles: you pretty much wrote Hall v. Decuir, and I wrote Electoral Franchise Act!

In terms of GA/FA, for me the biggest gap is a thorough overview of what the relevant constitutional law is, and what impact Hall had on it. A reader without a good grounding in US constitutional law would still be a bit confused reading it, I think. That's no fault of yours, of course: it would take serious legal research to do it justice (so to speak).

We could probably CC-BY-SA some of the background from Commerce Clause and maybe Plessy v. Ferguson, but if we were to take this "all the way" I'd want to do some serious reading of my own in something like The Commerce Clause under Marshall, Taney, and Waite or The Supreme Court and the Commerce Clause, 1937-1970. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, we certainly did! I certainly don't think it's ready yet, and I agree the weakest aspect is likely to be the legal aspect/constitutional background. There's also definitely a lot more to be written about the court's actual decision. And I think we might come across tens of other articles in need of writing. Do let me know whether you're up for it, I don't think I can handle the legal aspect on my own, though I can do a fair amount.

With relation to the book itself, I'd be more than happy to purchase it and scan relevant pages/chapters/sections over to you.

Do you think the R. H. Marr mentioned there is Robert Hardin Marr? His article would benefit from some more context on his being a "vocal proponent of white supremacy" &c. Let me know how you're feeling and best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'll be starting a job as a lawyer in a week so I'm not sure how much free time (or desire!) I'll have to be doing hardcore extracurricular legal research then. So any substantial ramp-up in terms of quality would have to be over the long term from my perspective. Not that I'm not interested, of course—just not sure what my schedule will be like.

As for the book, I'd happily look at any relevant sections, but please do not feel obligated to buy or excerpt it on my account.

I think these Marrs are the same. Scott cites Lane's The Day Freedom Died on Marr, and Lane in turn refers to the Marr in question as "Robert H. Marr". A Robert H. Marr who was a prominent lawyer in Louisiana with dates of 1819–1892 seems very likely to be Robert Hardin Marr (although, at least in the sections I have access to, Lane does not refer to him as a "future Louisiana Supreme Court justice" or similar). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Congrats on the job and good luck! I'll order the book and see what happens from there. All the best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

REPORTING ME AND HAVING ME BLOCKED WON’T SCARE ME AWAY FROM KEEPING YOUR EDITS OFF THE PAGE I CREATED AND EXTENSIVELY EDITED. Welshale (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

WP:CONSENSUS that it is not appropriate. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!

) 03:53, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	Apropos of nothing, your username was stuck in my head for multiple consecutive hours yesterday whilst I jackhammered away at the concrete of my jobsite. I don't know how I'm familiar with you but you seem good folk <3 Folly Mox (talk) 06:01, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

@Folly Mox: Thank you! I go back and forth on it myself—sometimes it seems fun and whimsical; other times it seems clunky and ostentatious. But I'm glad (astounded? impressed?) that it made some impact somewhere in this cold world … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:08, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Nice to see the article dyk'd. Hope the new job is going well-- I've gotten the book on Hall but haven't cracked it open yet. Today I've returned to Native American/First Peoples articles with Everett report-- fascinating to me, I never learned about it and I grew up in central new york. Lotsa associated redlinks, if you happen to be bored with work ever! Our coverage of indigenous peoples is pretty atrocious in places. QOTD: “The basic trouble is the contention of title to the soil in what is erroneously called New York State…” -- Lulu G. Stillman. Hope you're well. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:23, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Eddie891, New job is going well but, as predicted, leaving little time/inclination for research out of work hours. Dearth of articles is saddening but not surprising. Title issues are a massive and important topic. If I were feeling adventurous I would look into providing secondary sources on Aboriginal title, which (like many law articles) is pretty much straight OR. Best wishes to you as well! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:24, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Precious

You are recipient no.

) 12:48, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Gerda Arendt, Thank you so much! What a lovely surprise at the end of a long week :) Very much appreciated. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello there. Would you mind reviewing/editing the page for

? She is currently a colleague of mine, and half of the citations currently on her page are from partisan sources like Revolving Door and American Prospect. Another colleague (User:66.44.56.186) and I (User:98.26.34.63) have attempted to correct factual errors and add more information about her professional history, but as unbiased as we may attempt to be, we do clearly have COI. I want to avoid an edit war with KidAd while honoring Wikipedia's standards of notability and neutrality.

One remaining factual error is that she was not a co-founder of International Capital Strategies. She is, however, the current CEO.

Thank you. --Dkingsmill (talk) 15:55, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Did not realise you'd nominated

) 13:36, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your edit re the research by Prof. Blair but her review and analysis of one such source.. did show a quite different view of newspaper ( working class) poetry. The inclusion was indeed not meant as promo and apologies for any errors in tone. If there is another way to link the two, I'd be glad to helpm

PS I confirm that I do not know her nor have any associated links to her or her publications ..just including new female FRSEs in the encyclopedia (for what they do that got them recognised!)

Thanks - any advice is welcome. Kaybeesquared (talk) 14:46, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Kaybeesquared, If you have access to Blair's book or other scholarship she has written on newspaper poetry, it would be appropriate to summarize the conclusions of her research in that article. Your edit, however, did not say much about newspaper poetry. Rather, the edit appeared intended to praise Blair and promote her work in general terms—as opposed to explaining how her research helps us to understand newspaper poetry better. That is why I reverted it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:57, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, Thanks for that helpful suggestion, I will see if I can do this edit soon.

Kaybeesquared (talk) 16:34, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Recently, I've stumbled upon and uploaded an image showcasing a mural of Doom and Dilla, able to be found in the latter's article:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MF_Doom,_J_Dilla_mural.jpg. Considering you and I did the GA review for Doom's article, I wanted to tell you and see if you think it fits for his article, It is ostensibly more of a mural to Dilla, referencing the

) 13:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

DMT Biscuit, Thanks for the heads-up. As far as I can see the two didn't work together much or at all? I did this search and couldn't find much of interest. So I don't think it's a great fit for MF Doom at present; in fact, I removed the mention of J Dilla in Doom's infobox because the article didn't mention Dilla either. If you can find more evidence of collaboration than I was able to, feel free to add it to the article and then maybe the photo would make more sense. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

It does appear to conceived off their reputations rather than a working relationship -

27 club-esque. Two alt-hip hop legends gone too soon. Perusing the fans' knowledge of collaborations showcase general respect and speculation - because of course MF Doom fans speculate, personally I think Mr. Fantastik is an effects-laden Doom. DMT Biscuit (talk

) 15:11, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

DMT Biscuit, Intriguing theory - looks like I'll need to listen to Mm..Food again … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:13, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi - I see you are also interested in CH Alexandrowicz. Do you know if he was the son of the Austrian general Franciszek Aleksandrowicz ? The dates are right and they both come from Lviv, and fits with what the obit in the British Yearbook of International Law says - but I can't yet find a proper source for it. Dorset100 (talk) 22:56, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Dorset100: Yes, looks like he was. See p 3 of "This Modern Grotius". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:41, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - he's an interesting and I think important character who seems to have been somewhat overlooked. When I get the chance I will see if I can expand the article, especially if I can find some good sources that explain the significance of his work. Dorset100 (talk) 10:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi

You have removed an edit which I have made to Sally Rooney's page. this edit is in full compliance with wikipedia rules, and I am not getting involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict like you imply but rather am adding the portion relating to the actuial controvesy in aneutral manner as reported in numerous worldwide media חיים רקיד (talk) 12:28, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@חיים רקיד: You made this edit, which re-introduced a less clear and more one-sided view of Rooney's decision not to sell Hebrew-language rights. I had written the original version of that sentence and endorse the version added by Special:Diff/1049766787, because it better reflects the source. Your unexplained reversion was not appropriate. You previously added an unsourced description of Rooney's decision with a clear point of view. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect you make no mention of the fact that many throughout the world view her decision and the BDS as Anti-Semitisim, This was widely reported throughout the world and BDS is outlawed in the UK and numerous states in the USA on this basis. It also fall fould of the IHRW definition of Anti-semitism.

Her decision is a political decision targetting just one country and not others and should be in wikipedia. I will be adding it back and should you remove it I will ask for a dispute resolution unless you have some other mechanisim to resolve this per wikipedia rulesחיים רקיד (talk) 17:00, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@

consensus with other editors, not by immediately seeking dispute resolution. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!

) 17:32, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Russ Kick

Thank you AleatoryPonderings for adding additional bio info. I was waiting for verification on some details and you beat me to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantomop (talk • contribs) 19:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

@Phantomop: No problem – happy to help out. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:11, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate your input. Meters (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Meters: Of course. Now just trying to figure out what to do at Exploration of North America (see Special:Diff/1050122695). Neither version of the lede was fantastic … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:27, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Yup. I was going to wait for the Slavery page to settle before I touched that one. Meters (talk) 03:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

...sorry. Primergrey (talk) 00:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@

Sufis. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!

) 00:34, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, the farther back you go, the closer English gets to German and more words are thus capitalized. Primergrey (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Hey, AP! Hope you're doing well; it's been a while. I saw that you'd taken a break a few months ago but saw you pop up again (I think at DYK), and it's nice to see you again. Best wishes, Sdrqaz (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Sdrqaz: Hello hello! Yes, "real life" obligations took me out of the wiki-universe for a bit, but I'm back for the next while. Hope you're well. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah, excellent. I had to take an on-and-off break earlier this year too. I'm well, but might be a tad busy soon (hard to tell, really). I've finally taken a dip into Main Page content with shadow docket – you may be interested in it, given it's been in the news lately and you've written some law articles. ​It wasn't an easy experience, though: it got "featured" on ERRORS, though it escaped the twelve hours unscathed. Sdrqaz (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for writing shadow docket - I'd vaguely considered writing it myself on a couple of occasions but never got round to it. Sometimes I feel DYK (like a lot of other 'pedia hoop-jumping exercises) is more work than it's worth. Sure, it's nice to have your article featured, but if the price is dealing with endless nitpicking, what's the point? Still, it can be a lot of fun; my personal fave has to be Budlong Pickle Company. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:49, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it could've been brought to the mainspace far earlier than it did, before this recent spike in attention. One of my regrets with that one. Hmm. I don't know, really. The "prize" of getting your article featured (page views!) gives a little satisfaction that it's "good enough". Its impending appearance also prompted an overhaul of the page too. But yes, I'm still undecided on whether it was a positive experience. From the long nomination, to WT:DYK, to ERRORS ... hard to say; if you catch me in a grumpy/pessimistic mood, I might say something different. The pickle train was definitely a fun one, though – seems like exactly the thing suited for DYK. Sdrqaz (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Eek, that's a long nom! One of the reasons I generally stick to esoteric, reasonably uncontroversial topics – less of a headache. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I've tried to stay out of contentious things by picking (what I thought was) a dull obscure subject, but the Supreme Court insists on making it interesting (those justices!). At least the talk page hasn't been overloaded with RfCs yet. An Olympic flagbearer-turned-defector will be less contentious, though I can certainly see people taking issue with the image. Hopefully they won't spoil the fun. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

That image ended up lasting less than an hour after the article got on the Main Page. Good thing the hook wasn't promoted with the image, then ... it may have been pulled entirely. Sdrqaz (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

I

WP:ERRORS. Druids continue to exert their malignant influence … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!

) 01:52, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Those dastardly mages ... My experience with them are mainly through Asterix, but I would've probably capitalised it too in that hook. "There's a bunch of druids in the coven" but "the Druids rule the world". Sdrqaz (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for making a start on this. I've included some resources on

) 14:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Amazing! Thanks, Ipigott. If you have the inclination, feel free to work on the draft as well. I'll likely be adding to it in fits and starts over the next week or two. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Now you have a few sources to work on, you can probably put together something which can be moved to mainspace over the next week or two. Once it's there, I'll see what I can do to expand it. My own history of living in Canada is beginning to resemble that of the early photographers there - I left at the end of 1972 after spending five years in the Montreal area.--Ipigott (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Forgive me for the direct referencing. I'm sure you'll be able to upgrade to SFN later. As we are still in draft, I'll just continue to add a few interesting bits and pieces as I find them. Thanks also for the additions you have made yourself.--Ipigott (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem re ref formatting - I actually enjoy doing it. I was able to grab Early Photography in Canada from the library the other day, which I imagine has more daguerreotype details, among other bits to add. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 15:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

If you could put together a brief lead, the article could be moved to mainspace where we could encourage other editors to contribute to its enhancement. It might be useful to add a few illustrations for the other sections of the article. Perhaps you would like to select some yourself.--Ipigott (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

See Photography in Canada :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:15, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

The articles you've written about Abdulrazak Gurnah's novels are great, nice work! — Mainly 13:37, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@MainlyTwelve: Thank you! DanCherek deserves most of the credit for getting all these done, though. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@ AleatoryPonderings Abdulrazak Gurnah’s wife is indeed Guyanese scholar, Denise de Claire’s Narain. For the reference to the Denise mentioned in the Guardian article (https://www.theguardian.com/books/2021/oct/11/abdulrazak-gurnah-winning-nobel-prize-literature-zanzibar-priti-patel-racism) (https://twitter.com/olivesenior/status/1447643965310873609) Histohob (talk) 15:19, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:BLP. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!

) 15:28, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Could you evaluate and perhaps change the page to Silvio Scaglia as , as explained in talk, there are no evidence for a name change? cheers Shantaram1 (talk) 21:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Apparently I have conservative views on A7... thanks for the tag. Someone else beat me to closing the AfD. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 22:13, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@Giraffer: I could have seen it going either way, tbh. Guess it depends on how liberally one interprets the credibility of a claim of significance. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:36, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Vizjim (talk) 08:26, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Great work on turning that discussion around. I'll try to come back to offer some constructive assistance in improving the page in the next few days.Vizjim (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Vizjim: Of course! It's a tough topic. Thanks for your constructive participation and nomination—all too often nominators view AfD as a contest and not an opportunity to improve the encyclopedia. I'll see if I can take a look at the article in Recherches amérindiennes au Québec I put in further reading. One of the few journals that's not fully available on JSTOR or equivalents. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 13:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Heh, I've been a low-level editor on and off here since about 2003. Go far enough back in my history and you'll find me doing all that AfD warring - I've learned my lesson since then... Vizjim (talk) 18:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your diligent work refining and updating the Phyllis Webb page. VickiZ (talk) 20:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

VickiZ, thanks! It was great to learn more about these two important writers. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:57, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Great work on the Lee Maracle page, too. Thank you for devoting such attention to these important figures. VickiZ (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

IMO, the issue needs to be brought to a wider audience, i.e. Request for Comment, which I have no idea how to do. Those who frequent the page control the narrative. SusunW (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:RFCOPEN

lists the administrative steps. The real challenge is coming up with a good question and option(s) to !vote on. The simpler, the better—people tend to default to criticizing the RfC as opposed to engaging with it if the question is badly written.

I think the best first step is to draft a proposed revision of

MOS:ETHNICITY be revised as follows?", citing the numerous, inconclusive discussions on that portion of the MoS. Technically you're not supposed to do a RfC until local options for consensus have been satisfied, but since (1) ETHNICITY has been discussed to death already in popular fora; and (2) this isn't an issue with a specific article, but a proposed change to the MoS, I think it would be justified to set one up when/as the current discussion dies down. Frankly, I'm just pleased we were able to reach consensus on my proposed change to Lee Maracle, despite the obvious differences in opinion. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!

) 22:05, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I concur with everything you said. I just don't understand the emphasis on one arbitrary characteristic supposedly being "defining". I mean, how else are you supposed to describe Rosika Schwimmer other than as sources do? She belonged to no state. I have yet to find any source that described Elena Arizmendi Mejía as anything other than Mexican, but she also was likely stateless. There's an editor who routinely takes out African American even in the case where every single source we have calls a biographical subject that. To me it is simply illogical that this one guide forces one to ignore the sources. SusunW (talk) 22:43, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

SusunW, not to mention the fact that in the vast majority of cases nationality is never directly stated. No biography of Obama begins "Barack Obama is an American politician", because that's just not what people in the world usually say. So there's also an OR concern underneath all of this.

I can understand objections to "African American" because (the thought is) the term implies that the normative American is white or at least not Black. Regardless, I think we can and should make meaningful distinctions between, on the one hand, ancestry and ethnicity, and nationality on the other. The MoS is bizarre on this point:

MOS:ETHNICITY

says the country, region, or territory … where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident. This arbitrarily excludes people who are nationals of places without defined nation-states while alluding to the sensible idea that we should care about nationality as such, precisely because it can be important to a person's biography.

My totally intuitive sense about the policy is that it is intended to stop editors from adding relatively trivial details about ancestry to people's articles. One could describe me as an "American of Scottish, English, and Russian ancestry", but one shouldn't, because that would be silly—and, were I to be notable, my notability would not be related to my ancestry in any straightforward way. I've seen this happen, and I think it's annoying and unencyclopedic. To the extent that ETHNICITY precludes that kind of writing, I support it. But obviously it does a lot of other objectionable things, as we are both well aware.

If we are going to try and revise it, it might be worth thinking about what the point of any such policy is. Is it to prevent people from "claiming" bio subjects based on their heritage, as I think someone recently said in one of these discussions? Is it to allude to the basic reasons for a person's notability? Is it simply to give context? I don't know, but presumably the project should. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

The 2 things I've seen most often in these discussions is that it was written to prevent edit warring over claims of heritage and for context. In general, I don't think context is one-dimensional, like everything, it is a spectrum, with multiple dimensions. And yes, describing me in terms of my heritage would be silly, what shaped me is that I grew up in the American south during the Civil Rights era, had family members of varied ethnicities, and have lived abroad for more than two decades. I travel on one passport and have a green card from another nation. Picking one or the other "place" to define where I belong would be impossible for me (and just plain unethical for someone other than me to decide). I think when we write a proposal we need to stick with following sources, because I absolutely agree the way it stands (especially for many women) is that an assertion of nationality is OR. SusunW (talk) 23:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Agree - an appeal to "context", without … er … context … is not helpful. Who decides that nation-states and only nation-states provide the requisite context? And if this really was designed to prevent edit warring, it has clearly failed. Also agree that an emphasis on sources is necessary—as with everything else here. Not clear why we have this one gaping exception to the general motto of "follow the sources, wherever they lead". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:04, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The 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 2021 election, please review NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk ) 00:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 12,518 views (1,013.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of November 2021 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:27, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron Thanks :) Looks like my clickbait worked … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

ah, temptation—i have named thee and thy name is woman. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the extra sources! Now I have learned about Kunzite. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk ) 16:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, thanks, I could use a beer :) I also love the title: Rings for the finger, from the earliest known times, to the present, with full descriptions of the origin, early making, materials, the archaeology, history, for affection, for love, for engagement, for wedding, commemorative, mourning, etc. Really covers all the bases. A ring for all seasons. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)