Hi Chariotsacha, your edits on Frederick have been great. There's one, however, I'd like to make a request on. I saw you put a citation back into the lead. It was regarding Frederick's sexuality. I understand why as Frederick's sexuality is one of the huge issues in the article that can set off an edit war. What I would ask, if possible is to put the point in the sexuality section with citations. I have no issue with the point itself, I'd just like to see the lead remain citation free and the controversial points in it supported in the body.
I think both the points you put into the article can be easily supported by strong citations (without citation suffocation) As to his focus being on the young men, like Keith and Katte, Mitford has an explicit citation to back up the point. Will Durant in his age of Voltaire implies the same point in a sentence indirectly. Mitford also agrees with the point that making any definite assertions about his actual behavior once he was king is difficult. (The cited article on how Frederick concealed his religious beliefs is illuminating in this regard.) Would you be willing to make the argument in the article and take out the citation from the lead? Wtfiv ( talk) 20:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Chariotsacha. I think you were right to remove them due to the broken link, but I put them back in with an updated playlist. I think the opportunity for the auditory experience for the music of this time and another side of Frederick II's creativity adds to the article. As long as the link remains, that is! Wtfiv ( talk) 18:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The Germany Barnstar of National Merit | ||
This barnstar is awarded to you for your work on the High-Importance article Frederick the Great. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 06:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC) |
Hi Chariotsacha, you had mentioned that you'd be willing to help out with editing, if needed. I would like your opinion and then a couple of requests for help.
If you don't have the time right now, I more than understand, but I thought I'd reach out and ask.
By the way, I want to again state that very much appreciate your point to Taksen, as well as your support for the decision. Your comment about the lead was succinct and to the point! Wtfiv ( talk) 20:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
First, thanks for your thanks! It's good to be appreciated, now referring to your points.
Again, thank you so much. I'm going to be challenged with handling Frederick the musician, and trying to argue for using sources not locked behind paywalls! Wtfiv ( talk) 04:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Red Link Removal Barnstar | ||
For meritorious effort at ensuring Benjamin the Bishop, Latin bear of German bears, no longer "bears" a red link on English-language Wikipedia. Wtfiv ( talk) 04:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
Hi Chariotsacha, Another reviewer jumped on board and did a citation spot check. I was pleased that my editing was not worse! But he noted some of the cite numbers have problems. I'm heading off for a couple of days. I'll be checking in, but I won't be able to do detailed clean up. Do you think you'd have time to fix the one's that are a problem over the next few days? Here's the list:
I think we don't have to worry about p.216 on 145. This is archive.org and can be accessed via registration. Most might just take a quick change. 55 might require a bit more searching or perhaps another source, 185 and 280 might need a bit of language change in the article proper. Do you think you have time with your busy school schedule to take care of these while I'm out? If so, could you go to the FAR discussion, and list the changes you made? It would help a lot. And, if you- like me- are just able to keep above the surface these days, I more than understand! Thanks! Wtfiv ( talk) 19:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Wordiness for the win! Always makes everything more interesting and fun to read :P
Hey, I got ahead of myself and went ahead and sandboxed out a merger for the two statue articles, but I see that you were planning on doing the merger. I can post what I've already got and you can improve on it, or you can go ahead and do the merge and then I'll add to your version? Either way is good with me! - Bryan Rutherford ( talk) 14:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to go over each edit. For one thing remain is grammatically incorrect. Justanother2 ( talk) 05:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
"When Frederick became king, he was faced with the challenge of overcoming Prussia's two weaknesses, vulnerably disconnected holdings with a weak economic base."
Although it seems like lumping the two weakness' together, there is nothing wrong with the sentence and it is more comfortable to read in my opinion. Chariotsacha ( talk) 15:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
"When Frederick became king, he was faced with the challenge of overcoming Prussia's two weaknesses, vulnerably disconnected holdings, and a weak economic base."
"When Frederick became king, he was faced with the challenge of overcoming Prussia's weaknesses, vulnerably disconnected holdings with a weak economic base."
"When Frederick became king, he was faced with the challenge of overcoming Prussia's two weaknesses, vulnerably disconnected holdings, and Prussia's weak economic base."
The last one in particular is essentially your sentence but removing the "they had" and replacing it with "Prussia" for clarity and flow purposes. Chariotsacha ( talk) 16:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Chariotsacha I'm just pinging you on the off chance, that you still check in. I just took a look and it looks like you stopped editing on Wikipedia since summer. I hope you haven't walked away from editing for good. Working with you was fun, and I think you have a lot to offer!
I pinged you because I've been working on the Joan of Arc article for a while. It's been quite the adventure. I thought I was getting caught in just doing clean-up of an already featured article, but have found myself working with a page that had been "sock puppeted" to death and required a near-complete overhaul instead of a vigorous gardening session. It's been nearly a year, and Joan may have acquired a contagious disease, as nobody wants to touch her article any more. And worse yet, because of all the changes, I'm back having to do a featured article peer-review, ugh! (Something I was hoping I wouldn't have to be involved in. I much prefer the idea of gently gardening articles that have run a little rampant without be subject to the FA process. It's not too bad though. A very kind veteran editor has joined in collaborative editing, and has really helped the article. I think it is almost good to go, and the collaboration brought back good memories of working with you!)
Anyway, if you are out there somewhere, do you have time to take a look at the Joan of Arc article and review it? If you do, I've linked the Review page where you would post your comments. If not, I totally get it... (And its quite possible this may go unseen for a long time!) Wtfiv ( talk) 23:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello! 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)
01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Chariotsacha. I definitely want to applaud your attempts to keep the featured article picture. I agree for a large number of reasons. And, I think the full-length is good. (Viewers could click on it and enlarge the image to see the face). I reverted to the crop because that one approved as a featured article. The full-length was added without conversation. So there is a silver lining: once the RfC runs is course, its possible to go with the full-length. This is the third RfC on articles I worked with. (Pictures and infoboxes seem to be notorious bringers of RfCs). My understanding of the RfC process is that it probably needs to run for at least two weeks, and may go for 30 days or more if really active. It's best to let a disinterested party close it. The issue of Frederick's picture- like his sexuality- are forever recurring.
Worse yet, one of the pinged people, who participated in the FAN, went in and did a mega-copy edit. Most of what they cleaned up was okay, but it made me laugh that they went after the article without commenting on the picture!
And in the end, the chips will fall where they will. Let's see how this unfolds. I am very grateful you are keeping on eye on it and chiming in to make sure Frederick stays fairly stable. Wtfiv ( talk) 05:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Chariotsacha, your edits on Frederick have been great. There's one, however, I'd like to make a request on. I saw you put a citation back into the lead. It was regarding Frederick's sexuality. I understand why as Frederick's sexuality is one of the huge issues in the article that can set off an edit war. What I would ask, if possible is to put the point in the sexuality section with citations. I have no issue with the point itself, I'd just like to see the lead remain citation free and the controversial points in it supported in the body.
I think both the points you put into the article can be easily supported by strong citations (without citation suffocation) As to his focus being on the young men, like Keith and Katte, Mitford has an explicit citation to back up the point. Will Durant in his age of Voltaire implies the same point in a sentence indirectly. Mitford also agrees with the point that making any definite assertions about his actual behavior once he was king is difficult. (The cited article on how Frederick concealed his religious beliefs is illuminating in this regard.) Would you be willing to make the argument in the article and take out the citation from the lead? Wtfiv ( talk) 20:20, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi Chariotsacha. I think you were right to remove them due to the broken link, but I put them back in with an updated playlist. I think the opportunity for the auditory experience for the music of this time and another side of Frederick II's creativity adds to the article. As long as the link remains, that is! Wtfiv ( talk) 18:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The Germany Barnstar of National Merit | ||
This barnstar is awarded to you for your work on the High-Importance article Frederick the Great. – ♠Vami _IV†♠ 06:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC) |
Hi Chariotsacha, you had mentioned that you'd be willing to help out with editing, if needed. I would like your opinion and then a couple of requests for help.
If you don't have the time right now, I more than understand, but I thought I'd reach out and ask.
By the way, I want to again state that very much appreciate your point to Taksen, as well as your support for the decision. Your comment about the lead was succinct and to the point! Wtfiv ( talk) 20:51, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
First, thanks for your thanks! It's good to be appreciated, now referring to your points.
Again, thank you so much. I'm going to be challenged with handling Frederick the musician, and trying to argue for using sources not locked behind paywalls! Wtfiv ( talk) 04:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Red Link Removal Barnstar | ||
For meritorious effort at ensuring Benjamin the Bishop, Latin bear of German bears, no longer "bears" a red link on English-language Wikipedia. Wtfiv ( talk) 04:24, 18 September 2021 (UTC) |
Hi Chariotsacha, Another reviewer jumped on board and did a citation spot check. I was pleased that my editing was not worse! But he noted some of the cite numbers have problems. I'm heading off for a couple of days. I'll be checking in, but I won't be able to do detailed clean up. Do you think you'd have time to fix the one's that are a problem over the next few days? Here's the list:
I think we don't have to worry about p.216 on 145. This is archive.org and can be accessed via registration. Most might just take a quick change. 55 might require a bit more searching or perhaps another source, 185 and 280 might need a bit of language change in the article proper. Do you think you have time with your busy school schedule to take care of these while I'm out? If so, could you go to the FAR discussion, and list the changes you made? It would help a lot. And, if you- like me- are just able to keep above the surface these days, I more than understand! Thanks! Wtfiv ( talk) 19:09, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
P.S. Wordiness for the win! Always makes everything more interesting and fun to read :P
Hey, I got ahead of myself and went ahead and sandboxed out a merger for the two statue articles, but I see that you were planning on doing the merger. I can post what I've already got and you can improve on it, or you can go ahead and do the merge and then I'll add to your version? Either way is good with me! - Bryan Rutherford ( talk) 14:35, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
I guess we'll have to go over each edit. For one thing remain is grammatically incorrect. Justanother2 ( talk) 05:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
"When Frederick became king, he was faced with the challenge of overcoming Prussia's two weaknesses, vulnerably disconnected holdings with a weak economic base."
Although it seems like lumping the two weakness' together, there is nothing wrong with the sentence and it is more comfortable to read in my opinion. Chariotsacha ( talk) 15:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
"When Frederick became king, he was faced with the challenge of overcoming Prussia's two weaknesses, vulnerably disconnected holdings, and a weak economic base."
"When Frederick became king, he was faced with the challenge of overcoming Prussia's weaknesses, vulnerably disconnected holdings with a weak economic base."
"When Frederick became king, he was faced with the challenge of overcoming Prussia's two weaknesses, vulnerably disconnected holdings, and Prussia's weak economic base."
The last one in particular is essentially your sentence but removing the "they had" and replacing it with "Prussia" for clarity and flow purposes. Chariotsacha ( talk) 16:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Chariotsacha I'm just pinging you on the off chance, that you still check in. I just took a look and it looks like you stopped editing on Wikipedia since summer. I hope you haven't walked away from editing for good. Working with you was fun, and I think you have a lot to offer!
I pinged you because I've been working on the Joan of Arc article for a while. It's been quite the adventure. I thought I was getting caught in just doing clean-up of an already featured article, but have found myself working with a page that had been "sock puppeted" to death and required a near-complete overhaul instead of a vigorous gardening session. It's been nearly a year, and Joan may have acquired a contagious disease, as nobody wants to touch her article any more. And worse yet, because of all the changes, I'm back having to do a featured article peer-review, ugh! (Something I was hoping I wouldn't have to be involved in. I much prefer the idea of gently gardening articles that have run a little rampant without be subject to the FA process. It's not too bad though. A very kind veteran editor has joined in collaborative editing, and has really helped the article. I think it is almost good to go, and the collaboration brought back good memories of working with you!)
Anyway, if you are out there somewhere, do you have time to take a look at the Joan of Arc article and review it? If you do, I've linked the Review page where you would post your comments. If not, I totally get it... (And its quite possible this may go unseen for a long time!) Wtfiv ( talk) 23:30, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello! 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)
01:44, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review
the candidates and submit your choices on the
voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{
NoACEMM}}
to your user talk page.
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Chariotsacha. I definitely want to applaud your attempts to keep the featured article picture. I agree for a large number of reasons. And, I think the full-length is good. (Viewers could click on it and enlarge the image to see the face). I reverted to the crop because that one approved as a featured article. The full-length was added without conversation. So there is a silver lining: once the RfC runs is course, its possible to go with the full-length. This is the third RfC on articles I worked with. (Pictures and infoboxes seem to be notorious bringers of RfCs). My understanding of the RfC process is that it probably needs to run for at least two weeks, and may go for 30 days or more if really active. It's best to let a disinterested party close it. The issue of Frederick's picture- like his sexuality- are forever recurring.
Worse yet, one of the pinged people, who participated in the FAN, went in and did a mega-copy edit. Most of what they cleaned up was okay, but it made me laugh that they went after the article without commenting on the picture!
And in the end, the chips will fall where they will. Let's see how this unfolds. I am very grateful you are keeping on eye on it and chiming in to make sure Frederick stays fairly stable. Wtfiv ( talk) 05:17, 4 June 2024 (UTC)