User talk:AleatoryPonderings/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Pages automatically marked as reviewed when nominated for deletion

I've recently been granted new page reviewer rights, and I noticed that it automatically marks pages as reviewed when I nominate it for an XFD process. Is this something I should keep reviewed, or should I mark it as unreviewed, since it's up for a deletion discussion? Hog Farm _Bacon 04:42, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, I generally keep it as reviewed, since the XFD will either establish that it should be kept (and hence meets basic policy requirements, though might need some tags, and is therefore properly marked as reviewed) or deleted (in which case it's irrelevant whether it's reviewed or not). I think you can set your Twinkle prefs to not mark things as reviewed when you nominate them, though? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Emily W. Murphy whitewashed?

Would you take a peek at the deletions since your last edit and undo any changes you feel merit undoing. Feoffer (talk) 06:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Feoffer, Welp, so the page is now fully protected, so I can't do anything. Tbh there were so many changes I couldn't even read the diffs very well. I'm inclined to defer to whatever consensus emerges at WP:BLPN and/or the talk page. This has gotten so involved that I really don't know what to think anymore. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:36, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Emily W. Murphy

Hi AleatoryPonderings, I'm just letting recent contributors to Emily W. Murphy know that I've dropped the protection level to extended confirmed and added a consensus required restriction. Please see my explanation on the talk page for more information. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your helpful contribution to Women of the White Buffalo! What do you think of the article? Right cite (talk) 23:28, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Right cite, Thanks for your note and for creating this article! I enjoyed reading it. To the extent there is more, it would be nice to get a little more third-party commentary on the film; it seems a little heavy on plot summary as opposed to critical assessment at present. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

AleatoryPonderings, agreed, will do more research on it over time when I next get a chance. Right cite (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

A goat for you!

Hey thanks for being kind in your response about the Taiwan reference on the Antony Blinken page. That was my first edit to Wikipedia (albeit a talk page), and even though it didn't amount to much, I'm grateful for your kindness.

NotARealCowboy (talk) 04:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

NotARealCowboy, Aw, thanks! I appreciate it :) Best of luck all your wiki-adventures to come! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Following failure with success?

A while back, you did a lot to salvage the article on failure. I just discovered that its counterpart, success (concept), was in a poor state and drastically stubbified it. Perhaps you have thoughts on how to build it back up again. XOR'easter (talk) 23:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

XOR'easter, Hmm, I will think on that. I kind of like the grab bag approach we took on failure, with "highlights" from different disciplines. Perhaps we could do something similar with success. Though I imagine we'd have to wade through a fair number of self-help guides to find the real meat of the concept … AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:19, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's not a literature review that I relish. XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought the green check mark was a bit bland for an illustration, so following the example of the failure article I swapped it with one I found more dramatic. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Linda Thomas-Greenfield

The lead and infobox of Linda Thomas-Greenfield both say she will be the next American ambassador to the U.N. Does it really need to be mentioned and linked a third time? Jonathunder (talk) 17:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Jonathunder, It should be stated both in the lede and the body, where it can be sourced. I recently moved cites out of the lede per MOS:CITELEAD so there was no citation for the specific claim that she will be UN Ambassador. My preference would be to simply say "She will be UN Ambassador" with a cite for that claim and avoid the "chief of US Mission to the UN" language. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:47, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't hurt to have both wordings and informs readers better than simply repeating the same title a third time. Jonathunder (talk) 17:55, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Jonathunder, I mean, if your beef is with stating the same title in the lede, infobox, and body, you'll need to change virtually every politics article, since that's what they invariably do. I personally think it's confusing (someone might well ask: is US Ambassador to the UN different from chief of mission, and if so how). We can leave it for now. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference

On 29 November 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the press conference held at a Philadelphia landscaping company by Donald Trump's presidential campaign has inspired a virtual charity run to be held today? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Four Seasons Total Landscaping press conference), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

—valereee (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Blinken talk page

AleatoryPonderings, do you still have anything else to add at the discussion here? It seems to be a pretty clear case of WP:RSOPINION.

Sdrqaz (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, Nope, looks like I got that one wrong. Feel free to add back whatever makes sense to you. Thanks for the message :) AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you! I'll make it in due course. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Emily W. Murphy. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to lose their editing privileges on that page. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to result in loss of your editing privileges. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Liz, I reverted once, and then again (after the content was reinstated) per WP:CRP. I deliberately refrained from reverting a third time to avoid getting into an edit war and running up against WP:3RR. I then posted on the talk to air my concerns. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I understand, but you were both edit warring and it's only fair to post a warning on both of your talk pages. I don't expect you to revert a third time...that's why we issue warnings first. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

itn

I was wondering if you would be interested in leaving a comment here since you're the main person updating the article.

Thanks,  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

Bait30, I'm not sure I'd support ITN at the moment, given that some central key details about his life (was he actually an academic physicist? which of the many secretive nuclear programs was he involved with?) are still hotly contested. As are the narratives surrounding what actually happened during his assassination. And I certainly shouldn't take credit for the page; it's really been HAL333 doing the lion's share of the work. Ultimately, I'm not sure I'd be weighing in on the "pro-ITN" side, unfortunately. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

ah ok. well thanks anyways for doing some of the updating!  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Mohsen Fakhrizadeh

On 2 December 2020, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, 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. Spencer^T•C 01:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for my error and thanks for the fix

Sorry for my error in editing an old version of the article for Jeh Johnson. I must have still been absorbing the caffeine from my coffee. Thanks for reinserting the changes into the article. Again, my apologies. Alansohn (talk) 13:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Alansohn, No problem! Hopefully I read the diffs appropriately and didn't miss any of the other material you had added? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks again. I added some more biographical details. Edit as needed. Alansohn (talk) 14:46, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jutta Brunnée has been accepted

Jutta Brunnée, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks again, and happy editing!

-- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, Patar knight! That was lightning-fast! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:54, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I was going to create the page myself with mostly the same sources when I saw the announcement, but you beat me to it. Good job! ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 19:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Chad Wolf RfC formatting

For future reference, there was a problem with the RfC formatting that I had previously been unfamiliar with; it was showing up as blank on the noticeboards. I wasn't sure why at first, but Redrose64, an admin who spends a lot of time managing the RfC system, came along and explained it. Like I mentioned before, the question should be brief (under 2,000 bytes), but it turns out that Legobot looks for a timestamp, not a paragraph break, to identify the end of the question. In this case, you signed at the end of the RfC, so the entire RfC was taken as the question, which was too large. Redrose signed the question for you, which fixed the issue. On other RfCs, I've seen editors sign the question with a timestamp only (no signture), which might be best. That's done with 5 tildes instead of 4: ~~~~~. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Tartan357, Ah, sorry about that! I didn't realize I'd made that error. Will keep in mind in the future. Thanks again! AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Removal of primary sources

Hi AleatoryPonderings! I saw that you've been removing information regarding Blinken and Flournoy's opinions from their pages because they're based on primary sources. Per WP:RSOPINION, that should not be necessary, since the primary sources are being used for their opinions, not statements of fact.

Sdrqaz (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sdrqaz, I'm not concerned about reliability—I'm concerned about original research. Both Blinken and Flournoy have made countless public statements. In order to avoid selective quotation, we should stick to what secondary sources have picked out as important from what they've said. Otherwise, we risk turning these articles into essays, coatracks, or compilations of quotations particular editors have favored. The only criterion I'm aware of for selecting the important quotations/primary source material is what secondary sources have picked out for analysis, criticism, or other commentary. (For example, that's why I didn't remove primary source quotations from Flournoy's recent Foreign Affairs article that was later critiqued in The American Prospect: precisely because an editor at AmPros thought Flournoy's article was sufficiently important to publish a counterpoint to.)

Pinging GorillaWarfare (forgive this, GW; I'm sure you get zillions of pings a day; you're just the most experienced and fair-minded editor I know on AP2 issues): am I making sense here? For background, I've been cutting back sections of Antony Blinken and Michèle Flournoy that are sourced only to interviews or publications they've written, in favour of quotations republished in secondary sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:43, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I'll defer to her better judgement. Sdrqaz (talk) 20:57, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should rely on secondary sources to determine which statements by an article subject are sufficiently noteworthy for inclusion in an article. If a primary source is needed (for example, to provide an direct quote) that's fine in addition to the secondary RS, but they shouldn't be included solely based on a primary source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

@GorillaWarfare: Understood. Thanks for the clarification! Sdrqaz (talk) 23:44, 4 December 2020 (UTC)