Wretchskull

I'd like to thank you for reviewing the article Neuroscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJJ4y7 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

If have further questions, just ping me Wretchskull (talk) 19:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, do you know how I can get access to that reFill tool you used to clean up Environmental Racism in the United States? I looked in my preferences but couldn't find it. Is it part of Twinkle? EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@EnPassant: Apologies for the late response! Here it is: [1]. Wretchskull (talk) 14:32, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Just wanted to say I'd be happy to help in a rewrite of Liszt's article, as that's something you seem to be doing (or at least planning for). — Dave12121212 ◎ 00:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

@Dave12121212: Happy to see more editors joining! I believe others like Smerus and JackofOz were keen on rewriting as well, but my effort died down as I had other projects in mind. The rewrite is here: User:Wretchskull/Franz Liszt rewrite. You can remove, add, and alter whatever you want. Feel free to also use the article talk page. Wretchskull (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thankyou. I'll just do a bit of work on Liszt's page whenever I get the time, and if in the future any coordinated effort for a rewrite starts up again I'll happily join. — Dave12121212 ◎ 23:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rück's blue flycatcher 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 AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Rück's blue flycatcher you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Rück's blue flycatcher 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 AryKun -- AryKun (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

HI, in this edit you introduced a reference to "Hindson 2019", but did not define the reference. could you fix this please? DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Fixed it, thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I'm pleased to tell you that I've begun reviewing the article Sei pezzi per pianoforte you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to seven days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 23:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I've left a few suggestions on the review page which you may like to consider. I shan't bother putting the review on formal hold unless you would prefer me to. The article is in general so clearly of GA standard that mere tweaking is all that may be wanted. Tim riley talk 15:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

I Appreciate it! I'll go ahead and quickly address your points. Wretchskull (talk) 16:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Let me beat the wretched bot to it, and send my congratulations in person. I was absolutely staggered to read your comment in the review that you are not a native English speaker. I'd never have guessed it, and I don't think anyone else would, either. A splendid article, which I hope you will consider taking to FAC. If you do, please ping me and I'll look in. Tim riley talk 20:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, you are too kind! As for bringing it to FAC, I'm afraid the jargon will shine through and make the reviewers fry me alive. I'll try to further improve the prose a little and hopefully, with your help as an experienced FA writer, take it to FAC. Thank you again! Wretchskull (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

The article Sei pezzi per pianoforte you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Sei pezzi per pianoforte for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 20:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

You are recipient no. 2667 of Precious, a prize of QAI, - and best wishes for FAC plans! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:11, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much Gerda Arendt! You have always been one of the nicest editors on Wikipedia! Wretchskull (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

—valereee (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I just saw your revert on Ludwig von Beethoven. I removed that category because it already exists in Category:German Romantic composers per WP:SUBCAT. I did this for a lot of pages. If I misinterpreted something, I can easily undo them. Scorpions13256 (talk) 20:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Scorpions13256: Oh sorry my bad. The category was re-deleted by Aza24, cheers - Wretchskull (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Human_evolution#why_rollback_%3F_%40Wretchskull

interested in your answer. greetings and all the best for two oh two two --MistaPPPP (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've replied, cheers - Wretchskull (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I answered again. bed's calling now, though. --MistaPPPP (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Happy new year, in friendship! - One of my pics is on the Main page, DYK? - In this young year, I enjoyed meetings with friends in real life, and wish you many of those. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much, Gerda! I see that you are always a beacon for hope, the breathing soul of Wikipedia who lifts everybody's spirit up, and I really appreciate that! Meeting friends has been tough recently due to stricter restrictions, but that doesn't stop me from spending time with family. ;) You are an amazing person and your friends are very lucky to have you!! I hope you have a wonderful year, Gerda! :) Wretchskull (talk) 18:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

blushing, thank you, I try - in case of interest, yesterday's snow and today's music in memory of Jerome Kohl, a friend --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Congrats to getting the pezzi to FA (before I even found the time to review)! When should they appear for TFA? Can I help you with that? If you want to do it yourself, WP:TFAR is for the next month (after the last scheduled which is 18 Feb as I write this) and also if there's no specific date to go for (just asap), and there's WP:TFARP for the year following the date mentioned. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Gerda! I was thinking about July 9th (Respighi's birthday), but unfortunately that date is taken. April 18th came to mind but I am not entirely sure if celebrating a work on the date of the author's death is necessarily TFA worthy. No specific date might be the best, though I am open to ideas. And again, this FA wouldn't be possible without your help; thank you very much! Wretchskull (talk) 23:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Antarctica 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. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Re incompetence of the other editors : indeed! Thanks for coming to my defence!! – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Don't worry about it ;)

At 2nd thought: would you have time to have a look at Red panda? LittleJerry and I have been working on this to take it to FAC, and it would be great if someone has a fresh look at it to check it for grammar flaws. We can chat via that page's talk page. Cheers – BhagyaMani (talk) 19:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely! I'll go right ahead. Wretchskull (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Could you also copyedit queen angelfish? I'm want to get that to FAC very soon. It's much shorter, so you could probably do it first. Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Done. Good luck with the FAC! Wretchskull (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi I’ve looked at your suggestions and wanted to know if there was anything else that could be improved Fossiladder13 (talk) 20:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I've responded. I'd be glad to help you out with the re-nomination. Wretchskull (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Greetings @ Wretchskull

I am looking for some copy edit help for Draft:Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala where in I have tried to improve the draft content as per feed back received on the article talk page and tags.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 12:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Done. I hope you're satisfied. Wretchskull (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noticed that you added a FAR notification for Borat. In case you weren't aware, those of use who are FAR regulars use WP:URFA/2020 and WP:FARGIVEN to keep track of these notifications. We're ultimately hoping to process all very old FAs such as Borat and either ensure they are up to standard or delist. (t · c) buidhe 15:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, forgot to add the notification. Thanks for reminding me! Wretchskull (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your kind words! Don't worry though. If you aren't a sock, your edits won't be reverted. Wretchskull (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Good advice! You haven't actually provided any evidence or arguments against the widely recognised fact that the word autism is generally used these days to refer to the autism spectrum. --Oolong (talk) 17:58, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Oolong: No. A few awareness sites are not reliable sources. Here are the reliable sources to the contrary of your claim, all of whom are WP:MEDRS: [2] Again, please do not edit war and take things to the talk page when you're reverted. Wretchskull (talk) 18:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

The biggest organisations dedicated to this topic in the world are not reliable sources? The UK's National Health Service is not a reliable source?? You've linked to a PubMed search as a substitute for actually providing a source for your contentious claim??? Is this some kind of joke? Please find a specific source published in the last eight years that explicitly states that 'autism' is a separate thing from 'autism spectrum conditions' (or 'disorders'). Cheers. --Oolong (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Oolong: 2018 review stating that autism is a part of ASD; another 2018 review stating that AS is a part of ASD. Wretchskull (talk) 18:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh, you managed to find two papers by people who are as out of date as you! Cool, here [3] are [4] some [5] more [6] papers that use 'autism' as a synonym for 'autism spectrum'. But you're demanding the wrong type of evidence here, anyway: I'd already given plenty of citations to demonstrate incontrovertibly that 'autism' is widely used to mean 'autism spectrum'. For example, by all of the major charities in the field. Oolong (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Oolong: Only one source you gave, by Nature, follows WP:MEDRS. If you have access to the source, it actually states: "In this Primer, we use the term ‘autism’ to refer to ASD in general, both for brevity and out of respect for the preferences of self-advocates". It isn't used because it is fact, but because it is shorter and it suits self-advocates. I still haven't found one WP:MEDRS source stating that ASD is autism itself. Regardless of coverage, the vast majority of reviews in reliable medical sources from the past 5 years state otherwise. Your edit at ASD was problematic as you simply added the claim "or just autism" without any sources, did so without any consensus when there is already a completely separate article on autism, and decided to so because a few sources (that didn't follow MEDRS, and those that did were only doing so for respect or brevity) you agreed with supported your belief. If you wanted to discuss such a thing, you're supposed to start a discussion or a request for comment, not just immediately alter content because it suits your beliefs. Wretchskull (talk) 23:41, 24 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

I didn't initially include citations because this is something that anyone who follows contemporary debates about autism knows (indeed, this is something that is evident going back a very long time; I picked up a random book from 2008, 'Concepts of Normality', to check; it is unambiguous about what the 'autism' includes). It's not actually controversial that this is how the word is widely used. I then added citations, which you're dismissing without explaining your rationale, which appears to be based on an inappropriate rubric anyway. You keep making claims about things like 'the vast majority of reviews', but a glance at some of the ones in search you link to shows that most of them do not address the question, while some[7] explicitly back up my point.

I argued almost a year ago on the autism spectrum Talk page that the article should be merged with autism to bring it in line with contemporary usage, and nobody has raised any counter-arguments; indeed another person has since raised the same point apparently without noticing my section. Perhaps if you think you have enough understanding of the autism field to refute this, you should take it up there?Oolong (talk) 09:26, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Oolong: The book is outdated, and a quick search shows that it's a self-help book and not a WP:MEDRS. I also have a hard time taking someone seriously when they add information and justify not adding citations, let alone ignoring that there's a completely separate article about the topic and doing so without any consensus. Regardless, I'm not willing to further argue with an editor who completely ignores what I'm saying. I'll just put it like this: no, we will not alter the article to suit your unfounded beliefs. Wretchskull (talk) 09:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hey, just so you know your contribution at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Autism spectrum is definitely in the wrong place. That page is for issues relating to the WP:NPOV essay, and not general NPOV issues affecting other articles. Instead for general article NPOV issues you instead want the NPOV Noticeboard. However, I don't think that this issue at Autism spectrum is a NPOV issue. It seems to be a sourcing one, as such I think notifications at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and WikiProject Medicine's talk page would be more appropriate. Depending on the longevity and outcome of the RfC, you may also wish to engage at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, however given that there is now an RfC ongoing editors there may defer to that. Sideswipe9th (talk) 19:57, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ah I see, thank you. Wretchskull (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's all good. I've made the same mistake before. You may also want to consider a notification at WikiProject Autism's talk page as well given the subject matter. Finally relating to the warning I gave earlier, you may want to use Template:Please see and Template:WikiProject please see for these notifications, just to avoid any potential canvassing issues. Those are considered neutral and appropriate notifications, whereas it can be easy, especially when passionate about a topic/discussion, to inadvertently make inappropriate notifications per WP:INAPPNOTE. I've found it better to stick to the templates to avoid any such implications. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

hi I noticed that you help out alot with the article (by watching it[8])...*[9] there's an editor asking what MEDRS is despite my leaving a link on his talkpage, and article might you be able to help?, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:27, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Ozzie10aaaa: Hi! I'll see what I can do later. Considering that the editor (and a few others) insist on merging Autism with Autism spectrum, it tells a lot about why WP:MEDRS needs to be enforced. Wretchskull (talk) 14:02, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

thank you, I appreciate it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

(disregard email)..had posted something else, will take care of it, Ozzie--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

•   Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
•   AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
•   Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
•   GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
•   Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
•   SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
•   Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:

•   Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
•   AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
•   Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
•   GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
•   Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
•   SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
•   Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is to let you know that the Sei pezzi per pianoforte article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 18, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 18, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The abbreviation "AD" is Latin for "In the Year of Our Lord" (anno domini). So "AD 2022 war broke out in Ukraine" for example reads "in the year of Our Lord 2022 war broke out in Ukraine". Your preferred version is "2022 AD war broke out in Ukraine" which reads "2022 in the year of Our Lord war broke out in Ukraine". That implies that 2022 had been declared the year of Our Lord by someone (the pope?) who is always declaring years to be "the year of [something or other]." Why do you prefer the ambiguous version to the version accepted by scholars? 156.61.250.251 (talk) 12:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

That is not what I prefer; articles should be consistent with date format, and at its current state it uses AD and BC after, not before. MOS:ERA allows both formats, but they have to be consistent. Also, you need consensus if you want to change the format of the whole article, especially since Parthian Empire is a featured article. Wretchskull (talk) 12:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Listening to the charity concert mentioned here. I created the articles of the composer and the soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Your work is prophetic, Gerda. I'm also very glad for your excellent work at Prayer for Ukraine - Thank you :) Wretchskull (talk) 22:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

You made me blush again. Now, you can also listen on YouTube, and more music, the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices call "Freiheit!" (freedom, instead of "Freude", joy). Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

St. Patrick's Day, more music and today's sunset --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The Prayer is on the Main page, finally + new flowers --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Today: Bach's No. 1. - Sad record: I brought three articles to the Recent deaths section, - not at the same time today but still ... - two of them from Ukraine, the third a Russian who left Moscow in 1990, and then went on to conduct the orchestra where my brother plays. I just listened to a live opera from Hannover, and after applause, the whole ensemble performed Prayer for Ukraine, and the announcer said they do that after every performance. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sunday flowers and sounds, don't miss the extraordinary marriage of the beginnings of the theme of Wie schön leuchtet der Morgenstern, BWV 1, and Prayer for Ukraine - here! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I never expected to hear that, thank you for sharing it!! I'll see if I can create something similar for you... Wretchskull (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

thank DanCherek, please --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

DanCherek... you musical genius ;) - By the way Gerda Arendt, please see this. The fact that this has went unnoticed for centuries is distressing. Wretchskull (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Greetings @ Wretchskull

I was busy on some other articles so there has been delay from my side on Draft:Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala

Thanks for copy edit help for Draft:Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala .

I need also guidance:

Lead of the draft as of now starts as

"Since 2019, Ex-Muslim new atheism has been developing into salient collectivization of activism in Kerala. .."

This lead statement depends on below sentence in the draft body content:

"..According to P. Sandeep organizational formation of Ex-Muslim movement can be seen as a salient milestone in the collectivisation of dissent among apostates from Islam in Kerala. .."

You seem to have tagged above said sentence in the article for clarification needed i.e. Template:Clarify .

Frankly the sentence included by me in draft body content is bit awkwardly paraphrased to avoid copyright issues, the original sourced sentence of P. Sandeep from this news 18 article's last sentence is as follows:

"..Ex-Muslims of Kerala is, therefore, seen as an important step forward in the collectivisation of dissent from Islam."

(The P. Sandeep's sentence is related to formalization of an organization of 'Ex Muslims of Kerala')

So how the sentence/ information included by me can be improved that the sentence shall cease to attract Template:Clarify. I request your help and guidance.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wretchskull, recently I bothered about investing a lot of work and meticulous research in extending the wikipedia-article on Denunciation. Unfortunately, you deleted it without any prior alert and explanation. Is this your understanding of polite dealing among wikipedians? --Dirk-Franz (talk) 14:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Dirk-Franz: Huge apologies! I was patrolling recent changes on Huggle and accidentally reverted your edits. I will be more careful, thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 14:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Wretchskull, I removed Fenella Humphreys date of birth information on her behalf due to recent security concerns. There should be no DOB or location information available publicly. Please can my edit be reinstated? Thanks a lot. 92.40.197.193 (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@92.40.197.193: That's not how Wikipedia works, and Wikipedia isn't censored. If the information is properly sourced, it should stay there. I recommend you read Help:Introduction. Cheers - Wretchskull (talk) 08:27, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree that I am not an authority. But my actual point is that the word change is because it’s a subjective & not objective statement AND the words ascribed to the source is from 2006, prior to diagnostic changes for both forms of autism. Also those words don’t appear in the original referenced article linked to them. One link is is a different language & link is broken. Another version does work, but does not say the words ascribed to it. It is also an outdated medical reference from 2006. Biomedical information must accurately reflect current knowledge. WP:MRDS

Thx for your input & assistance. Eco-climber (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Whether it is true or not, it has to be supplemented by WP:MEDRS. Simply changing it (even if correct) is not allowed; Wikipedia is based on summarizing reliable sources. If you have a source supporting your statement, feel more than free to add your edit. Wretchskull (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

I feel like you can write decently just by seeing Sei pezzi per pianoforte. You should actually to join at Wikipedia:The Core Contest. Regards. 2001:4455:30B:6C00:494B:9834:A835:157C (talk) 11:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I'll definitely consider this. Wretchskull (talk) 12:51, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, would you be able to copyedit humpback whale? Thanks. LittleJerry (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

@LittleJerry: Done - Wretchskull (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you today Sei pezzi per pianoforte, your first TFA, I believe, introduced: "A beautiful set of pieces composed by Ottorino Respighi. They are simple and, unlike contemporaries, not boundary-pushing, but they immediately caught my attention. I was disappointed when I realized that there wasn't even an article about them on Wikipedia, so here I am, trying to give them the attention they deserve." - Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 18 April 2022 (UTC)FA the second day of Christmas, TFA the second day of Easter, - enjoy! --Reply

Thank you! I was on a trip with friends, and what a delightful coincidence to see after my return! Your help with the article, from start to finish, means a lot! Wretchskull (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

all my pleasure! - dance and singing, peace doves and icecream, seen with friends --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:14, 23 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

another Ukraine day today: Maks Levin DYK, expanding Kyiv Symphony Orchestra (have tickets), and creating Anthony Robin Schneider, the bass who could be heard opening the singing in Beethoven's Ninth twice on 10 March 2022, live in Frankfurt, Germany, and recorded in Auckland, New Zealand, singing "Freiheit!" (freedom) instead of "Freude" (joy), in a tradition started after the Fall of the Wall. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

next offer: now you can listen to what I heard live yesterday, Kyiv Symphony Orchestra, Luigi Gaggero & Diana Tishchenko (violin) / Kulturpalast Dresden (25 April 2022 on YouTube (that's 25 April in Dresden, a different violinist, but the same program) - ours pictured here - dove sono as encore --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 29 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

today performances in Ukraine - for Ukraine - for peace, at the bottom an imaginary set of eight DYK --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:47, 10 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

today more pics, and should this woman have an article? - or only her sons? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Gerda. As much as I appreciate your hard work, it is honestly very difficult for me to fault the rationale at the talk page... I'm nowhere near as experienced as you when it comes to such subjects, so take this with a pinch of salt. Wretchskull (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I felt sort of guilty after having created three articles about men (her sons), to not have covered a woman in the family, the one who educated them to be who they became. - So an alternative would be a merge. But to whom of the four sons with an article? I chose to rather be fair :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

Lovely! Life obligations have got the better of me, so talk messages and projects have halted. This summer break will give me ample time to return, however ;) Wretchskull (talk) 10:47, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

1.   Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
2.   AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
3.   Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
4.   Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
5.   Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
6.   Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
7.   Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

•   BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
•   Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
•   Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Re your edit here, several news reports in the last hour suggest Styles' concert HAS been cancelled.--A bit iffy (talk) 21:52, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@A bit iffy: I've read some newer sources and you're right. I've changed it; cheers. Wretchskull (talk) 22:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your plans for Debussy's string quartet! I thought about his cello sonata, but know nothing about it. Perhaps we could do it together? Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yesterday I attended a unique concert - the 18th Thomaskantor after Bach conducting - and with some good luck caught him happy afterwards! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

... and another 14 July: Voces8, pictured - I have a FAC open, in case of interest --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

@Gerda Arendt: I'm happy to help out with the cello sonata! Time is a little scarce at the moment, but I'm trying to read about Debussy as much as I can to hopefully expand the quartet article, and perhaps prepare for the collaboration. I'll see what I can do this weekend and next week. Wretchskull (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

thank you! - more July songs, from Swiss Alps --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello! What's wrong with my grammar? My edits are more accurate, please check them, and if my grammar is wrong, please improve it. Thank you! .karellian-24 (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The only imperfect edit was changed from "Items were taken by cops from Tate's home for the process of investigation" to "Items were retained by the policemen for the process of investigation". It's good now. I must mention about these articles, plus the fact that he inherited a hotel from his father. My sources are serious newspapers. In addition, some exact things like the Terrorism Directorate which launched the operation together with the police. Not just the police. .karellian-24 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

@.karellian-24: My apologies! I was patrolling highly-viewed articles and judged your additions from two edits ([10] and [11]). The first one seemed to blank info (which you fixed in a later edit), and then the second edit has a relatively unnecessary, unverifiable claim that even had a completely different surname, and so I decided to revert. I'll admit that it was a little knee-jerk given that you probably just made unintentional mistakes that you amended, but I'm a little uncertain regarding this edit. Wretchskull (talk) 23:25, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

No problem, mate! "Some voices claim that the Tate brothers inherited a hotel in Thailand from their father." Not just Pro TV, but also B1 TV, Gândul, Evenimentul Zilei etc mentioned that. About the hotel. I thought it was good to include this, because Andrew Tate brags about starting from scratch. .karellian-24 (talk) 00:33, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

... for what you told Aza24. - Look at the church where I heard VOCES8. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I feel obligated to do so when seeing such injustice; I'm really glad many came to Aza's defense. By the way, apologies for not being able to collaborate on Debussy's cello sonata as IRL responsibilities keep growing, but you did a splendid job nonetheless! Wretchskull (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I felt the same, just was dead tired when the alarm of that header hit me. Debussy is an article of the kind I mentioned, - a recent discussion hurts me but I stay away. His cello sonata was a fun project, and no apologies ever needed. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For the remaining competitors, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:45, 3 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

This rose pic was taken on 11 Sep 2021, and that day in 2022 was full of music, Tag des offenen Denkmals, not only singing in church and rehearsals for Verdi's Requiem, but two concerts at special places pictured, one a synagogue (pictured on its wall). Today three DYK: a piece we'll perform on Sunday, a violinist we heard in June playing the Berg Concerto (my brother played in the orchestra), and a Youth Orchestra shaped by a conductor who recently died. Almost too much of a good thing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

... and today I wrote an article about music premiered today, Like as the hart. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

It always feels like I blink and bam!.. a new high-quality article by Gerda! Wretchskull (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

You seem to blink slowly ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

travel and strings sound --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)Reply

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Celcius and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 14#Celcius until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 162 etc. (talk) 14:51, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

The D in WP:BRD is "discuss". You were bold, I reverted. Now let's discuss. I'm fine with keeping the thread at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_14#Celcius since it's essentially the same arguments, but feel free to start a new RfD for Lamberghini if you feel that's more appropriate. 162 etc. (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I replied. Also, you changed the redirect to a disambig, I reverted, and now we are discussing. I just hope this doesn't become a back and forth. Thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 18:59, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just found this strange article translated from the Spanish WP this year: Appearance and Character of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart. Surprisingly well sourced but also a load of WP:Synth that doesn't really help WP's coverage of Mozart (we need music info!). Thought you might find it interesting... Aza24 (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Never seen this before.. but you peaked my interest! I'll see if I can replace some of the Spanish books with English ones from internet archive. Mozart's coverage on WP is abysmal (with the exception of Brianboulton's efforts) so this was a silght mood kick. There are tons of articles related to Mozart, but his main biography is beyond depressing. I was thinking maybe an overhaul utilizing just the info of these articles would be enough to double the quality of the bio, though I'm unsure who has the motivation to spend hours making a mediocre article... less mediocre... rather than using that time for a full, high-quality rewrite. Wretchskull (talk) 10:18, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh and also, excellent work on Josquin des Prez!!! Almost a year of effort to keep the only Renaissance composer FA; that alone makes you deserve EOTW! Wretchskull (talk) 10:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! It was a huge relief to see it finally off the FAR page this week. It has also given me a model that I can hopefully get Du Fay to follow at some point.

I would probably say Mozart's main article is even worse than Beethoven and Bach's. I get the sense that Brian's original plan was to improve a bunch of the sub articles and then tackle the main one. It's not an impossible strategy, but it's difficult to see if that route is worth the extra time. I'm still thinking that a project-wide collaboration on Bach's article to GA would be doable. We should probably get back to Rachmaninoff first though, maybe this December? Aza24 (talk) 22:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Glad to see more renaissance composers getting attention! I will try my best to return, hopefully before Christmas, and take the Rach bio effort more seriously. Studies will die down a little by then. For now, I'll try to focus on rach 2 and the quartet with whatever time I have. A 2 month effort will probably get us ~90% of the way to GA. You are doing great with the legacy section. I'll go over the life section with a fine comb and replace the old and unreliable Lyle book with newer ones. The music section will be the herculean task, but we'll figure it out ;) Wretchskull (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh the agony! — what problems the world faces! Aza24 (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

You have no clue the number of IP talk troll comments that had me rolling as I patrol recent changes, but this one reminds me of those who argue endlessly about someones nationality/infobox/what remote hotel they visited in 1794 in Siberia, thinking that they're improving a vital article.. Wretchskull (talk) 10:47, 20 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hello, just inquiring on your reasoning for reverting recent changes on the AS article I made. If the lack of references was an issue, a CN could be issued while you ask me to find sources (or Google and find the sources yourself). Amyipdev (talk) 01:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

No, the onus is on you to make sure what you add is referenced. CN-tags are added if the uncited information is long-standing and/or easily citeable, though one should find a source rather than tag it. The information you added is not only factually incorrect, it was uncited. By the way, most things you can Google are unreliable for medicine, PubMed is more like it; go for reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses: here's an example Wretchskull (talk) 08:38, 21 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have nominated Atheism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the 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" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 02:24, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ernest Fanelli 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 21:43, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article Ernest Fanelli 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:Ernest Fanelli and Talk:Ernest Fanelli/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 22:24, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

The article Ernest Fanelli you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Ernest Fanelli for comments about the article, and Talk:Ernest Fanelli/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Aza24 -- Aza24 (talk) 20:04, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for high quality articles such as this one. - Enjoy the season! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:22, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC) Reply

Thank you for another good one! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Gerda! Apologies for the late reply; university is taking up almost all of my time. Wretchskull (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page World Chess Championship 2023, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Curious if you saw the new Liszt article on Grove, seemingly intended to supersede the previous Alan Walker one. It's hard to ignore that Walker was hugely opinionated in his take on Liszt, but the elegance with which he rights about such a Romantic figure is so oddly fitting. His prose and imagery is excellent, and his depth in coverage is really impressive. this new article is stale and bland in comparison. Indeed the new article's consolidation is certainly warranted, as is it's more NPOV, but it turns what used to be a standout overview into something of a typical grey-matter encyclopedia entry.

I'm planning to email Dolores Pesce later today, simply to ask what she considered the reason for writing a new article to be (not going to argue with or criticize her, just want to hear her rationale). I'm assuming it will have something to do with "objectivity"/NPOV. Frankly though, I'm not convinced NPOV is a central component to Grove at all. They have tons of articles written by family members or close colleagues of their subjects... Ned Rorem's partner co-wrote his, for example, and conveniently makes no mention of the huge criticism (albeit, unwarranted imo) he received as a Neoromantic composer... Aza24 (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Just read both versions top-to-bottom. I have a love-hate relation with Walker's writings. Sometimes I roll my eyes at how he tries to defend Liszt's music against the slightest fragments you could call criticism (I mean would he ever write this in the new article?), but I admire how clever he is in knowning when it's appropriate to comment on things or what to emphasize, or how to not bore the reader to death. The prose was incredibly rich; each section was centered around pivotal events rather than psychologically-satisfying decimal numbers (a cardinal sin in biographies); etc. etc. etc...

Does improved NPOV really mean improved article? Soulless prose, a robotically-sectioned biography, less about Liszt's personality and performance... Apart from minor details, I honestly don't see it as much of an improvement. It reads like a 2008 wikipedia biography lol. I'm curious about Dolores' motives, as I feel the only thing worthy of revision are Walker's opinions, not the whole article. BTW, when are we seeing Vitruvian Man at GAN? ;) Wretchskull (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well I have been left ignored by Pesce, though perhaps she isn't checking her university email in the summer. I see what you're saying about Walker's fanatic defense of Liszt. There are certainly mainly unfair Liszt attacks, but definitely some fair ones. Anyone who writes that much—including Schubert, Bach and Mozart!—is going to have uneven quality! It's a strange change indeed, and I have to agree that now the article is largely un-rememberable.

Vitruvian Man? Oh "man".... I could probably nominate it right now (I think it's just barely GA), but need a breather from Leonardo topics for a while! Too many weird disputes over the years where people just yell at me for using sources instead of their made-up theories. I tried tackling the main bio (only did the lead and early life so-far) but the scholarship on him is so unbelievably dense that an art historian colleague of mine physically shuddered when I brought the topic up with her. It must be Augustus—Jesus—Plato level of scholarship. I do want to get his bio to FA and many artworks to GA at one point, just not now :) Aza24 (talk) 20:05, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

In order to move forward productively it is important that you reply in the Ada Lovelace Talk Page.

I apologize for finding it curious that you believe to be in a position to determine what the academic consensus is in computer history regarding Lovelace's contributions when your own field is "music, medicine, biology, and philosophy". Since I've now been banned (by you) for pointing this out, I apologize. IndyCar1020 (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@IndyCar1020: WP:VNT. As long as the current scholarly consensus states a certain fact, this will remain until consensus changes, not after an author thinks otherwise. Wretchskull (talk) 18:12, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've finished my revision of The Firebird- could you take a look to make sure everything is GA-worthy? Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 21:03, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MyCatIsAChonk: It looks much better now, but it still needs work. Many valuable books missing, and most of the article still relies on just Walsh and Taruskin. Go to WP:TWL and click on Cambridge University Press and De Gruyter. Type "Igor Stravisnky" on both of them and sort by books. Apart from ones naming Stravisnky in their titles (many of which are vital), Chapter 4 - "Sounding the depths" of Scandal on Stage, The Firebird and the Fox, The Ballets Russes and Beyond, The Cambridge Companion to Ballet are books that should certainly be incorporated.

It also seems like this article suffers from essentially being unchanged prior to and after the overhaul apart from adding refs. The state of the article is greater now but elbow grease is still required. The "First recordings" section should really be the "Recordings" section, and be rewritten to fit the breadth of reliable sources. You can model it after The Rite of Spring or other FA compositions. I haven't read much about the suites but I suspect it's another victim. Much of the history section is also unchallanged information from prior to the overhaul; "It was his first visit to the city and the premiere his first stage work" is unreferenced. Wretchskull (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I'm having trouble understanding the necessity of some of these points. I don't quite understand how the number of books present dictates the quality of the prose- there's plenty of books I skimmed through after rewritting the "History" section in order to verify I didn't miss anything too big, and I didn't spot anything that was major enough to be included. You're right in suggesting the Wikipedia Library sources - I hadn't thought to access that. But, regardless, Walsh and Taruskin are perfectly reliable sources, so how could the number of sources represent the quality of the article if the sources present are all reliable and thorough?

Secondly, I don't understand how the rewrite was insufficient. You can view my sandbox2 history to see my process- in rewriting "History", I pulled directly from the books I cited (Walsh, Taruskin, White, Garafola) and then cross references against other material to ensure I didn't miss anything big. Same idea for "Music"- used Taruskin, McFarland, and the symphony orchestra sites a lot, and cross references later (which is when I included the van den Toorn sources). I will admit that many sources I cross referenced with got into the really nitty gritty music theory behind it (particularly van den Toorn), so I was too confused to include that, assuming an average reader would be too. But, my point is, what's missing? I cannot find anything major that I didn't include in the "History" or "Music" sections.

I do understand the need to format "Recordings" and "Suites" into paragraph form- will do soon. Added ref to the statement. Please note that I mean all this with utmost respect- I'm just trying to understand so I can keep it in mind for future articles. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 23:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MyCatIsAChonk: The plethora of untouched books shows that there is (potentially) a tremendous amount of valuable information stripped from the reader, i.e. it affects content breadth. Also, if more books are included, the more you will know what info is due and what is undue simply by its coverage across the sources. Regarding text already supported by current sources, if some of these other books support the same material as some of the overcited authors, I would be keen on replacing a few of them and improve ref variety to strengthen reliability. This point isn't too important but I can't stress enough how vital the first sentence is regarding topic breadth.

Most of your quality contribs were passed by citing text and leaving it with (almost) the same prose and breadth before taking it to GA. Almost always when trying to get an article to quality status, it requires full rewriting, especially if it's vital. I was contemplating pulling the trigger at GAR on Stravinsky and The Firebird, but I'm surprised how rapidly you adress my points and with high quality writing, which tells me that you're clearly a competent editor. Most editors I come across with such a history (mostly newcomers) usually just cite all existing text and cross their fingers at GAN.

The recordings section looks very good now; hopefully suites will follow suit! I'll simply reiterate that articles, especially if vital/core, require full rewriting to amend prose and make sure breadth is the best summary of all necessary reliable sources. If you need any help or have questions, just HMU. Wretchskull (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Wretchskull, I've added a number of sources and citations back into the prose. There's surprisingly little information about the suites or the details surrounding them- I can find basically nothing about the 1911 one., with the exception of the heavily-cited White 1979. Is the source diversity sufficient now? And, how do you think suites can be improved? MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 00:48, 29 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@MyCatIsAChonk: Great job! I'll accept the state of the suites section. By the way, are there no words on the legacy/influence of the piece in music/art in general? Wretchskull (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can't find much on the Legacy either- it doesn't seem to have had quite the effect that The Rite did, but it certainly impacted the careers of those involved- I'll add a bit regarding that. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Thanks again for the guidance on Stravinsky and The Firebird. I've taken The Firebird to PR for a (hopefully) future FAC- just wanted to let you know since you've looked at it in the past to help me! Also, I know you're often involved in the classical music FACs, so if you're interested, I've taken Appalachian Spring to FAC. Thank you! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the invitation, and well done on your projects. Unfortunately, I don't have time for reviewing, or even for Wikipedia anymore, and it's a bummer. I'm on the verge of retiring as I'm juggling way too many things at once. Wretchskull (talk) 15:11, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I saw you reverting my edit of Virat Kohli, tell me the exact reason for it Guypes26 (talk) 07:25, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

It was poorly formatted, but yeah, it might've been better for me to just edit it. Wretchskull (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

(t · c) buidhe 02:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

You started the edit war. I introduced a valid compromise, with an explanation, which you have arrogantly distained. Autism Spectrum Condition (ASC) is being increasingly used as the preferred wording in clinical diagnosis, especially in the USA. ASC is also prominently referred to in the text of the article. You are being less than collegial, and are putting your personal opinion before facts, which is unencyclopaedic. Urselius (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

An edit war is always, by definition, started by the person who reverts a persons objection. When you are reverted, you have to seek consensus to change the status quo. Secondly, no. Like I said in the first edit summary, Wikipedia is based on verifiability, not truth. If current MEDRS sources state "Neurodevelopmental disorder" over "condition" or "disorder or condition", you would need to prove that consensus states what you changed it to. If you can show that, sure, change it. I'm aware of the changing definitions and current research, and I haven't "arrogantly distained" it. I'm making sure Wikipedia isn't a pool of unverifiable opinions, true or not. Wretchskull (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I perceive double standards at play, when you revert you are righteous, but when someone else does it is an edit war. Well done!

From CR228 The psychiatric management of autism in adults, published by The Royal Society of Psychiatrists:

"Such variability has meant the development of several different ways in which autism is perceived, for example:

• autism as a disorder, with the possibility that, one day, it might be treatable: their inherent difficulties leave autistic individuals less able to cope with the messiness of the everyday world.

• autism as a disability, a condition that requires specialist remedial education or environmental adaptations to help the individual to enjoy as full and independent a life as possible.

• autism as one element in the range of neurodiversity, an innate difference (much as someone might be left-handed) rather than a deficit; the difference becoming prominent in an alien, socially complex world attuned to neurotypical normality; here, it is better expressed by the term ‘condition’ rather than ‘disorder.’

These concepts are not mutually exclusive and, depending on their circumstances and needs, individuals, family members, service providers and researchers will draw on whichever is of most use to them at the time."

The use of the term 'condition' to describe autism is well attested, it is used by august medical bodies all the time, it is used in individual diagnoses, to exclude it from a descriptive header in an encyclopaedia is simply perverse. Urselius (talk) 13:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I'm not going to repeat myself regarding the edit war. If you are reverted due to an objection, the onus is on you to start a discussion per WP:BRD, simple as that. As for the shortdesc, the issue is that autism can indeed be classified as either a disorder or condition, but the term "neurodevelopmental disorder" is widespread and I haven't seen the alternate "neurodevelopmental condition", hence why I reverted. Have you researched it and seen that MEDRS references use them? Perhaps then you could reinstate your edit, because I can't find any at the moment. Wretchskull (talk) 10:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply