User talk:Firefangledfeathers/Archive 3

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox RFC

Sorry 'bout that. Didn't notice there was already a third party :) Perhaps the RFC-in-question, should be moved to a sandbox. GoodDay (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I am working on some draft language and will post it there soon. Don't think we need a sandbox but it's a good idea if we can't reach an agreement soon. Firefangledfeathers 03:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the proposed-RFC has been aborted. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

What did I copy so I can change it?

Please let me know what I copied so I can reword it SeminoleNation (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@SeminoleNation:, it looks like much of your added content was copied from or closely paraphrased from the Britannica article. See WP:CLOP. Please also see WP:REDLINK for why those wikilink removals was inadvisable. Glancing at the subjects, it seems likely that they would be valid articles. Firefangledfeathers 20:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Okay I see. I tried to paraphrase that britannica article as much as I could in the first paragraph. Most of the rest was in my own words and I restructured some things to flow better. I'll go back and rework it. Give me a sec --SeminoleNation (talk) 20:34, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

NPOV discussion closure

I was reading Talk:Peter A. McCullough and I saw that you closed the discussion about WP:NPOV. Later I realized that before closing the discussion you were reverting changes similar to the POV notice made by the user who created that discussion. This shows that you were involved in the discussion and thus you are not a fit arbitrator. It would be nice this closure was changed without me needing to request a closure review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.44.174.215 (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi IP 41, I am unlikely to re-open that discussion. I stand by my reasons for doing so, and I have every reason to believe that closing the discussion led to less wasting of time by good-faith editors. Since my closure was unrelated to the merits of the content dispute, I wouldn't read the closure as a sign that you couldn't start up a similar, new discussion at the talk page. Firefangledfeathers 22:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

FAR template limits

EOAD ( :) Templates like  Done are discouraged at FAC and FAR because they can cause the archives to reach Wikipedia:Template limits, which wreaks all kinds of havoc; when you get a chance, could you switch them to prose? Thanks for the help there! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@SandyGeorgia: you remembered! Thanks for teaching me that. Now  Fixed. Firefangledfeathers 01:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

B Of course I did :) So happy when anyone helps in the dementia realm. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.156.215.54.243 (talk) 18:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Tim Pool

Look, I'm sorry. It's just that the internet had been leaning right and considered TimCast as a "popular" podcast. I'm just want to show everyone the truth. Can we work together to make a version that represents consensus? He is a Republican! Hadn't you seen his content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Page Fixer (talk • contribs) 04:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, The Page Fixer. I appreciate your apology. I highly recommend looking for reliable sources that support your view and then bringing them up for discussion at Talk:Tim Pool. Please be careful when editing the article, as the rules are a bit tighter when it comes to biographies of living people and topic areas under discretionary sanctions, including American politics. Firefangledfeathers 04:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

How can I delete my Wikipedia account?

I feel like I want to leave this site. How can I delete my Wikipedia account? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Page Fixer (talk • contribs) 05:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

@The Page Fixer: Accounts can't technically be deleted, but asking for a courtesy vanishing is probably the closest available option. Firefangledfeathers 13:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

moving pages

hey there - saw your revert message, not sure how to move pages if you can point me in the right direction? Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 23:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Dzlinker, looks like you already started a requested move, so you're on the right track. They usually stay open for about a week, and a closer will determine consensus if it's not clear. Good luck! Firefangledfeathers 02:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Top, thanks! Dzlinker \,,/(*_*)\,,/ 10:20, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Books of Wonder

Thanks for the source! I've been meaning to renew my Newspaper subscription via the Wikipedia Library, but never really needed it until now. Isabelle ^🔔 19:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Isabelle Belato: you're welcome! I don't think I've ever gotten used to having free access to so many resources through TWL. Near-childlike amazement every time! Firefangledfeathers 19:29, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Labeling his information misinformation

The idea that someone with a journalist degree or some computer geek at Wikipedia has enough knowledge to dispute the facts from one of the leading cardiologists in America over the last two decades is absolutely absurd. 2603:7081:6C06:32D2:7C7E:DD58:9FEB:695A (talk) 13:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't dispute any of her facts! The stuff about plaque in men with HIV is surprising, but I have no reason to doubt it. I haven't even edited her article! I was thinking to do some research though in the hopes of finding some more independent, secondary sources since the '97 NYT piece (and even that is a wedding announcement). Most of the sources are affiliated with Hopkins, which is ok I think, but non-ideal. Let me know if you find anything. Firefangledfeathers 14:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC question

Hi there. I see you do a lot of maintenance work on RfCs. Could I get your advice on an RfC I'd like to propose? At Talk:British Columbia#Additional languages in the lead again?, editors are unable to reach a consensus, and there has also been much edit warring over the lead sentence of the article. User:Johnuniq gave me some advice if I wished to pursue an RfC, and suggested:

Which of the following should be the first sentence in the lead?

1. British Columbia (BC) is the westernmost province of Canada ....
2. British Columbia (BC) (French: Colombie-Britannique) is the westernmost province of Canada ....
3. British Columbia (BC) (French: Colombie-Britannique | Halkomelem: S'ólh Téméxw) is the westernmost province of Canada

Should I also add headings below that, such as "survey" and "discussion"? I am in favour of option one. Should I add that to the survey section, along with my reasons why? Any input would be appreciated. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope Firefangledfeathers gives a view but I would say, yes, use the above and add a signature. Follow that with ===Survey=== and ===Discussion=== and put your opinion with reasons under Survey. If there is a good chance more proposals will be made, you could add "4. Something else to be decided in a subsequent RfC." Johnuniq (talk) 21:59, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Magnolia677. Johnuniq's advice is solid here! Thanks for putting a together a brief, neutral statement. The signature at the end is important. Firefangledfeathers 00:26, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 09:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

In case you miss it

I meant to say "you mean", not "you mean you mean". Nobody's pojfsct, eh? It was a long thread and I was but one knot, so I stand firmly behind my acceptance of your otherwise entirely unneeded apology. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:26, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Appreciated, InedibleHulk. I'm glad Mhawk said something so I could notice your knotiness. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 12:55, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Al Jazeera and itals

Hey, saw your revert. Al Jazeera is not a "work" like the New York Times, but a news service like Reuters or BBC News. That's why the article titles for Al Jazeera, Al Jazeera English, etc. are not italicized on the pages themselves. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:09, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

You removed information on a "closed" talk section, that was not closed at the time I added my info.

Pretty confusing, to claim removal of info from a closed section, when it was closed after I added the info. Note the the entire IVM talk page is not closed; only two sections. ;) Mr Pete (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Pete. I am not sure what you're talking about. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 21:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixing the ping: Mr Pete Firefangledfeathers (talk

Discussion at Talk:Detransition § Regarding the James Shupe Entry Of This Page:

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Detransition § Regarding the James Shupe Entry Of This Page:. I think your advice here may be beneficial. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for being confrontational

I'm sorry I was confrontational. I feel strongly that the way those articles are structured is important and that it is miles off the mark as it stands, but I understand that that is what the notice you informed me of is about, and of course I know that in general many people have wildly or subtly different opinions on topics about gender. I feel, as I'm sure you feel about my proposed edits, that you are representing some viewpoint that is not the neutral viewpoint of Wikipedia, but these discussions are like that so I will try better to be patient and let the discussion happen. Kuralesache (talk) 00:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Kuralesache, I appreciate the apology. I see a lot of room for improvement in the articles as well, though I'm guessing we'll sometime disagree about what needs fixing. NPOV-based disputes are some of the toughest; here's hoping we can work it out. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring with Binksternet

This user continues to follow me around and revert any edits I make, could you review the latest on Misandry so we can get rid of their ridiculous hit-piece in the middle of the article? Listing a court case that has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of the article or the context where it is located is a transparent attempt to devalue the citation. If we're not going out of our way to also detail Kimmel's history of sexual harassment (and fling dirt on every source on Wikipedia for "context") then I don't see how one can disagree with this edit. Kuralesache (talk) 18:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kuralesache. I already noticed the edit and am looking through the sources. I'll likely have something to say later today. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 18:50, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Question from KingTideRecords (13:29, 10 March 2022)

Hello, thanks for assisting me. My son has created a record label and he wanted to create a Wikipedia article about himself so that when people look up his music they can find out a bit about him as an artist. Is there a tutorial or process I should follow for doing that? Update, I've found the articles on how to best work as a Wikipedian. I apologize for my earlier question as I'd just created an account and the mentor box said to ask questions. Thanks for doing what you do. --KingTideRecords (talk) 13:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello KingTideRecords, and welcome to Wikipedia! Glad you're finding your way around! I would encourage you to make some edits across the project before tackling your first article. Once you feel ready, you'll want to go through the process listed at WP:Articles for creation. It's important that you read through our conflict of interest policy, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you have about how to stay in compliance with it. We all have COIs somewhere or another, and learning to avoid or carefully navigate those is an important part of the Wikipedia learning process. I'll post a welcome notice at your user talk page with some links to other helpful policies, guidelines, and help pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 14:05, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles needing copy edit

Hi Firefangledfeathers! The category of articles needing copy edit seems to include this. I checked the page and I think your comment there may have added it to the copy edit category. I'm still a bit unfamiliar with the markup; would you mind checking it out? Thanks, Perfect4th (talk) 16:29, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! If you didn't already know, the thing I should have done is add a colon at the beginning of the bracketed wikilink to link the category without adding the page to it. Oof. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Charles Hoskinson page

Regarding recent edits I made to the Charles Hoskinson page, I previously tried to support my claims with citations to public records, but I believe that you removed them stating that government records cannot be used in this fashion. Kamtal75 (talk) 03:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Kamtal75, I responded at your user talk page and would prefer to keep the conversation in one place. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 03:12, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Citation failed verification

I have removed a statement from the biography of Martin Kulldorff that failed verification. Per core policy regarding biographies and core policy regarding source verification, the challenged statement should be removed without discussion.

As discussed on the relevant talk page, the cited article does not provide a direct link between the Great Barrington Declaration and recurrent epidemics and therefore the statement represents original research.

You are encouraged to continue discussing this issue at the relevant talk page and avoid engaging in an edit war.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 04:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Michael.C.Wright, I would indeed prefer to keep the discussion at the article talk page. Please assume moving forward that I'm familiar with core policies, including BLP and V. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 04:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 49

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 49, January – February 2022

• New library collections
• Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Persian Gulf

The opinions of Wikipedians do not trump those of reliable sources, would you agree? EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@EnlightenmentNow1792: yes. But, here's the deal: if you want some change to Persian Gulf, I'd rather you bring it up at the article talk page than here. That said, I encourage you to drop it, as the RfC was very recent and you've already stated your position. If, instead, you're just looking for a free-wheeling debate on Wikipedia policy, then I'm happy to host here. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 12:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: why would there be any need to debate Wikipedia policy? The policies are quite clear. They only need be enforced. Google searches/hits are no substitute for WP:RS, WP:SOURCETYPES, WP:SCHOLARSHIP, wouldn't you agree?

"When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources... Try to cite current scholarly consensus when available." - EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I see. Instead of a debate, perhaps you're interested in a Quoting Policies and Guidelines Party, which is a new thing I just invented. I particularly like the overly intimidating name of MOS:CONFORM, though it's content is much less imposing than the shortcut: stuff like "Remove spaces before punctuation such as periods and colons."

If that's not what you're here for, and you want some change to Persian Gulf, I'd rather you bring it up at the article talk page than here. That said, I encourage you to drop it, as the RfC was very recent and you've already stated your position. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 13:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

You've befuddled me there. At any rate, in response to your final sentence: it's not my "position" though, is it? It's what the RS state. Your or my "positions" (or that of a bunch of anonymous Wiki editors on an RfC) are irrelevant. It's not rocket science. EnlightenmentNow1792 (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

{{Use mdy dates}} auto-formats citations.

A useful thing to know is: dates inside {{cite}} templates are automatically formatted according to the use dates template at the top of the page.

So when a page has {{use mdy dates}}, then {{cite|access-date=2020-01-02}} prints as January 2, 2020. No need to fix up the dates inside all the cite templates. -- M.boli (talk) 21:53, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi M.boli, unless I've made an error (very possible!), I don't make cosmetic only date format changes unless also making some non-cosmetic fix. I do find the changes make the wiki text neater. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 23:19, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Righto! Got it. -- M.boli (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Question from Saranshhh56 (12:10, 5 April 2022)

Karan Kundrra --Saranshhh56 (talk) 12:10, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Saranshhh56! It looks like you might be mentioning the article Karan Kundrra. Is there something I can help you with there? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 13:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Removal of content was not in keeping in spirit of WP:PRESERVE

I see in your latest large removal of the content I provided you cited, WP:PRESERVE, however I was a bit taken aback, and needed to read that section again, because I don't think leaving the source and maybe half of a single line in any way constitutes the spirit or letter of what WP:PRESERVE says, lets review:

Great Wikipedia articles can come from a succession of editors' efforts. Rather than delete appropriate content, fix problems if you can, tag or remove them if you can't.

As explained above, Wikipedia is a work in progress and perfection is not required. As long as any of the facts or ideas added to an article would belong in the "finished" article, they should be retained if they meet the three article content retention policies: Neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), Verifiability, and No original research.

Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page.

Instead of removing content from an article, consider:

Rephrasing or copy-editing to improve grammar or more accurately represent the sources Correcting inaccuracies, while keeping the rest of the content intact Merging or moving the content to a more relevant existing article, or splitting the content to an entirely new article Adding another point of view to the existing points of view to make the article more balanced Requesting a citation by adding the tag, or adding any other Template:Inline cleanup tags as appropriate Doing a quick search for sources and adding a citation yourself Adding appropriate cleanup tags to content you cannot fix yourself Repairing a dead link if a new URL for the page or an archive of the old one can be located Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge Fixing errors in wikitext or formatting Otherwise, if you think the content could provide the seed of a new sub-article, or if you are just unsure about removing it from the project entirely, consider copying the information to the article's talk page for further discussion. If you think the content might find a better home elsewhere, consider moving the content to a talk page of any article you think might be more relevant, so that editors there can decide how it might be properly included in our encyclopedia.

As I learned from your own introduction of the citing of WP:Interviews, which I thoroughly reviewed and responded to, my comment does not represent WP:OR, especially as I most recently had written it. It took a long time to get there, and I'd appreciate if you self revert, or at least bring back some more of the content that I had written. You stated in your edit summary, "...my primary concern was not the specific wording, but the over-reliance on primary sources", but Reason is a secondary source and more importantly as stated in WP:Interviews, Primary sources are generally acceptable for supporting uncontroversial claims by interviewees about themselves, and they may be authoritative (e.g., for what the interviewee said during the interview). This is especially important, that as long as we properly attribute the claim, we are not stating that what Prasad says is in any way correct (or incorrect), but simply what he stated as part of the Reason interview. This is part of the core role of the encyclopedia in reporting the facts from a WP:NPOV is that as long as written with proper attribution and that I did not mis-hear/interpret or otherwise synthesize or analyze the work, then I would argue that my original text should be able to stand. Thank you for all the time that you have put into this thus far. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 18:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Th78blue: I appreciate the thanks, and I'd say the same to you. Many parts of your comment are inextricably tied to content decisions about the article, and I'd prefer it if you'd bring them up on the article talk page, so other interested editors can see and respond to them. I'm happy to talk PRESERVE here though, since it's mostly about my conduct and both of our interpretations of policy.

I didn't really cite PRESERVE, because I spelled it wrong! More seriously, I was citing the "spirit of WP:PRESERVE", which I take to be something along the lines of "keep as much of other editors hard work intact as you can". I believe I did so, keeping as much content as I felt was due and trimming only the parts that I believe to be undue (as NPOV can be a WP:DON'T PRESERVE issue). I might have otherwise cited WP:BRDR or WP:PARTR as my edit was definitively a reversion. Especially when working with experienced, good-faith contributors, I do try and keep as much as I can, including keeping material that I am neutral on or only weakly oppose. I suppose it could be frustrating to see someone citing PRESERVE while near completely reverting. If you have thoughts on the best way to communicate when making similar reversions in the future, I'd be interested to hear them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I think your communication was fine, just that perhaps we disagree still on the content and the understanding of what to retain. I'd ask you kindly to perhaps take another look and see if there is anything else from my original comment that could be retained. It was the culmination of many hours of review since you stated you were not going to watch the video, and so I had to pause every few seconds and make all of those timestamps and type out all of that text word for word. I did not take that from anywhere and copy and paste.... ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 20:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion

Further dates: the dubious tag was mine, and became moot when you removed the text. Removing the text was a good call, as I suspect that this may have been true for a month or so when it was seized. If it *is* true I am curious as it how it happened. I mean, it is plausible that Azov was part of the seizure operation, but if they were allowed to keep an oligarch's mansion that becomes notable if provable, but I myself hadn't been able to do so either way. And there are already a lot of disparaging unprovable claims. Elinruby (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

@Elinruby: all of that stuff was supported by the source that had been cited just before it; it was mostly plagiarized verbatim. That said, it's a Newsweek source reprinting a Daily Signal source ... dubious indeed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I did see you mention copy vio. Anyway, good call.Elinruby (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

My help desk question

Hello Firefangledfeathers, I'm not super familiar with guidelines surrounding conflict between editors and I'm wondering what mistakes I made in this instance. How should I have responded to the user? I think in retrospect I should have simply led with an apology and I feel that I ended up kind of backtracking on my initial comment, but I truly had no intention of offending the user. TipsyElephant (talk) 17:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi TipsyElephant. I don't think you did much wrong at all. I don't see your actions as misgendering in any way. I suppose you could have raised COI concerns (which I think were reasonable)at the user's talk page first, instead of as a draft comment, but I imagine she'd have been incensed either way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:32, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Also, in the future where should I bring up user conduct? I've never used WP:DRN before, but that appears to be the correct location? And where can I check what pronouns a user prefers? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

DRN is for content disputes, not conduct. You'll see the full deal at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, which tells you to start by bringing it up at the user's talk page. There's not much of an intermediate step between user talk page discussion and admin intervention, unfortunately. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The user did say "We just won an award" when referring to the show. Should this be pursued further in some way? I've never used WP:COIN, but would that be somewhere this should be addressed or is this minor enough that it doesn't really matter? TipsyElephant (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I see you asked about it at her user talk page. I'd wait to see how she responds. In the meantime, does the article in mainspace need any work? Are there sources that are unreliable or language that's overly promotional? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:49, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I believe so, but I don't think the content is egregiously promotional and the heavy focus on the plot was probably more of an issue (I should have declined the draft based on WP:NOT instead of WP:NPOV). However, the user has clearly indicated that she disagrees with my assessment. If I make changes to the article and she begins reverting my edits then I assume the conflict is more fit for WP:DRN but that I should attempt to resolve the conflict on the article's talk page first? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I would start with article talk page discussion before considering other venues. If no other editors besides the two of you contribute their opinions, you could also consider WP:3O before DRN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

The user mentioned there real name in our discussion. Did I accidentally dox the person? Is the responsibility on the user to avoid making that mistake or should I have worded my questions differently? TipsyElephant (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You're fine. Users are welcome to disclose their IRL identities if they'd like. I don't recommend it. You can read more at WP:OUTING. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

While I edit, I tend to drink a lot of tea. Here is a cup of tea for being such an agreeable editor to work with, even when we may disagree... I can NOT say that for everyone. ♥Th78blue (talk)♥ 21:20, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Th78blue! Any tea preferences? I'm usually drinking ginger tea (I lean on coffee for my caffeination needs). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:10, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Notice of group resource

Hi. there. I noticed your messages to some editors, regarding some general measures and safeguards that are in effect for articles in the area of current history. just wanted to send you the invite below, if you might perhaps be interested. I appreciate all your efforts. feel free to be in touch. thanks!

I would like to invite any interested editors here to join the task force for Contemporary History. One of our core goals is to highlight and promote the coverage of contemporary history as its own distinct area here at Wikipedia.

We differ from a simple effort to cover current events, in that we seek to provide the editing community with resources that would allow it to provide broad and comprehensive coverage of articles on contemporary history as a broad topical field, rather than simply on individual current events as they may occur.

to that end, we have set up articles such as 2020s in political history, which allow the whole editing community to adopt a broad scope in keeping wikipedia updated with broad historical trends, topics and events, as they occur, but also as they become relevant to the field of history overall. I hope that sounds helpful and worthwhile to you. you are welcome to join us in any way, or to offer any input or ideas that you may wish. we welcome your input. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Every time I see your name, I see some common sense

Pretty much every time I see you involved with something, you're bringing something positive to the discussion. Also, ever since this, I've found myself using the term spicy nonsense fairly often. Thanks for being decent. It's appreciated. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It feels great to get a compliment from an editor whose work I really respect. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Some days, though, I wish I didn't find myself defending people I don't agree with at every turn. As a community, we have a real problem trying to make people look as bad as possible, or as good as possible. Tough to find decent, NPOV, middle of the road BLPs on anyone involved in anything even moderately spicy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Inaccurate relationship assessment

Dear Firefangledfeathers,

I have seen your comment at Wikipedia page Administrators' noticeboard's "Incidents" subpage. It seems that for some reason you seem to mistake me for another person who requested something else at the same page. To remove your doubts, I will be clear—that person is not I.

I have made my intentions clear on March that massacres of Muslim Turks during the Turkish War of Independence should be added to the article; I have made clear arguments based on scholarly sources and I have put a great effort to reach a compromise with other editors regarding the content.

Now that being clarified, I kindly invite you to share your opinion regarding the content in "Request for Comment" at the page Turkish War of Independence.

Best regards.--176.219.154.167 (talk) 03:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

As you'll see at ANI, I made a mistake and have stricken my comment. I'm sorry! I'll do my best to make it up to you, a process which is likely to include a comment at the RfC. Might take some time, but RfCs usually run for 30 days, FYI. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:14, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic

You removed the material I added to Novak's legacy. It is very unclear what your reasoning is.

Your first 'justification' is that is on three occasions the content was removed, and reasons were given. The only reason given was that Editors opposed have mentioned bias, WP:UNDUE. That is nonsense. As it currently stands, the Legacy section provides an overwhelmingly uncritical description of his legacy. As such, it is already biased and meets the criteria for WP:UNDUE, because no one is that perfect. Adding some concerns about his legacy, brings balance to the section.

Your second justification seems to be that the content I added doesn't belong in the Legacy section. Ok. That suggests you think the content is fine - but it should be in a different section. So which section does it belong in?

Your third justification is that opinions are stated in wikivoice. In the content you removed, there were three quotes - two sourced to credible tennis commentators and one to Djokovic himself - combined with factual information about his recent losses. That does not constitute wikivoice.

It seems to me that two of your reasons for removing the material are flawed; and your third point actually supports inclusion - but in a different section. Manifiscently (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Manifiscently. I encourage you to bring this up at the article talk page, where other interested editors can join the discussion. You could start a new section or use one of the related existing sections. It might help, in framing what's going on here, to read WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. The burden is on you to convince other editors that your disputed, newly-added content belongs in the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

I did as you suggested. Two editors agreed that something could be included without the quotes. Manifiscently (talk) 20:26, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Manifiscently. I'm following the talk page conversation. I haven't had time to review your recent edit, but I'm grateful to you for bringing it up for discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:29, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

please and thanks

Thanks for the kind words. Please watch over that critical critical 1/4. QRep2020 (talk) 21:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome QRep2020. Can't imagine you're feeling great right now. Let me know if you'd like to hear some random stranger's advice on how to handle this all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Net worth

Hey FFF,

I came across this contribution of yours. I was just wondering... doesn't it make more sense to update these values and the sources at the same time? If the text says "as of April 2022", it might actually be beneficial to have access to the archived version of that page as of April 2022? Just thinking out loud here though - these numbers that need constant updates are hard to deal with in any case. If we just had a project to store data in a more structured way, you know... effeietsanders 00:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Good one! In short, I'm not seeing the value in continually updating the archive and doubt it'll be done with fidelity. I'd be happy to talk about it more at the article talk page if you'd like. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:45, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Deleted comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daphne Dorman

Hello FFF, I see you deleted my comments on this page. Link. Any reason? Chumpih ^t 18:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Chumpih! I drafted my !vote and then slept on it. I even refreshed the page and everything before posting but I guess my session data was stored or something. Thanks for the polite inquiry. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. I'll restore. l8r. Chumpih ^t 19:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC) = see you've already done this. All good.

Suggest

I am saying remove the tag and we'll work on it. Not bringing up old hash or something but it appears you either tag stuff or make suggestions and don't understand part of what you are saying isn't right. Also this site encourages both cooperating and may I add you can make "remedies" you like under the bold policy. Further, you don't have to edit this article necessarily but change things (this is being pro-active). Don't merely go around being a critic.ForThattohappen (talk) 04:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi ForThattohappen. I think you've got me wrong, but it's not a big deal. If you're actively improving the section, feel free to take the tag back down. If you know you're going to leave some excessive quotation for more than a day or so, it would help if you could re-add the tag, so others are alerted to the problem. Yes, like I said in my initial edit summary, I'd be happy to fix the issue myself. I still intend to, if we don't get a more knowledgeable editor on it in a week or so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:50, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Conflict resolution

Hello,

Please can I ask you to resolve conflict between me and another editor? They misgendered me and I don't want them to do it to anyone else. You seemed like an admin so I thought I'd ask you to help me. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi 92.035.8. I am sorry to hear you were misgendered. I am not an admin. It might help you to read WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, which lays out some steps to follow when another editor's behavior creates an issue. The first step is to bring it up politely at their user talk page, trying to avoid discussing the dispute on article talk pages.

I encourage you to create an account. Doing so will allow you to indicate in your preferences what pronouns you use, and you'll also be able to enable a gadget that makes it easy to see others' pronouns and whether or not they are an admin. Among other benefits! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you very much :D 92.0.35.8 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

The notice

Hello,

Please could you help me craft the neutral notice to WT:LGBT?

Many thanks 92.0.35.8 (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure! I'd recommend keeping it short. How about

Input from experienced editors is needed at Talk:Quentin Crisp/Archive2022/May#Transgender where there is a dispute over which pronouns to use. The writer, who died in 1999, identified as transgender shortly before their death.

For the section heading, maybe "Pronoun dispute" or "Pronouns for deceased trans person"? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you that's brilliant! Although, do you think I should make the heading "Pronoun and gender dispute" and also say "which pronouns and gender to use", since that was also in dispute? 92.0.35.8 (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:12, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Sick, I'll do that rn! 92.0.35.8 (talk) 13:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for handling those notices ... the wedding was quite special, everyone very happy, but last night we got news that four of the wedding party have COVID ... three groomsmen and one bridesmaid ... and they all dressed for the wedding at our rented VRBO. So, we hit the road at the crack of dawn, and trying to iron man it back home, driving straight thru, hope we get home before COVID gets us :( :(. So, I am sharing driving with hubby, can't edit as much ... hoping for the best. Fortunately we are vaccinated and double boosted, so are hoping we won't get sick on the road. Thanks for filling in the alerts for me ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Glad it was a special and happy time. Hope the wedding party all have mild cases and you/hubby none at all. Hope the spirit of Lisa Nowak fills you, only just the headlong rush cross-country driving part and not the "assault on an ex's new girlfriend" part. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I forgot my diapers :) :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

MAXIMUM ABSORBENCY GARMENTS please . Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

The pooch is with us, so we do hit a rest stop every four hours ... she is one of the reasons we drove, as everyone just had to see her, and she was almost the belle of the ball. So we won't need maximum absorbency garments, but I sure don't want to be sneaking into a hotel with COVID! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jeffrey Kaplan. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding List of political parties in Italy. The thread is Disruption_of_consensus_building_process_on_List_of_political_parties_in_Italy. Thank you.

BTW this is not anything to do with your conduct, hope I didn't startle you or anything! — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 12:53, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:ONUS

Hello,

I was wondering if you could do me a favour :) I am in the process of creating an account. But, in the meantime - I was wondering if you could edit Transphobia as the majority of editors there support a line being excised. More details can be found on Talk: Transphobia. I'm not sure if a consensus has been reached - but since the majority support the removal - it should go until a consensus is reached per WP:ONUS. The page is protected so I can't edit it as I don't have an account. Please tell me if I have misunderstood WP:ONUS or am out of line for asking you this. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd create an account now but it's 01:41 here and I desperately need to sleep. 92.0.35.8 (talk) 00:41, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Hiya 92. Glad to here you're registering. Generally, if you're looking for an edit on a protected page you should use Template:Edit semi-protected or one of the other templates for different protection levels. Reaching out to specific editors to implement a change isn't exactly (I think) WP:CANVASSING, as it's not about discussion at all, but it could be seen as a violation in spirit. I've been watching that conversation anyway, so I don't feel bad about chiming in. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:57, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay, thanks very much. I understand your point RE:CANVASSING and I will take your advice on board. Goodnight! 92.0.35.8 (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Musk defamation subsection

I would suggest that some, limited mention of Musk's email to Buzzfeed is warranted to remain as it provides more context as to what assumptions, previous or retroactive, Musk produced with regards to the allegation against Unsworth. It is a rare thing in such high profile cases. QRep2020 (talk) 04:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I looked into it a bit more and added a line related to the PI stuff. Maybe not exactly what you were hoping for, but I'm trying to stick to the facts that are still getting coverage four years later. If you want to talk further about improvements to the article, I'd prefer if we did so at the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Waterwangledweathers

I just came here to alert you of a possible new user with a name clearly intended to take the piss out of you. 😂  Tewdar  19:45, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Tewdar: It's clearly marked as an alt account of Firefangledfeathers.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

🙄  Tewdar  19:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Ponyo! I'd recommend taking Tewdar seriously only sparingly, and even then only in small doses. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey! I write serious articles, me!  Tewdar  20:14, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

"Horn site" lol. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You've been watching too many cartoons...  Tewdar  20:32, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

What a wascally chawactew! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:52, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Be vewy vewy quiet!  Tewdar  19:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from Kativmilano (18:44, 20 May 2022)

Hello, I'd like to create my wikipedia artist bio page Could you help me with this? --Kativmilano (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Kativmilano, and welcome! I'd be happy to help you. A good place to start is by reading "Your first article". It might help to start with a little editing in other areas before you tackle article creation, and you can get some ideas of where to start at "Introduction to Wikipedia. I'm not sure if the bio you hope to write is about yourself. If so, please know that doing so is tricky. We can go into more specifics if that's your plan. Welcome, again, and please let me know if you have more questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:51, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI

In reference to this edit summary: "Spirit of the age" is a literal translation of Zeitgeist, so no source is needed for that. Generalrelative (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Hahaha! That's great. I drew the connection but not that strongly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Cheers! Generalrelative (talk) 16:20, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

And regarding this, consider me equally flattered! :P Generalrelative (talk) 20:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Aw shucks... Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk

Thanks for the edit note regarding the rule on changes of talk page headers. I was not aware of that guideline and was under the impression that there was an assumption against refactoring. Regardless of any guideline, I was not trying to ruffle any feathers (pun intended) and was just trying to avoid the original poster getting... fired up (pun attempted). Apologies for any inconvenience, and all the best ‡ El cid, el campeador ^talk 15:10, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Good ones! Who among us knows all the policies and guidelines? Let them cast the first trout. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Question from Dowta (12:33, 25 May 2022)

Hello, I'm wondering if it might be helpful to offer links to related image art in certain cases. I represent a new search engine for the world's best image art, both stock images and art prints. It's called Best of Images. We organize the collections of the best from the best sources. Here's an example for the sport of Cricket: https://www.bestofimages.com/digital/Game-Sport-Hobby/Cricket/292

Appreciate your thoughts. --Dowta (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Dowta, and welcome to Wikipedia! I want to make sure, first, that I understand what you're hoping to accomplish. If I have it right: you work for or own bestofimages.com and are thinking that links to the site from articles might improve the Wikipedia experience for users. You might consider, for example, adding that Cricket link to the External links section of our article on Cricket. Am I understanding you correctly? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:40, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I'm the founder. And that's the idea, that for example people searching Cricket might be interested in related art they can license for communications, or buy for decoration. Dowta (talk) 14:26, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Your goal here is putting you at odds with some long established Wikipedia culture and policy. See, for example, WP:PROMO. As you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid directly editing articles to add links to bestofimages.com, and instead request that they be added at the article talk pages. In picking which articles to suggest, it might help to read our policy on external links, which emphasizes the point that you should not directly add your link to articles.

Most of the images I saw while browsing your site are available for purchase or paid licensing. If your or the site itself own the rights to some of the art or images and are interested in contributing them to the Wiki project overall, you might consider releasing some under a Wiki-compatible license or to the public domain. The best place to do so is at Commons. I can give you more info on that if you're interested. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much. We don't have the rights, we're a new niche search engine trying to organize the world's best (usable) image art. All images are available for license or purchase from the source sites. Perhaps I could try suggesting a few collections for consideration via "article talk pages". I actually looked for the talk page for the "Cricket" example, but couldn't locate it. Could you possibly point me to it? 2601:400:8000:A340:11D1:37DC:D696:285E (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

All the article talk pages have the same name as the article itself but with the prefix "Talk:", so you're looking for Talk:Cricket. PS:It looks like you might have logged out before this last comment. There's no rule against it, just make sure you follow the advice at WP:Editing while logged out). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks

Just wanted to drop a quick thanks for pumping the brakes on that. I definitely should've kept my cool, but it can be pretty hard to snap out of it once it gets that heated. Looking back, I'd definitely undo my comments and handle it differently. Anyway, thanks again. Throast (talk | contribs) 22:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome, Throast. I've seen a lot of mud thrown your way in the time I've been around that talk page, and I'm sorry that's been happening. FYI, ARoseWolf is a good egg. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I liked to left a few words find this title appropriate for this. Just want to say thank you for you scientific neutrality edition on page Jessica Taylor (author) well as you can see There's kind of strange behavior of a user on that, also it got a long history some documented on my page. Anyway thanks for your help, and I really appreciated your opinion on that page, I've done editions to the page because it's promotional, a banner on it also states, well as that user: generalrelative didn't let to bring some criticizing I deleted those contents that were referred to newspapes. Sure the user wouldn't stop, then:

I really appreciate a neutral, impartial opinion on it, I believe you are well fitted to, please intervene, we're here for the truth. My regards Freethinker6799 (talk) 08:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Want to add another thing: there's a comment by on misconduct/ edit warring. Well, I tried to get along with generalrelative both email & their talk page, all my messages have been deleted on their talk page. Please see. Also note ot that the user tracked down all my activities and get them deleted! I didn't do anything except for adding my editions. So it's tricky now. On the talk page of Jessica Taylor (author) is a little details about issue and talk page of the user generalrelative. Freethinker6799 (talk) 08:59, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Freethinker6799. If you'd like my advice, please keep conduct and content discussions separate, with conduct issues at user talk pages and content issues at article talk pages. Though it can be frustrating, users are allowed to remove most posts from their own user talk pages, see WP:UP#CMT. I agree with GR about the removed Depp-Heard content and am still on the fence about the King Richard bit. I think it should be possible for the three of us to come to rough consensus, and if not, there are other dispute resolution options available. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Throast thanks. yes, Someone told me to put the issue on the talk page.

well, seems that user generalrelative wouldn't accept anything but what they want. since for them when it's appropriate guardian & independent are reliable but daily mail etc aren't reliable said "rescue status quo ante" undid my edition. about talk, when the user deletes anything I tell them how could be a discussion. hoping you intervene either all contents with unreliable sources be deleted or there would be of other sources at the same level of authenticity. Freethinker6799 (talk) 19:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

@Freethinker6799: most people that I've seen edit the way you are right now end up getting blocked. I urge you to self-revert and slow things down. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:29, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Freethinker6799, I assume the ping was accidental? Throast (talk | contribs) 19:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Basically your opinion isn't neutral. I've add a few lines cited to daily mail and another ones. The user deleted them for more than 5 times due to unreliable sources. No efforts were effective, the user deleted warning & efforts. I said ok as they wish but daily mail isn't reliable as well as guardian & independent. I deleted them. If it's not for promote I hope a neutral position. Please see the evidence first Freethinker6799 (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

yes, sorry, it was by mistake.

I seek your help to intervene which means being impartial with the situation. please do so, see the situation and don't assume one with more history here is more moral. anyway people die for the truth & freedom, getting blocked is not a thing I couldn't endure. for fear of blocking I'm not put the truth away. Freethinker6799 (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Firefangledfeathers. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

Welcome to Wikipedia. Wikipedia invites everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, but one or more redirects you created, such as with Pipe Masters, have been considered disruptive and/or malicious, and have been reverted or deleted. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. Faster than Thunder (talk | contributions) 19:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi Faster than Thunder, and thanks for the welcome! I hope to accomplish much more in my time on Wikipedia. Was this message perhaps sent in error? I am fairly confident that Pipe Masters should be a redirect to Billabong Pipeline Masters and not a copy-and-paste content fork. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, welcome to Wikipedia, FFF! I'm sure you'll get the hang of things in another 13 years or so... 😂  Tewdar  20:28, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

We're all newcomers until we have 100,000 edits right? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:30, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The user has 2 drafts declared on their user page, 899 edits, and a (malformed?) request for adminship under their belt! 😮  Tewdar  20:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Pardon me, 8 mainspace articles (but 6 got deleted ☹️)! Well, that's more than me anyway. I'd probably support them at a future RFA...  Tewdar  20:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

More than me too! Sorry Faster than Thunder, we're having a little fun at your expense. Please take this as the cost of templating the regulars. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

This article is good! You should write more articles if you have time! 😁👍  Tewdar  20:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I plan on it. I felt like the main thing that was holding me back was that no one had yet welcomed me and let me know that everyone is invited to contribute. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's no excuse now. They say there's a manual round here somewhere, but I can't say I've ever read it.  Tewdar  20:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Firefangledfeathers! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Writing an article
• Five pillars of Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Help pages
• The Teahouse (newcomer help)
• Main help desk

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

OMG you have cookies here!?! That's it: I'm gonna stick around. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The cookie thing reminds me of why I hate the welcome templates. I wish there was a welcome-adult template for sucking adults who don't care about Internet cookies or flowers. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

How about this? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Adults only. No food or drink allowed.

Welcome to Wikipedia, ScottishFinnishRadish. Please leave any childish ways behind and follow some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Writing an article
• Five pillars of Wikipedia
• Community portal (community but not in a jolly way)
• Help pages
• The Teahouse (do not go there)
• Main help desk (do not admit weakness)

Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? You are an adult and should be able to figure things out from here.

You should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date. You should already know this.

I hope you and others will be satisfied with your work as an editor. Please do not seek enjoyment or fun here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. Reading a welcome message should be like watching Schindler's List. The only thing is missing is two or three mentions that you'll be immediately blocked for any child's play or copyright infringement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I do hear the violin theme whenever I'm at ANI. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 50

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 50, March – April 2022

• New library partner - SPIE
• 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Sebastien1118 (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from I GEDE PRATAMA on Ramsgate EMUD (10:11, 16 June 2022)

HADIAH --I GEDE PRATAMA (talk) 10:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi I GEDE PRATAMA! Welcome to Wikipedia! Anything I can do to help? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from Lokiesghost211 on Talk:Benjamin Davis (gang member) (20:50, 17 June 2022)

I have to tell you i can not stay silent about this fraudulent Davis pretending to have created my patch. I started 211 in 1993 in the utah state prison. Me and my brother who has now passed Lloyd pace were in cell 13 oquirrhs and i sat down and came up with the patch then he tatooed it on my stomach then did the same to himself on his ribcage. How utah has not show the photos taken after the death of anouther broth Ben West in the prison i have no idea. We were all taken out photos were taken of 7 of us then we were all questioned about what it was and stood for. Nobody said anything other then it was religious because it partly was and is. So the lying fraud Davis should be called out as any kind of man because he is a lying coward! --Lokiesghost211 (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Lokiesghost211, is there a Wikipedia article that has this content wrong? Benjamin Davis (gang member) does not exist yet. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Possibly referring to this article? Very entertaining talk page, this. I should've watchlisted it a long time ago. 😂  Tewdar  19:31, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Could be! Though the page doesn't mention anything about a patch/tattoo and who created it. It does say the crew was created in 1995 by Davis, which is supported by one of the cited Denver Post articles, which is itself citing "court documents". Lokiesghost211, if the Post has it wrong, are there any other published sources that have it right? If not, you might like to get in touch with one, or push for the Post to publish a correction. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and our job is to summarize what secondary sources say. This means we sometimes propagate errors present in otherwise reliable secondary sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from Opelong on Talk:West Michigan Edge (08:25, 18 June 2022)

Who is the first man in South Africa --Opelong (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Opelong. I'm not sure! You might like to read South Africa#Prehistoric archaeology which places Homo sapiens in the region since at least 170,000 years ago, with other hominid species present even earlier. For questions of fact like this, I highly recommend the Wikipedia reference desk. I hope that helps. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from Tewdar on Talk:1887 in baseball

What is the best topping for Hasselback potatoes?  Tewdar  19:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Good one! It does seem like something unexpected is happening with the mentorship module's section headings. That potato page needs expansion ASAP.

Cheese, of course. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Mmm, yum yum! And a few bits of bacon, and a few more, and a few more... 😋  Tewdar  20:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from Impdroid (21:19, 18 June 2022)

Would you help me get my voice out --Impdroid (talk) 21:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Impdroid. I can certainly try to help. What are you hoping to accomplish? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:11, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Question from Itsnitishpandattt (03:49, 22 June 2022)

S/o satendra Pandey --Itsnitishpandattt (talk) 03:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

ANI thread related to discussion in which you participated

Hi, just notifying you of this ANI thread connected to a discussion on the MoS talkpage. Boynamedsue (talk) 17:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Boynamedsue. FYI: I moved your comment here from my user page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022

New Page Review queue June 2022

Hello Firefangledfeathers,

Backlog status

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

Backlog drive

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.

TIP – New school articles

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.

Misc

There is a new template available, {{NPP backlog}}, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:

Very high unreviewed pages backlog: 10993 articles, as of 12:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC), according to DatBot

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.

Reminders

• Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
• If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
• If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
• To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Chemerinsky POV pusher/troll

That IP editor you previously reported has returned: [1]. I reverted, but it might be good to report him again.  White Whirlwind  03:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That's definitely slow-mo edit warring but I doubt it's actionable yet. If I were you,@White whirlwind, I'd give them a templated EW warning, start an article talk page section about "controversial", and ping them to it. Hopefully they engage, and if not, it shows we tried. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:44, 20 June 202077 -->

OK stuff

How did I misconstrue the book? I posted the entire quotation, the only quotation, where he talks about OK and conservatism. You never provided any follow-up other than saying he "supports 'conservative'", without qualification. SamuelRiv (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi SamuelRiv. I responded at the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:22, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. He is somewhat inconsistent – he directly calls OK "right-wing" once with regard to its founding, and talks about "right-wing politics" in the introduction in a fairly consistent synonym with "conservative," and following that never seems to use the synonym again and almost always uses "far-right" and "right-wing extremism" as descriptors for OK (which from the definition exclude the synonym). By how Jackson defines "right-wing politics" – However, the traditions that right-wing movements aim to preserve or restore may not have actually ever existed. – I'd say that covers the later explicit definition of "conservative" that he uses for OK. That said, I think one still has to look at that quotation independently (it's a good quotation for the article imo) – is that under the umbrella of conservatism as an American political ideology? I know Reagan's dead and all, but he's still present in the general notion of "true conservatism" that the GOP intelligentsia argue over in National Review and such, whereas Trump is just... Trump. Does the shifting ideology of the base change the definition of the major ideology of the GOP, or do we just tack on terms like "populism" and "nationalism" to adjust?

Those thoughts aside, Jackson's definition of right-wing vs. conservative didn't sit well with me, so I checked out some of the discussion sources he cited. Blee and Creasap is the only open one, and they get even weirder, but I think those are definitions for the purpose of academic clarity. SamuelRiv (talk) 17:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Good questions. Terms in politics can be tough to define, as the act of definition is an act of politics. On another note, thanks for being charitable when I was being a bit boneheaded in that discussion. There are too many obvious counterexamples for me to stick to "far-right is a strict subset of conservatism". Please do ping me if there's something more I need to respond to there; I'm trying not to spend too much time on the sidebar debate. Did you know mobile readers, the sizeable majority of our readership, can't even see them? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Caesar Tarrant

On 27 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Caesar Tarrant, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Caesar Tarrant remained enslaved after his service as a boat pilot in the American Revolutionary War until the state of Virginia purchased his freedom in 1789? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Caesar Tarrant. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Caesar Tarrant), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request Tool changes

Hello, I just made some significant changes to User:Terasail/Edit Request Tool. Since you have the tool active, I am informing you of this since it may affect you. To open the tool you will now have to click the "respond" button. The tool will load a similar interface as before. There is now a live preview of the response. These changes might have introduced some bugs so if you have any concerns / suggestions or run into problems please leave a note at User talk:Terasail/Edit Request Tool Thanks, Terasail^[✉️] 15:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Please explain your uncivil and illogical accusation

Hi. On 30 June 2022 you wrote on Specifico's talk page accusing me that my explanation and trying to seek consensus "borders on pestering". It is really puzzling and shocking that someone would think that discussing an issue with explanation of one's opinion is pestering, only because you don't agree with the editor's opinion. Can you kindly tell me exactly what you find pestering in my reply, with quotes, so that I can analyze your rationalization? Are you aware that consensus is usually not achieved only with one comment? Mind you, I read several guidelines and policies for a long time before engaging in the discussion with Specifico, as it can be seen by the links I submitted. Did you do the same before throwing uncivil accusations towards me? Thanks in advance for your reply. Thinker78 (talk) 15:23, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Thinker78. So that we're on the same page, I am using "pestering" to mean something like "causing too much repeated bother over a small matter", with a little "and I think you're wrong about the small matter" thrown in. I provided that opinion in the hope, which I still have, of convincing you to spend your time in other ways. My view is not easily represented by quoting parts of your comments, but here are some thoughts:

1. If you can avoid time-wasting process discussions, you should do so. In this case, you could have pulled the points you viewed as being high-quality out of an otherwise low-quality talk page comment and started a new section.
2. You can presume that experienced editors have familiarity with policies and guidelines. Short quotation, or simple links, can be very helpful. Lengthy quotation adds unnecessary length and can come off as condescending. You repetition of quotes between the two sections reinforced that effect. If you don't already have it enabled, the Navigation popups tool is a handy way of seeing an editors edit count (among many other benefits).
3. User talk pages are more like block parties hosted by the user and less like private one-on-one discussions. Your response to NewsAndEventsGuy was like being a party guest and telling another guest that they're not welcome. It wasn't your party.

And I'd like to bring up #1 again. We now have three discussions on three user talk pages and at least 1000 words spent on this, and the talk page discussion and article content have not advanced at all. I urge you to drop this matter and say what you would like to say at the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:55, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!

New Page Patrol | July 2022 Backlog Drive
On 1 July, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for adding a short description for the following page: Thomas J. Roulet. Would you be able to review the page as a new page patroller? Many thanks in advance. LizK91 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi LizK91. I'm going to respond at the article talk page and ping you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Variety is the spice of life

When you fail the GAN for Lambert friction gearing disk drive transmission I am going to renominate it. Please let another reviewer have a crack at it. Let's see what happens. Perhaps they will have another input and I can go from there for additional improvements. Thanks.--Doug Coldwell (talk)

Done! I'm glad to hear you have a re-nom planned. Good luck! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

My new GAN for July 6 for the article was reverted and I was told to Give it a rest. I had done all the upgrades and suggestions you gave me. I am going to attempt this GAN again tomorrow (since then I will have given it a rest for 5 days) and hopefully it is not reverted again, as I am interested in getting the article promoted to Good Article. If you wish to pick up this GAN again, it is fine by me.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, who reverted you, is much more experienced with the GA process than I am. I'm going to to give it a rest too. If you're willing to wait 30 days or so, I'd be happy to contribute my efforts as an editor, but I can't re-engage as a reviewer, and the article deserves some fresh eyes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Did you mean to self-revert?

I think you may have overridden your own edits at Nuh Ha Mim Keller, since you undid your own text restoration moments later. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Oops! Should be fixed now. Thanks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Featured Article Save Award

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Firefangledfeathers! Your work on Natalie Clifford Barney has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Good job. That's a lot more work than telling 10,000 people "no." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:36, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I want to keep the joke going, but I really do admire your work on edit requests SFR. Ok, earnest time is over. You go back to whack-a-mole and I've got more to do at H.D.. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Beat me by a hair! How am I going to become editor of the year if you take up all of my opportunities to say "no" to people! If only I wasn't busy saying "no" on Talk:Solar energy I would have been able to say no there too! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:04, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm so proud of myself. Next I'm going to try and beat Serols to reverting some vandalism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:29, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Impossible. I've tried. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Nikkimaria! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Question from HelWills198 (08:09, 12 July 2022)

Hi, how do I create a page? --HelWills198 (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi HelWills198, and welcome to Wikipedia! The most helpful resource is probably Help:Your first article. I highly recommend practicing with some smaller edits on existing articles first! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:42, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Sally Ride

while you're at it, if you drop by Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sally Ride/archive1 with a review, that would be much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Hawkeye7! I figured I'd do what I could to polish some of the details before the FAC titans take it on. I have the FAC page watchlisted and will keep doing what I can. Thanks for your great work on the article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:57, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Question from 7Noman (14:20, 24 July 2022)

Hello, I wanted to ask when am I eligible to write an article on Wikipedia. I have edited 10 articles so far. Will be grateful for your advice. Thanks --noman (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi 7Noman! I believe you are now eligible, since you've made 10 edits and been around for more than 4 days. I encourage you to read the advice at Help:Your first article. If you start with a draft, I'd be happy to take a look if you ping me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:59, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much @Firefangledfeathers noman (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

August 2022 (UTC)

Question from KMZ13923 (23:42, 25 July 2022)

Hey! Thank you for taking some time out to be a mentor. I love Wikipedia as its my go to page.

Can you please help me add a new section to KFC's wiki page? Thanks. --KMZ13923 (talk) 23:42, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi KMZ13923. I love Wikipedia too! What info are you looking to add to the KFC article? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. On the KFC wiki page, it still has the old CEO, Tony Lowings, listed. The new CEO of 2022 is Sabir Sami. If we can update that it would be awesome. Here is the link if you'd like to verify:

https://global.kfc.com/our-leaders/

Also, I wanted to make a separate wiki page for Sabir Sami with the info provided on the main site.

Any help is greatly appreciated. KMZ13923 (talk) 23:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi KMZ13923. That looks like a reasonable edit to make. That page has been semi-protected, meaning only autoconfirmed users can edit it. You'll be autoconfirmed once you've made at least 10 edits and been around for more than 4 days. You could edit other pages until that happens and then edit KFC. Alternatively, you could request the edit at Talk:KFC, specifying exactly what change you want to be made and citing the KFC website as your source. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:11, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. KMZ13923 (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 51

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 51, May – June 2022

• New library partners
  • SAGE Journals
  • Elsevier ScienceDirect
  • University of Chicago Press
  • Information Processing Society of Japan
• Feedback requested on this newsletter
• 1Lib1Ref May 2022

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)