User talk:Felida97/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Felida97, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Felida97! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! ChamithN (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Felida97. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Deepest apologies

I'm sorry for my edits at for the awards at Lin-Manuel Miranda's page. Thanks for pointing that out to me.Film Minister (talk) 23:00, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, it has come up before on Miranda's main page. It is also kind of confusing since the Tony award for Best ... is the only theatre award for 'Best ...' specifically given to the producers, some like the Lucille Lortel awards mention Miranda and the theatre but not the producers [1], some like the Drama League awards mention Miranda, the director, the producers and the theatre [2] and some like the Drama Desk awards [3] or the Outer Critics Circle awards [4] just mention the theatre or no one at all. I think Miranda deserves the Best Musical awards as much as the producers and as long as he is mentioned in the nomination they could be listed. But as he already gets the awards for Best Book or Best Music, it would make sense to do the same way the awards in the film industry are awarded. On a different note, if you edit a page, do it carefully and don't leave certain parts out, so it stays self-consistent (with your last edit you forgot to remove the Broadway Audience awards and other awards to be in line with your edit description as well as updating the infobox, and wrongfully removed a lyrics nomination for Bring it On which he definitely deserves). Felida97 (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

List of awards and nominations received by Steven Spielberg

It looks like we were editing on top of one another. Have you got it or do you need my help to sort out these edits? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: No, that's fine, but why did you remove the specific formatting of the tables? I thought it looked a lot better before, but maybe there is some sort of principle I'm not aware of. Sorry about the delay, forgot to ping you. Felida97 (talk) 22:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Browsers can fill in widths: there's no need for anyone to define them. Thanks a lot. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Koavf: That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. Felida97 (talk) 22:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Feliks Zemdegs

Hello! It looks like we were editing Feliks's page at the same time. I personally prefer his medals to be organized by event (it conveys more information that way). What do you think? I really liked the hiding you did, but I can't figure out how to do that while preserving the table. Maybe we should cut the table I added, but it does look kinda nice.Tkwikihelper (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

@Tkwikihelper: First off, I really appreciate you leaving me a message on my talk page. There are two reasons why I integrated the medal record into the infobox the way I did. Firstly, because of the possibility of hiding it since he has won so many medals that as an additional box it just doesn't look very nice from formatting standpoint (especially with the most recent additions, right now). Secondly (and maybe even more important), because the medal record is usually in the infobox and it's always sorted the same way (as seen on countless articles on sports persons; I have yet find one where this isn't the case). I agree that it looks nice and get the different visualization, but I just don't think we should be inconsistent with other, similar articles. I modeled my edit/his medal record after the one on Michael Phelps' page, because successful swimmers win many medals in many different events just like Feliks. So what I think we could add to my attempt is a summary of 'medals won by event' as on Phelps' page to (maybe at least partly) convey information the normally sorted medal record is missing for you. I'm going to do that now (I hope that's alright) and then you can tell me whether that's an acceptable compromise and okay with you or not.

On a different note, I think the event names should be (somewhat) understandable for non-cubers, which sort of disqualifies 'OH' as an abbreviation (and I'm not sure 'Mega.' is an used short name for Megaminx, certainly not an official one), though I think you only abbreviated because it fitted better in the table. I also think naming the countries takes too much space and doesn't add much value when the cities are linked to their main articles and are generally well known geographically. But the links to the articles of the events is a good idea and useful, I'm going to include that. Best regards, Felida97 (talk) 11:19, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Those do appear to be the medal conventions! I appreciate your compromise and your courtesy. Tkwikihelper (talk) 21:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Alex Shih^Talk 16:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Blog Inquiry

Hey Felida97,

Hope you're doing well.

I came across your page through researching the edits of a few music-related Wikipedia pages and wanted to get in touch as I'm currently working on a blog to discuss best practices / tips for Wikipedia and thought I'd reach out to see if this is something you'd want to be involved in.

Let me know your thoughts. I would email you but I already emailed a few people today and that action is currently throttled for me. Please email me back (on my user page) if you’re interested. Thanks!

CMCreator900 (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@CMCreator900: I'm sorry to decline your request. It sounds like an interesting idea, but I'd rather not get involved in off-wiki sites, nor do I feel particularly qualified to partake in such a project. Thank you for your message. Felida97 (talk) 10:33, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Pending edits to Romulus and Remus

Hi, thanks so much for your contributions! I saw that you reverted "pending" edits for this article here. Does that mean that the page is protected? If so, can you tell me where I can find how and when that happened? Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@InformationvsInjustice: I'm not sure what you're asking, but I will do my best. The page Romulus and Remus is under Pending Changes protection, so yes, technically, it is protected. You can see on this page where it lays in comparison with other protection levels. As you can see there, it means that edits to this page from new or unregistered users are subject to review prior to publication (This note is also shown along with the related log at the top of the page every time you edit a pending changes protected page). But as soon as you are autoconfirmed, you can edit these pages normally. Since you are not only autoconfirmed but extendedconfirmed, your edits are accepted automatically.
Now, as to see how and why the page was protected, you can look at either the revision history and look where edits started to get a blue background or at the pending changes log, which is also displayed at the top of the page when you edit the page. In this case, a user configured the pending changes protection on December 7, 2015 with the reason "Persistent vandalism" which is seems reasonable, if you look at the edits previous to the protection. I'm a pending changes reviewer and as such I patrol the pending changes and review them. If a pending changes reviewer accepts an edit (or it is automatically accepted), the edit gets a blue background. If a pending changes reviewer does not want to accept that edit, he can revert the edit(s). There are a couple of ways to do that and the standard edit summary from the reviewing tool is "Reverted 1 pending edit by...". I hope that answers your questions, but if you have any left, feel free to ask. Felida97 (talk) 21:50, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I have done a lot of work on this page and I never noticed that it was semi-protected the entire time. I thought perhaps it was a recent change.  :-) Informata ob Iniquitatum (talk) 05:18, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Felida97. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Gotham Independent Film Award for Breakthrough Actor) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Gotham Independent Film Award for Breakthrough Actor, Felida97!

Wikipedia editor My name is not dave just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Per WP:SOURCELIST, you need to add sources for this list.

To reply, leave a comment on My name is not dave's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

!dave 16:56, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi Felida97. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 01:09, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Reviewer's Barnstar
		Thanks for all your work keeping the Pending Changes queue down! : Noyster (talk), 15:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

George Town, Penang

@Felida97: Hey there. Thanks for dropping by on the George Town article. I am wondering if you could help me out. This article is now listed for GA reassessment due to a couple of issues, such as basic and unprofessional prose, and several lists and tables that aren't entirely appropriate for a main article (and should be moved to appropriate sub-articles).

Could you kindly help out on this by giving the article a thorough look? I am sure this article meets the criteria for GA. Any form of assistance on this is highly appreciated. Thanks. Vnonymous (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Vnonymous: Hi, thank you for your message. I am sorry to tell you that I am not very involved in the writing part of Wikipedia and was only on the page as a pending changes reviewer. Even though I don't feel qualified to participate in GA assessments, I took a look at the article and it looks fine to me, especially after your recent edits addressing the problems. But again, I am sure there are other, more experienced users that are more helpful in this situation. Sorry again, Felida97 (talk) 22:08, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Felida97: It's allright. Thank you for having a look at it :). And thanks for maintaining the stable version of the article (for some reason, there are more vandals targeting this article in the past few hours). Vnonymous (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

TOntine Masacre

Why did you readd the film on Tolkien family? The website R and R films used there does not say whether it was released or unreleased, it says only to be released in 2012. There also hasn't been much news about the film. Only its trailer received a little attention. This is why I didn't think it deserved to be there. The article could do without it. TolkienLover1 (talk) 04:16, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi @TolkienLover1: thank you for leaving a message. First off, I didn't explicitly re-add the film, I was just there as a pending changes reviewer and reverted your edit with the edit summary "Unexplained removal of sourced content". A similar edit summary ("rv unexplained deletion") was left by another user when he reverted your second attempt to remove it without giving an explanation. I do see that the detail released/unreleased is not in the source, so I agree that this could be removed. But maybe just remove that part (and not the whole sentence/film) and give the reason in your edit summary (e.g. "whether Tontine Massacre was released or not is not in the cited source"). And if you really want to remove the film, because you think "the article could do without it", raise the topic on the article's talk page.

I would generally advise you to leave an edit summary in the future to explain your reasoning instead of removing something without any explanation. The edit summary is exactly for what you did here, to explain your edits. How are other editors supposed to know what you want to accomplish with your edits? Felida97 (talk) 09:12, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

For some reason I can't even make any changes anymore to it. I won't remove the film as I don't wanna fight over such a thing. But can you remove the thing about it being unreleased and shown only in a film festival? Because it's clearly not there in the website. TolkienLover1 (talk) 06:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

@TolkienLover1: Yeah, sure; I would've probably removed it anyway if you didn't since it's not in the source. Thanks for the reminder. Felida97 (talk) 07:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted

Hi Felida97, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Swarm ♠ 07:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Swarm: Thank you very much for reviewing and approving my request. Felida97 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I admire ...

... how many words you write in an edit summary about something of close to zero importance. Enjoy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:36, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: you mean verifiability on Wikipedia? Wikipedia: it doesn't matter if it's true, there must be a source, right? I was just surprised by your revert and the reason you gave. Thank you for your constructive message anyway. Felida97 (talk) 16:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome. Waste of time to argue whether he was born in a year, or a day that year, my simple approach. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Sure, I see that, especially since it was such a clear case (which is why I was so surprised). The simple approach just ran into a problem (beside the obvious policy one) when he wanted to add his birthday to a Days of the year article at which point the specific date really needs to be sourced. Had he not tried that, probably nobody would have ever noticed. But thank you for the explanation of your reasoning (for real). Felida97 (talk) 22:02, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Sources needed for Days of the Year pages

You're probably not aware of this change, but Days of the Year pages are no longer exempt from WP:V and direct sources are required for additions. For details see the WikiProject Days of the Year style guide. I've gone ahead and added a source from the article to back up your recent addition to June 9 ‎ . Please include sources for additions to these pages as the burden to provide them is on the editor who adds or restores material to these pages. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 21:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Toddst1, thanks for the notice. You're right, I was not aware that inline citations are now needed for every entry; I thought a reference on the corresponding article would suffice. I am actually quite familiar with WP:DOY, but I guess I had not taken a look at it since March 26. I also want to make clear that I did not add the person to the list; in fact, I was the one that added the source you took to the corresponding article. I merely accepted the edit as a pending changes reviewer (as did two other reviewers before me) under the impression a reference on the linked page would be enough. I now know better and will enforce the rule in the future, so, thanks again for the notice since I (and the other reviewers) come across those DOY pages quite frequently obviously. Felida97 (talk) 22:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Felida97/Utkarsh Ambudkar Draft

Hello, Felida97. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Utkarsh Ambudkar Draft".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. » Shadowowl | talk 13:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Felida97/Utkarsh Ambudkar Draft

Hello, Felida97. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Utkarsh Ambudkar Draft".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:50, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	I noticed your edit to November 17 and wanted to thank you for it. If you want to cite a specific policy for such fixes, you might want to point the vandal at Wikipedia:Write the article first. Although, frankly, the edit you reverted was blatant enough not to need any comment - it was self-obvious. KNHaw (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@KNHaw: Thank you. Yeah, I usually google red-linked or non-linked entries to the DOY pages in case someone just doesn't know how to link it. I did so in this case and both names in the entry didn't really suggest any notability, or returned any substantial results to be honest. This paired with the added birth year of 2007, the case was, as you said, quite obvious. But I will definitely point a user to the guideline the next time someone is added who might be notable enough but doesn't have an Wikipedia article yet. Thanks again. Felida97 (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. Thanks for all your good work! --KNHaw ^(talk) 20:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Pending change errors

Hey there, I was looking at a pending change edit made by an IP over [here], which I was about to revert since it contained factual errors. The ref stated so in this line: "The smaller male, who was about two years old and just shy of 11.5 feet, would remain there for almost a year, awaiting transfer to a marine park." You accepted it regardless without checking the source, so please be careful of what you approve in the future. The edit has been reverted by Flyer22. Thanks. aNode (discuss) 08:41, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@ANode: Hi! First off, I always check the source in the reviewing process and I did so this time, so I resent this accusation (I wrote in the reviewing log "correct according to the cited source"). The edit was about where the tank was located (changing it from "a zoo in Reykjavík" to "a zoo in Hafnarfjördur") and the relevant part from the source said: "In November 1983, in the cold, rough waters off Berufjördur, Icelander Helgi Jonasson drew a large purse-seine net around a group of killer whales. Three young animals—two males and a female—were captured and transported to the Hafnarfjördur Marine Zoo, near Reykjavík. There they were placed in a concrete holding tank. The smaller male, who was about two years old and just shy of 11.5 feet, would remain there for almost a year, awaiting transfer to a marine park." So, they were captured and transported to the a zoo in Hafnarfjörður (which is what the accepted edit changed it to) and would remain there for a year. So, as far as I understood it, the edit was correct. But maybe there is something I'm not getting here, so please explain further. Thank you. Felida97 (talk) 09:03, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah apparently, both of us may be right. The text stated: [The animals] were captured and transported to the Hafnarfjördur Marine Zoo, near Reykjavík. Hafnarfjördur the name of the zoo, Reykjavík the approximate location, so I understand your reason for accepting the edit. I apologise for the accusing statement, and I'll just leave the text as it is. Thanks again! aNode (discuss) 09:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@ANode: Thanks, it's fine, I also sometimes have a feeling that other reviewers don't check sources as much. But the Hafnarfjördur Marine Zoo was located in Hafnarfjörður and is not just the name of the zoo. I mean Hafnarfjördur is not part of Reykjavík (it's entirely different town about 10km away), so technically the phrase "a zoo in Reykjavík" is not correct. It should be "a zoo near Reykjavík" or "a zoo in Hafnarfjördur". Anyway, thank you for the response. Felida97 (talk) 09:40, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, that's true indeed! Well I changed the text a bit to specify the exact location, so hopefully that makes the article a lil more accurate. :) aNode (discuss) 10:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@ANode: Thanks, that is very respectable. I was thinking of making a similar edit. :) Felida97 (talk) 10:37, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

But to add on, I may need some advice from you since you're a more experience PC user than me, seeing I just got the permission recently. Like for this change over here, where an editor changed Rome to Europe (technically correct), should it be subject to a PC reversion? The edit def doesn't break any vandalism or DE rules of such. aNode (discuss) 10:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

@ANode: You're right, the edit is not a clear reversion case. Since the user didn't explain his edit, I think a case could be made to revert it in order for him to make the change again, this time with an explanatory edit summary. But I would accept the edit since it is technically correct and I think I may even make more sense than Rome in that sentence. A look at the revision history shows that it was changed from Europe to Rome along with some other frankly poorly formatted changes just yesterday without explaining why either. Most of this has been fixed/reverted, so the edit that is currently under review would just revert it back to the way it was before yesterday. So, I would accept the edit. In the end, the article is on the Watchlist of over 1200 users, so if there is something wrong with it content-wise that we didn't catch, it will likely be taken care of. We pending changes reviewer can't be (and are not) expected to know the fine details of every topic. Sorry that my response took so long. Felida97 (talk) 11:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your long and enlightening reply! You're def right, these changes probably set things right again since the Europe was changed to Rome a few days back without a satisfying explanation. I'll probably leave these changes for other more specialised editors to clear in the future. aNode (discuss) 11:34, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

About the content of infoboxes

Hi, this is not really relevant but I was watching the edits to Peter Scholze (after watching the medal ceremony today of course). You reverted an addition as: (Reverted good faith edits by 185.38.50.163: Per WP:ETHNICITY: "... place of birth should not be mentioned in the lead unless they are relevant to the subject's notability.", I don't think that's the case here; his birth place is mentioned in the infobox. (TW))

My understanding has always been that the information box should only contain information already somewhere in the article. Like how the lead section should only contain information in the body of the article. Do you know what the guidelines are for this? All I can find is some vague wording on the help page. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 19:07, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Frayae: Hi! The main guideline for infoboxes is this one from the Manual of Style, but I guess you already came across that one. Anyway, this guideline confirms your understanding as WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE states that an infobox should "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)". Further down (while addressing references in infoboxes) it also says: "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious. If the material requires a reference and the information does not also appear in the body of the article, the reference should be included in the infobox. However, editors should first consider including the fact in the body of the article." Given that birth date (which is also not sourced in the article body) and place should really be cited, they both should appear in the article body with inline references. In the article on the German Wikipedia (de:Peter_Scholze), both is mentioned in the first section. I will go ahead and add it to the first section of the English article with sources. Felida97 (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 21:41, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

source help

How would I go about finding a credible source For Melanie Iglesias’s DOB?

@2604:2d80:803d:9359:c0c3:4a3c:4206:ba75: Well, you kind of have to look for it (on the Internet). And if you find a site that states her date of birth, you have to determine whether it is a reliable source. You can also take a look at that guideline to see which kinds of sources may not qualify as a reliable source (for example IMDb). But it is not easy to find a reliable source for a dob and sometimes even though some person's dob is relatively well-known, without a reliable source it can't be added. P.S. Please sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~)! Felida97 (talk) 19:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful edit summary!

valereee (talk) 14:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Felida97. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

List of signature songs

You corrected an edit I put on signature songs of Carl Perkins' Blue Suede Shoes - can you put that back on but with a valuable source? GriffinKaye13 (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@GriffinKaye13: Hi! I won't since I don't have a source for that, but you can, if you find one. You can take a look at the sources of the other entries to get a feeling what kind of source is required there. PS. You can change the title of this section (that I chose) if you want. Felida97 (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

source help

You messaged me about the Jason Donald page.... I was on the team he came back to coach so I'm not sure what you want me to cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viraldance (talk • contribs) 06:25, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@Viraldance: Well, all content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. Verifiability is one of Wikipedia's three core content policies (along with no original research and neutral point of view). By your logic, I could just say that I'm Jason Donald and I know for a fact that I, Jason Donald, never coached at my highschool. Do you see what I'm getting at? Both of our claims are not verifiable for the other person. And even though you're probably not lying, you knowing something because you were there, is not verifiable for others and not enough for Wikipedia. And to cite WP:BURDEN, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." So, I want you to cite a reliable source to support the claim that you made. I've reverted a number of your edits for similar reasons, so I would suggest that you make yourself familiar with Wikipedia's policies before editing any further. P.S. Please sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~)! Felida97 (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts for countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 09:34, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@Path slopu: Thank you very much! Felida97 (talk) 18:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar!!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 12:14, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Path slopu: Thank you very much again! Felida97 (talk) 12:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

User talk:JosephLycett

Please see the welcome/warning I sent on User talk:JosephLycett today. Perhaps a newbie will heed it.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 15:13, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:18, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

LGBT ARG

that information is not true ! propaganda news are not serious information. The mayority of argentinians dont see with good eyes gay people. If you want you can lyie, but the reality is what Im saying --190.247.141.10 (talk) 03:02, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

@190.247.141.10: I'm assuming you're referring to this edit of mine. As I said in the edit summary, the content you removed is well-sourced. The Pew Research Center, The New York Times and the other sources are far from "propaganda news". If you think you're correct in your assessment that the "mayority of argentinians dont see with good eyes gay people" and you want that reflected in the article, find a reliable source for that claim and add it instead of removing sourced content. Felida97 (talk) 11:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

gay capital? that's information for an enciclopedia? dont be silly. You are from Argentina? NO, this is so funny ! I have many articles in spanish, in Argentina we speak SPANISH! --190.247.141.10 (talk) 01:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Don't bother with this guy, trust me. Ed6767 (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

@Ed6767: I figured. Thanks. Felida97 (talk) 08:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Invitation to RedWarn

Hello, Felida97! I'm Ed6767. I noticed you have been using Twinkle and was wondering if you'd like to beta my new tool called RedWarn, specifically designed to improve your editing experience.

RedWarn is currently in use by over 80 other Wikipedians, and feedback so far has been extremely positive. In fact, in a recent survey of RedWarn users, 90% of users said they would recommend RedWarn to another editor. If you're interested, please see the RedWarn tool page for more information on RedWarn's features and instructions on how to install it. Otherwise, feel free to remove this message from your talk page. If you have any further questions, please ping me or leave a message on my talk page. Your feedback is much appreciated! Ed6767 talk! 20:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Barnstar!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		This is for your valuable efforts on countering Vandalism and protecting Wikipedia from it's threats. I appreciate your effort. You are a defender of Wikipedia. Thank you. PATH SLOPU 08:02, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Path slopu: Once again, thank you very much! Felida97 (talk) 10:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Utkarsh Ambudkar

Hello, Felida97. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Utkarsh Ambudkar".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:44, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

December 2020

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Nathan Fielder: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. –DMartin 13:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dmartin969: Thank you for your message. I'm quite aware of them (and use warnings regularly), thank you, but I usually don't make use of them if it's only a one-time issue/single problematic edit. And in this case I was even more inclined to give the user the benefit of the doubt since his/her previous edit was a constructive one. Felida97 (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Mank awards

Can you check whether a similar scrubbing of non-notable awards should be done on Mank as you did with Never Rarely Sometimes Always? AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 20:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Hi! Yeah, looks like there are lot of non-notable awards and critics groups (or at least without Wikipedia articles) listed (all of them were added yesterday by an IP and a new user). Those should be removed (see WP:FILMCRITICLIST); do you want to do that or should I? Felida97 (talk) 21:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Felida97, you can go for it. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 21:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: All right, I will. Btw, I also think you were right to decline the Draft for a separate list of accolades received by Mank. It's a bit too early for that since it really hasn't won that many awards if you take the non-notable awards out (and the major organizations haven't even announced their nominations yet). Felida97 (talk) 21:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

World Cube Association

Hey, I saw you reverted an edit about how many people competed in the WCA. And then an anonymous user reverted your edit, but did not provide a source.

The source given only shows how many people competed in 3x3. This list of all competitors shows 15k+ pages of 10 competitors, so 150k+ people. But it does contain a few duplicates. If I look at the database export from June 5th and remove all duplicates, I get 150 861 competitors.

What do you think would be the best way to source the number? Judith Sunrise (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Judith Sunrise: Hey, thanks for your message and explanation (I was kind of wondering why the IPs kept insisting without offering any explanation really and couldn't find a easily citable source anywhere). I know that the cited source only lists 3x3 competitors, but since the vast majority of competitors do compete in 3x3 (I'm actually quite surprised more than 6k competed but not in 3x3) and the claim is for a lower bound of competitors ("more than 144,000"), the straightforward sourcing as it is right now seemed fine to me, even though it's not 100% accurate.

I really appreciate you looking into the database export and just looked into the June 21 export myself (there I see 136 duplicates which I almost find negligible relative to the total number). As far as adding this, you can just add the database export as a reference (it's also possible to add some explanation or the number of competitors shown in the export inside the ref tag). I still prefer the current reference, because it is more accessible and more easily verifiable (because if IPs keep changing the figure without explanation or source, one would have to check the database export every time), but the database export is obviously more accurate.

Another question: while looking into this issue, did you find any figure in the realm of 148k? I'm asking because that's what it is frequently changed to, but the IPs only provide such valuable edit summaries like "it said 144,000 competitions in July 2020. There is no way it gained no competitors." ;) and I didn't find anything around that number specifically. Anyway, thanks again and feel free to add the database export as a ref. Felida97 (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I did not find anything pointing to 148k. It almost seems like the IP-User just made a guess about how many people joined since July 2020? Which sounds insane, but I have no better explanation.

Out of curiosity I looked into those 6k people who didn't compete in 3x3. Many of them competed in 2x2, pyraminx, magic or mastermagic (easier puzzles). But there are also people who only competed in 4x4, one-handed or blind-folded. Some people even competed in 8-9 events, but not 3x3. I do not know whether people who competed in 3x3, but were not successful, count towards the 144k. There's also the notable case of a whole competition being annulled, because regulations were not followed.

I've now put in the database link as the source and changed it to "more than 150.000". Does the way I linked the source look okay? I also left a message on Pixomite's page. I kinda suspect that the IP-Edits are the same person, trying to evade by changing devices. Judith Sunrise (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Mmh, that's certainly interesting info on the 6k competitors (my top guesses for the puzzles of those would have been 2x2, Pyraminx and BLD; doing OH, but not 3x3 just seems silly ;)). That one competition was the one without proper puzzle covers, right? The way you adjusted the ref/added the source link looks perfect. Felida97 (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Yup, that's the one. Thanks! Judith Sunrise (talk) 09:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Lol, Pixomite is at it again. Randomly guessing figures - which happen to be wrong again. Judith Sunrise (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

@Judith Sunrise: Yeah, saw that, lol. Thanks for intervening right away. Felida97 (talk) 20:01, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Alemayehu Fentaw Weldemariam

Hi, I see you sent a warning to @Johngrisham81: about their enormous deletion of text from Alemayehu Fentaw Weldemariam. While you are right that they should have given a reason for the deletion, I do feel they have a point about the article. As it stands, many of the references are 404-broken, and nearly all the rest are Weldemariam's own books, or blog-like pages. Despite the huge number of references, almost none of them are independent, reliable sources. This is an article that desperately needs attention if it is to survive the next time someone comes across it and tags it for deletion as overly-promotional. Elemimele (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Elemimele: Thank you for your message and welcome to Wikipedia. Sorry for taking so long to reply, but I see that you asked a question regarding this at the Teahouse as well and have already gotten help with this from other editors. Felida97 (talk) 09:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for the kind welcome. And yes, the Teahouse people are really helpful too. Elemimele (talk) 09:43, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Arnold Allen

I made an edit to the Arnold Allen page which you removed which is mentioned in both referenced articles. I appreciate the Wikipedia editing measures but had you read the references that are quoted it is in both of them that the party goers were dressed as Oompa Loompas so why was this deleted? Bobbid2089 (talk) 13:37, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Bobbid2089: Thank you messaging me (instead of simply reinstating your edit). I did look into both references and stand by my revert with the reason that it is an "unnecessary/unsourced detail", but let me elaborate on that. You added the following sentence: "The party goers were dressed as Oompa Loompas, terrifying Allen and his girlfriend." Firstly, nowhere in the articles does it say that people dressed as Oompa Loompas were involved in the brawl or that people dressed as Oompa Loompas "terrified" Allen and his girlfriend. They simply state that the incident happened at a venue where multiple parties took place, one of them with people dressed as Oompa Loompas, and that the brawl broke out after an altercation involving his girlfriend. Secondly, how are the outfits of the party goers relevant/necessary information here, even if people dressed as Oompa Loompas were involved in the incident?
But if you want to add it again, feel free to do so, I won't revert you, and then we'll see what other editors think of your insertion. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 18:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Fenny castle, Somerset

Good evening, I own Fenny Castle……why have you removed my edit? The site is private and I want it to reflect that on the page, not least because the access information has health & safety liability issues for my company. Dr Simon Selby [redacted] Dr Simon Selby (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dr Simon Selby: Hi, as I said in my edit summary, the addition that the castle is privately owned is unsourced and needs to be reliably sourced. Furthermore, this information needs to be verifiable for other people who come across this article, which is why it is not enough that you add it, even though you may know that this fact is true, since I (or other people) can't verify it. And providing a phone number or email address of secondary people to verify the information is also not sufficient since you can't expect everyone who comes across this and wants to verify it to call or email someone. Last but not least, something like "for access please contact Dr Simon Selby" simply does not belong on Wikipedia since Fenny Castle isn't a website for the castle, but an encyclopedic article. I see that you have reached out to the help desk and other editors have replied to you regarding this, so hopefully the issues with your edits are clear now. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Far from clear……as it stands the article leads people erroneously to believe it is in the public domain, without any justification, or source. Presumably if I ask Historic England to add the fact that it is in private ownership to one of their public documents that will suffice? In the meanwhile we will just have to hope no one get injured because of Wikipedia’s stance…..in court at least I can show I took all reasonable measures. 81.178.161.88 (talk) 11:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Mukbang

Hi, I noticed you reverted an addition at Mukbang where an IP editor described Nikocado Avocado as a weight-gain fetishist. I don't really know what to think. Normally this would be a no-brain obvious revert, but looking at what's written about him, the IP editor is probably right. I can't look at the source immediately following the sentence; it's a Men's Health magazine source in some magazine viewer site that won't let me scroll as far as the article. But there is a profusion of low-grade internet gossip that potentially backs up the claim. It's just it's all rubbish stuff, as you would expect for a YouTuber whose fame is eating too much on channels inspired by the bad end of Korean TV. I haven't the energy to go looking for serious sources, it's just too depressing. The IP editor may have a point; I'll put a note on their talk page emphasising sources. Elemimele (talk) 18:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele: Hi, thank you for your message. Regarding the accuracy, here is an accessible article similar to the cited one, I have my doubts since it's said in the linked article that the weight gain is a problem for him. There also nothing else in that source remotely suggesting he is a "weight-gain fetishist" (which I understood to mean something in the feed(er)ism direction). Besides the accuracy question, I would ponder other questions: Is he notable as a "weight-gain fetishist", is such a description even appropriate on Wikipedia, and is that description/term relevant to the part of the mukbang article? I strongly tend to "no" on all of these, which is why this was an obvious revert to me. I mean, there is a reason why nothing in that direction is in his main article. (I would also doubt that you would find serious sources supporting such a description/claim.) Thank you for notifying the user. Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 18:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

you're probably right. He is, at any rate, a person in a very complex situation by all the references I could find. He clearly has made a name for himself by deliberately eating too much on a YouTube channel, though I am probably as wrong as the IP to describe that a a fetish. You were right to revert. I think I shall remove myself from this extraordinarily depressing line of article, and go and see if I can find some chemicals with the wrong formulae or something more harmless like that! Elemimele (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Elemimele: Yeah, that's probably a good idea. I had not heard of Nikocado Avocado before today and after reading his Wikipedia article and other articles, I definitely feel like I did not need to know all that about this person, binge eating or feed(er)ism ;) Felida⁹⁷ (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

New English Review - far right/left labels

The insertion of 'far left' was just to highlight how easy it is to throw labels around, in the same way 'far right' keeps being used. There was no ill intent.It is correct to remove such opinions without valid source referencing. Which brings me to my main point. Even the SPLC's and Philip Dorling's claims that the NER is 'far right' need qualifying; any respected academic or researcher would agree with such an elementary demand. Both the articles cited merely label NER as 'far right' but without explaining/justifying why.

Dorling's claim (in the article cited) seems to be based on the managing editor's questioning of Islam's status as a religion. Does merely raising that question (whether one has sympathy with it or finds it distasteful, or not) automatically make one 'far right'?

There are some Alevis who regard the version of Islam dominant today as misguided and stemming from an Arab imperialism. Does this mean these Muslims are far right too? (We must be careful not to inadvertently aid suppression of minority voices and dissent within minorities). There are also Koranic and Hadith verses which support Ms Bynum's claims and some Muslims draw attention to these (notably Majid Nawaz) in the hope of promoting a more liberal form of the religion, rather than a literalist interpretation - something we in the West benefitted from when the Church went through such a process.

I would be very interested to know Mr Dorling's and the SPLC's reasoning for applying such a label, rather than take their assertions at face value (which is the whole point of peer review at the highest levels of research and which Wikipedia seems to want reflected in its content). Ibn Khaldun 127 (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2022 (UTC)