User talk:Firefangledfeathers/Archive 2

Hello i guess this is how you communicate to each other on wikipedia

I stumbled on this page called katyn masssacre and i noticd that a lot of information was 100% incorrect

Ive intreasted myself in this topic but never bothered to read the wikipedia page but tbh i felt it was my responsibility to make sure this page presents a more grounded perspective on the topic please reply and read my sources that i put into this (Baztain (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC))

Hi Baztain! Yes, we mostly communicate on talk pages. I started a talk page section at Talk:Katyn massacre and pinged you so we can discuss the article there. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

"...frustration of knowing the truth..." - your skill is admired. Lembit Staan (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Back at you! The blunder you caught would have lasted a lifetime if it were solely up to me to catch it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Are you friends with user Neutrality?

Hi Firefangledfeathers. Sorry if I'm bothering you but I'm new and interested in learning about some of the most authoritative editors. I couldn't help but notice you and user Neutrality have had outside talks other than what I previously knew and I'm wondering if you have any relationship/colleague ties? Thanks. ButterSlipper (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Also I would like to add I really appreciate the way that you are kind and it really shows your diligence to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines. <3 ButterSlipper (talk) 07:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

@ButterSlipper: thanks! No, Neutrality and I are not friends. We're colleagues in the sense that all volunteers on this project are colleagues, but I couldn't remember without looking it up what interaction led to my having their user talk page on my watchlist. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 13:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Jobtites

If I'm reading your reversions correctly at the Hungarian articles. We've some major mistakes made at the bios of US first ladies & US second ladies/gentleman. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

AFK for a while now but I’ll take a look. A couple example links would help. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:49, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Here are the current ones, Jill Biden & Doug Emhoff. Them and all their predecessors going way back to Martha Washington & Abigail Adams. -- GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@GoodDay: looking at Jill Biden, "the current first lady of the United States" is correctly lower case, as is the line about second lady. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:26, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

But what of M. Washington to M. Trump & A. Adams to K. Pence? GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Washington's page has her title correct but George's "President of the United States" should be lc. Adams looks okay. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:30, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed up some of them, but had to stop. For some reason my edits in the article's main body, are messing up the marriage section in the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 02:16, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

thoughts/questions around Verita link

Hi, Firefangledfeathers. I noticed your revert on my edit on the Verita mention on Aimee Challenor. When I made the edit, the Wikipedia visual editor gave me the option to create an external link. I thought in giving me the option, it was implying acceptability of creating one where I created it. Though I see in the Wikipedia article you linked that rarely should the body of an article on Wikipedia have external links. Might this be an exception? Verita is an important part of Challenor's story. There is no article about Verita on Wikipedia. And a reader can't figure out from context in the article what Verita is. Linking directly to Verita's "About" page lets the reader quickly and powerfully find out what Verita is. Greg Dahlen (talk) 14:08, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Greg Dahlen! Part of your comment is a point of policy and the rest is an assertion about the content of the article. On policy, you are right that ELs rarely belong in the body. As for the content, I'd prefer we discuss this at Talk:Aimee Challenor, where other interested editors can weigh in. If you start a discussion there, I'd appreciate a ping. Thanks, Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:52, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

hello, Firefangledfeathers. Do you know why the policy is to rarely put external links in the article? I suppose articles might get too cluttered? Greg Dahlen (talk) 19:58, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know! I am likely to look into it (maybe by checking out the talk page archives), but you might find the answer quicker than me. I think it's a good idea to have a bright line policy to avoid flooding Wikipedia with links, and I can't think of an easily understood, more permissive rule that wouldn't be subject to frequent abuse. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:31, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

ANI close

Hi, will there be a close of this? Or is your comment the end of it? Thanks. Selfstudier (talk) 09:59, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. I would love for someone to respond to that; it seems like a no-brainer to me. I worry that the lack of response means the section will be archived with no action or clarification. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

undid edit

The allegations of Anti-Semitism are not about BDS, its about the response from Jewish groups in America for statements she said. I did not talk about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, what Jewish groups responded to her saying "its all about the Benjamins", for instance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:a1c0:6d40:54bb:1fb1:35f4:ad61 (talk) 02:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

I presume you're referring to edits made by Batsquatch and reverted by me at Talk:Ilhan Omar. Batsquatch's edit changed a sentence specifically about BDS and removed mention of Israeli settlements and military actions. A later part of the edit also changed a sentence about BDS. Every statement by Omar that was met with accusations of anti-semitism, that I know of, was made in the context of the I-P conflict and discussed as such by reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Was my header violating Wikipedia policy?

Hi Firefangledfeathers. You have a nice name by the way and also you recently changed the header [1] which was really interesting because was my header a personal attack or a violation of some other policy? I thought it was ok to do that and I've done that with other headers. I have no objection to your edit I just wanna know. Thanks. I hope you're doing well too. Please stay safe during this pandemic and all that. ButterSlipper (talk) 02:45, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Hey ButterSlipper. Back atcha about your username. Outside of user conduct discussion spaces, I habitually change section titles to remove usernames. I find this to be supported by WP:TALKHEADPOV. Hope you're also doing well, and staying safe. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

MGTOW

I'm here to tell you, I'm not a MGTOW but your Wikipedia definition of it is not only biased but disrespectful towards those who follow that movement. There are indeed rotten apples but wouldn't you be outraged if when you Google Feminism you'd be welcomed with

"A group of women fear mongering and victimising themselves while hating men in the process and refusing to accept proven facts that debunk some of their ideologies like the Wage Gap issue that doesn't exist"

Because there are quite a lot of very awful Feminists (misandrists) but they don't define the movement right? On the other hand, there are rotten MGTOWs but they do define the movement? That smells like a double standard and for all I know, Feminism is for equality. Right? Both being held accountable by the same rules. So, it is either all or nothing. Selective equality isn't the way — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandisalo (talk • contribs) 15:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

@Vandisalo: if you want to discuss the MGTOW article I would recommend looking for some reliable sources that support your view and bringing them up at Talk:MGTOW. Please remember to sign your talk page posts. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Panel close

How do we coordinate a panel close? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Mikehawk10, my best answer is: I don't know. What I do know is that Ymblanter, RoySmith and valeree just started a similar process, and had some early discussion on how to begin at this AN section. The process they outline there seems reasonable. I bet one of them would be willing to answer clarification questions if you have any. Thank you so much for volunteering for this close. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

ANI poll

I'm done replying to that ANI <small> conversation, so I'm replying here on your talkpage rather than belabor the point there. I disagree that Isaac was not trolling. In my opinion he is pushing and publicizing his own very fringe essay to deliberately disrupt a legitimate concern. I've been on wiki for 15 years and made nearly 90,000 edits; of course I know and have read WP:NOTVOTE, whose point is not that votes aren't really votes, but rather that the rationale and reasoning provided with the vote (including polices, guidelines, etc.) are important and given weight by closers. For Isaacl to jump in and deride a common wiki usage and use that to berate others and push his fringe essay was bad form in my view. I'm not going to clutter up ANI with further conversation about it. I did feel to reply to you here though. You're free to disagree, but I'd really prefer not to discuss it further. Softlavender (talk) 10:14, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Softlavender, I apologize. It would have been convenient and wise for me to look into your wiki-experience before explaining the basics like that. I see how that response could come off as condescending or insulting. I’m sorry. I still feel as though isaacl’s comment was made in good faith, but that doesn’t mean my comment was appropriate. If you decide you do want to talk about it more, I’d be happy to. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Firefangledfeathers, I left a message back in July regarding before taking a summer break. Thanks for the reply and sorry for the delay. I think you may be more optimistic than I am in regards to their approach though, it again looks like they are simply content with the slow-rolling edit war, and using the talk page only to vent spleen as opposed to discussing their edits and sources. Anyway, thanks for making a record of (and trying to deal with) their behavior, as well as for the links to WP:ANEW and WP:ANI. It may be time to explore these avenues soon. Sapedder (talk) 00:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Sapedder: it wouldn't shock me! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello Firefangledfeathers.

Firstly, I would like to issue an apology for neglecting to read the reasoning behind your edit. I incorrectly assumed that the article had been vandalized and am sincerely sorry for removing your edit in such a passive aggressive way. I am sorry if I caused offense in any way. Secondly, I would like to elaborate on my reasoning for editing the karen page in a way that I would be unable to in the edit summary. The reason I used the know your meme page as a source is that it has been in existence for a rather long time in comparison to many of the other articles I have seen referenced on the karen page. Also, I feel the know your meme website has a better grasp on internet culture than some of the mainstream news outlets referenced in the Karen article. I also felt that by editing out the term "white" I was creating a compromise between those who believe that the term karen is somehow a racial slur (I, for one, do not) and those who believe that Karen exclusively refers to white women. It is clear in my eyes that the term karen has different meanings to different people, and I wanted to edit the article to represent that. Also, I only removed the first usage of white in the article. I kept the second definition of karen given in the article intact. Pizzadude54 (talk) 15:27, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Apology accepted! I'd be happy to talk through the specifics of your change at Talk:Karen (slang). I do recommend looking for a more reliable source than KYM and waiting for some support from other editors before making your change again. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding, I will attempt to gather other more reliable sources before making another edit attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pizzadude54 (talk • contribs) 15:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	A gesture of appreciation when there is no other barnstar which would be appropriate seems quite appropriate for you and your work. Thank you!!! Beccaynr (talk) 02:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: thank you! This is reaching me at a time of personal and project-based challenges, and it's definitely making me feel better. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:27, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Here, here! You deserve it, my friend. You seem to be encountering a lot of POV-pushers and bad-actors as of late. And I feel you have handled yourself in an exemplary way in those challenges. Keep it up. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 02:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Shibb! Means a lot. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Reversing edit on Delhi riots

Hello I noticed that you reverted the edit which just aimed to rephrase the sentence without it being subject to change based on which party currently rules.The slogan are used by a section of people who associate themselves to a particular party more but it is not the official slogan of that party and definitely not subject to change based on change in rule at the center.Hope you will reconsider the reversal. --Navin123explorer (talk) 10:46, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi Navin123explorer, and thank you for reaching out. It's helpful to know more about the reasons behind your edit. I generally prefer to keep discussion about article content at the relevant talk page, so that other editors can participate. If you would like to advocate for your change at Talk:2020 Delhi riots, I'd be glad to discuss there. I do recommend that you phrase the change with more neutral language. The "maliciously used" part definitely caught my eye. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

thanks

Thanks for fixing the link in my post. In addition to making the link work as intended, it eliminates the possibility of certain digressions on the noticeboard, which I also appreciate. Sesquivalent (talk) 19:16, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No problem! I am glad you're not upset with me for editing your comment. I was halfway toward adding a courtesy link to the discussion when I saw that you had already done so. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

ABout the draft

Hey! SO I asked the same question on Panini's talk page but I also want to hear your opinion on it. I'm new to making articles and despite Panini suggesting I skip the AFC review, I was worried that if I moved it to main space it would be deleted because of something that I didn't realize. SO I submitted it for review but after seeing the review time is about 6 weeks (and me being impatient) I was wondering if it would still be appropriate if I moved it to mainspace. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Blaze The Wolf: I think the draft looks great and I would just move it to mainspace. I don't have a lot of article creation experience though. I doubt anyone will nominate it for deletion, and if they do, it's likely the issues would be fixable. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Alright! Is there anything I should do since i submitted it for review before I Move it? ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:41, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Just stuff that's probably on your radar already: mostly, removing draft/AFC stuff from the top and bottom. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For assisting me in creating Splatoon 3 as an article. Panini helped get it started and you helped with copy editing. You were a huge help in making the article. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a beautiful barnstar! Thank you very much. Pleasure working with you Blaze! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

No problem! Same goes to you as well. ― Blaze The Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Minor barnstar
	Thank you for paying attention to my grammar mistakes, your contributions count! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:37, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

October 2021

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BilledMammal (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

MOS discussion

Just to be clear, my "bowing out" has nothing to do with you or any slight disagreement we might have about interpreting the guideline. I just have limited patience for these kinds of discussions, which is why I try to stay away from them. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate the clarification. I get it. There are some flavors of wiki-debate that I can't stand. For me it's often about categories. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

A suggestion

Hi, since you have given your third opinion on the discussion regarding the introduction of a criterion in the list of Italian parties, I would like to ask you for a suggestion. I have been trying to communicate with the user who unilaterally established the criteria for that page since June, after three months of discussion bogged down because he answered once a week, I tried to act boldly on some aspects, but he reverted my edits. I asked for a third opinion on a criterion I tried to introduce but it was rejected. There are a lot of unknown regional pseudo-parties on that page, so according to the suggestion, I tried to reopen a dialogue (indicating it adequately in the projects concerned) to consensually approve the criteria of that page, the same user after a first response blocked the dialogue again (and saw my question, since he subsequently still edited elsewhere). Honestly, this "technique" of not answering doesn't seem too fair to me, what should I do? Should I ask for a third opinion again? Or are there other procedures? Because that discussion is now becoming endless...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:27, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Scia Della Cometa. I don't think I can provide a well-reasoned opinion on this. When I get involved with a new topic as part of third opinion request, I do my best to focus on whatever specific content issues are at hand. I am doing my best not to get involved with any conduct disputes. That's what this particular issue looks like to me. I would recommend following the steps listed at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA 2021 review update

Thanks so much for participating in Phase 1 of the RfA 2021 review. 8 out of the 21 issues discussed were found to have consensus. Thanks to our closers of Phase 1, Primefac and Wugapodes.

The following had consensus support of participating editors:

1. Corrosive RfA atmosphere

   The atmosphere at RfA is deeply unpleasant. This makes it so fewer candidates wish to run and also means that some members of our community don't comment/vote.

2. Level of scrutiny

   Many editors believe it would be unpleasant to have so much attention focused on them. This includes being indirectly a part of watchlists and editors going through your edit history with the chance that some event, possibly a relatively trivial event, becomes the focus of editor discussion for up to a week.

3. Standards needed to pass keep rising

   It used to be far easier to pass RfA however the standards necessary to pass have continued to rise such that only "perfect" candidates will pass now.

4. Too few candidates

   There are too few candidates. This not only limits the number of new admin we get but also makes it harder to identify other RfA issues because we have such a small sample size.

5. "No need for the tools" is a poor reason as we can find work for new admins

The following issues had a rough consensus of support from editors:

6. Lifetime tenure (high stakes atmosphere)
   Because RfA carries with it lifetime tenure, granting any given editor sysop feels incredibly important. This creates a risk adverse and high stakes atmosphere.
7. Admin permissions and unbundling
   There is a large gap between the permissions an editor can obtain and the admin toolset. This brings increased scrutiny for RFA candidates, as editors evaluate their feasibility in lots of areas.
8. RfA should not be the only road to adminship
   Right now, RfA is the only way we can get new admins, but it doesn't have to be.

Please consider joining the brainstorming which will last for the next 1-2 weeks. This will be followed by Phase 2, a 30 day discussion to consider solutions to the problems identified in Phase 1.

---

There are 2 future mailings planned. One when Phase 2 opens and one with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Best, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I've no idea what the official procedure for this is--

but whatever it is, I hereby want to express my wish that you be banned from commenting or otherwise editing my talkpage. Please pursue alternative venues if you wish.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hodgdon's secret garden: that’s pretty much the official way to do it. Understood. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:42, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

A Barnstar for You!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For your noble work at Laz Díaz to keep the page vandalism-free. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Shout out to Adakiko for turning on the Bat-Signal. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Beyoncé

Hello Firefangledfeathers, wondering if you could take a look at the references section, seems like screwed up. :-) Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:21, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Should be fixed now. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Grover Furr article

Hello, I am Sigurd hoy, doing the edit on the Grover Furr article. The one you removed. Thanks for the message on my page.

I think it is a mistake. The article was far less than neutral before my edit, to put it mildly. So I did my best to give a more neutral form. I added relevant info about his education and his fields of work. From his time at Princeton where he also has a Ph. D., for instance, not only a BA. Please point out what in my edit you do not think is neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sigurd hoy (talk • contribs) 14:47, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Sigurd hoy, I copied your message over to Talk:Grover Furr and responded there. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Sincere request

For what it's worth, I rescind my asking you not to edit my user talk page (which had been done in a moment of pique).

I know that you are not very impressed with my editing style and harbor doubts about my abilities. That said, I sincerely invite you to chime in here with regard to my sincere entreaty I've requested the uninvolved administrator who's banned me indefinitely from American politics' page editings. Sincerely, Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:27, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Hodgdon's secret garden, and thanks for reaching out. As I said at AE, the outcome I was pushing for was an at least temporary page ban from Woke and it's talk page. I think the best think I could say in defense of your TBAN is that I don't have any knowledge of, or evidence about, your editing on other AP pages. You have little reason to trust my opinion on this, but I think any appeals you make right now are unlikely to succeed, and that the best move you can make to prepare for a later appeal is to accept the judgment and move on.

It makes me happy, genuinely, to see you commit to improvement in some areas. If you end up making another unblock request in a few months and give me a little advanced notice, I would gladly review your constructive, non-AP editing behavior and speak in your favor, bringing the little weight I have as a former "opponent". Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Things like reading the room and proactively-strategic stuff with regard to dealing with people are areas to which I think I've perversely often even prided myself in paying scant attention! Which aligns with the areas of my foregoing mea culpa, too. But I think you are most likely quite right. You are very kind, thank you.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Momentous

Did you like the edit itself, or just the summary? 🤔 Tewdar (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I liked the edit and loved the summary! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

A lot of the time my edit summaries are better than my actual contributions to article space... Tewdar (talk) 19:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

RfA Reform 2021 Phase 2 has begun

Following a 2 week brainstorming period and a 1 week proposal period, the 30 day discussion of changes to our Request for Adminship process has begun. Following feedback on Phase 1, in order to ensure that the largest number of people possible can see all proposals, new proposals will only be accepted for the for the first 7 days of Phase 2. The 30 day discussion is scheduled to last until November 30. Please join the discussion or even submit your own proposal.

There is 1 future mailing planned with the results of Phase 2. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

16:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you for immediately proving my point! Much appreciated ^_^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by N432138 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy to please. Remember to sign your talk page posts. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Hats off to you

I always appreciate when an editor supports the process even when the process doesn't go in the direction they wanted. So this is a hats off to you and this edit [2]. Springee (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Your appreciation is appreciated! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Potential sockpuppet

After noticing some similarities in arguments and editing styles I'm beginning to suspect User:MuirchertachP may be a sockpuppet of User:Clemper who is currently topic-banned from Vaccine passports during the COVID-19 pandemic. Do you think I should open a case or wait? CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

I saved you the trouble.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:26, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

♥ Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! CaffeinAddict (talk) 19:47, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Diff tip

Hi, Fire! Thanks for your participation at British pet massacre and the Talk page discussion. I noticed this edit so you could get a diff, which you immediately undid afterward. Just fyi, you can get the same thing without saving. If you want to diff some old version with the current one, just go find the old one, and click it. Let's say you picked rev. 888010106‎ of 09:13, 16 March 2019 by Sandstein. Click the date, and you get this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_pet_massacre&oldid=888010106 (a permalink to that revision). Add &diff=cur onto the end, to get this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=British_pet_massacre&oldid=888010106&diff=cur and make a link in the usual way, to get this diff. No saving, no revert. Voilà! Mathglot (talk) 01:59, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Hiya Mathglot! I'll always be glad to get tips from you. This one is something I already knew. I am so used to seeing diffs with old on the left and new on the right, that I knew I'd benefit from the self-reversion diff I generated more so than the "opposite" diff that could be generated without any edits. I hope it was helpful to others and that the couple extra watchlist items weren't too disruptive. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

It was definitely helpful, and clear. I'm glad we got a consensus on the rollback at the article; even when someone is a POV-pushing, block-evading sock and a rollback seems like the obvious response, it's still good to have consensus to do it. Thanks again! Mathglot (talk) 02:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

LGB Alliance semi-protect edit request

Hey, thanks for setting that answered flag. I wasn't sure if I was supposed to or not, as I've seen some people mark those as "Not done" in the past, and leave it unanswered for a day or two. I wasn't sure if it was something I should do when answering, or after acknowledgement. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:27, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure if there’s any specific guideline about it, but I think it makes sense to mark it as answered when your response is Not Done. There are editors who work hard to keep the request queue clear and I think it’s helpful to them if we close the ones we respond to. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank You

I wanted to say thank you for notifying me about my error and for walking me through the first step to rectify that. I acknowledge I also made a mistake in how I worded my edit summary. I have since apologised to one of the editors who felt attacked; they are an editor I did not even intend to attack at all. What is important is how they heard what I said and how they felt. My feeling hurt and attacked was because another editor, not the editor to whom I apologised who felt attacked, referred to my original contribution was "weasel words." I did not feel that was fair and I responded emotionally. I appreciate that you did not take a side but offered fair correction. I do have more questions but, if it is okay with you and you would still offer to help, may ask them later. I self-reverted on all related articles too even where I did not violate the 1RR rule. Again, I did not know it applied to edits and not only 'undo.' In fact, until you notified me I kept thinking of 'undo' as 'revert' but of course that is not the name of the button. Thank you again.SeminarianJohn (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

SeminarianJohn, I think your recent actions have all been great moves. I see that you self-reverted your recent edits, posted at talk pages, sought guidance from experienced editors, and walked back some of your edit summary comments. The two things you and I have talked about (what counts as a revert? what's up with discretionary sanctions?) are complicated matters and I've been known to mess up too. Happy to answer any questions you have. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Osibisa / Updates - random and inaccurate deletions

Reader / editor worried at the extent of deletions by Random Canadian where there appears to be no valid reason, authority or knowledge applied to the deletions / edits. There are deletions performed by Random Canadian of previously accurate information applied by others well before RC even signed on as an updater. There are huge chunks relating accurate historical information being deleted and in one case the complete deletions of ‘singles released’ section where this information is completely verifiable. This is just bizarre editing by Random Canadian. McMalcolm (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi McMalcolm, thank you for moving your post from RC's user page to their user talk page. That was the main reason for me getting involved. My advice to you would be to start a discussion at Talk:Osibisa so that other editors of that article can weight in on the issues. I haven't looked into it much, but it appears RC is giving valid reasons for removal of info. You might disagree, and the best place to explain your disagreement is at the talk page. Firefangledfeathers 16:17, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@McMalcolm:, I'll say also that I saw your email. I would prefer to keep discussion of this topic on-wiki. Firefangledfeathers 16:19, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Knowing the band history, members, producers (who have all commented asking wtf is going on with the deletions on additions they themselves have supplied) I really don’t get where this Random Canadians head is. I did pull him up on things many months ago where he deleted a complete section (the singles - some of which was historically been there for many years and others which were added more recently) He/she may have taken umbridge to those queries as to why, in fact it appears the deletion madness stems from that. That aside, it’s clearly someone who does not appear to have much knowledge of this iconic band. They, the band members are justifiably quite annoyed I think. McMalcolm (talk) 16:58, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome! Again, the best place to discuss this at at Talk:Osibisa, where other knowledgeable editors can contribute. I encourage you to keep your comments focused on content and to bring reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers 17:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Thanks for the user page cleanup. Gosh, I already explained this to them, almost two months ago (and I had removed the unsourced information two months further back...). They seem to claim to have knowledge of the band or something. The problem is they have failed to cite a reliable source for this, and they don't appear to understand why that is an issue: their latest post on my talk page was in the same direction, and further launches an ultimatum to "leave the page alone unless I can prove I'm an authority on the subject"... (WP:BURDEN is useful reading). Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey RC, and no worries. I am whatever is the opposite of "authority on the subject", but I do have the page watchlisted now and am eager to see what content (presumably RS-based) will be added soon. Firefangledfeathers 20:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI, on further inspection, I've brought this to WP:COIN. You might be interested. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:35, 23 November 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) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Third Opinion Opining

I feel like i'm being dense, but i saw that you removed my Third Opinion request noting that you were opining on it ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Third_opinion&diff=next&oldid=1056794329 ), but i could not find any comment on the section in question, or elsewhere in your history of edits. Please let me know what i'm missing. Thanks and apologies. Quaeler (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Quaeler, I am still thinking and reading some policies and guidelines. The guidelines at WP:3O recommend claiming a request before you start extensive work so that efforts aren't accidentally wasted/duplicated. Firefangledfeathers 19:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah! Ok - thank you and sorry. Quaeler (talk) 19:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

No apology necessary! I'm happy I was able to clarify for you. Firefangledfeathers 19:22, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

@Quaeler: I posted a third opinion now. Firefangledfeathers 21:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your consideration Quaeler (talk) 21:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

LHO ARTICLE

Wonder if you can fix this minor goof on the Lee Harvey Oswald page: the article says that Oswald told Holmes he was “working on an upper floor when the shooting occurred, then went downstairs”. Looking though Harry Holmes testimony, especially on page 306, it is clear what Holmes meant where Oswald said he encountered the officer:

...as I started to go out and see what it was all about, a police officer stopped me just before I got to the front door, and started to ask me some questions... Mr. BELIN. By the way, where did this policeman stop him when he was coming down the stairs at the Book Depository on the day of the shooting? Mr. HOLMES. He said it was in the vestibule. Mr. BELIN. He said he was in the vestibule? Mr. HOLMES. Or approaching the door to the vestibule. He was just coming, apparently, and I have never been in there myself. Apparently there is two sets of doors, and he had come out to this front part. Mr. BELIN. Did he state it was on what floor? Mr. HOLMES. First floor. The front entrance to the first floor. Mr. BELIN. Did he say anything about a Coca Cola or anything like that, if you remember? Mr. HOLMES. Seems like he said he was drinking a Coca Cola, standing there by the Coca Cola machine drinking a Coca Cola.

Based on this, I think the paragraph regarding Holmes on the “Police interrogation” section should be reflected to say “Holmes (who attended the interrogation at the invitation of Captain Will Fritz) said that Oswald replied that he was at the “front entrance to the first floor” when he encountered a policeman.”62.254.68.112 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I can take a look but it might be a while. You might get better and quicker support by posting at Talk:Lee Harvey Oswald. Firefangledfeathers 13:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I copied this request to the article talk page. The IP also posted request at a bunch of other user talk pages, and is know range-blocked (not sure if the block is related. Firefangledfeathers 20:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

This is ow we d'speak down ere

Tewdar English - "They Yarnigoats be proper caggled when I d'see em down by Padstuh way. Now I do belong to be drinkin me tay before it do get zam-zoddly, moi ansome!" 👍 Tewdar (talk) 16:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

For a bunch of tiny islands, the dialects are bonkers. I won't Google zam-zoddly because I need it to be real. Firefangledfeathers 17:41, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Most people d'say Zam-zoodled, me ansome, but rewnd moi way we d'say zoddled 😁 Tewdar (talk) 18:46, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

A distinct improvement. Remind me if you're ever in a position of proposing compromises (classic Tewdar) even though one side is arguing in bad faith to use the Cornish patsy joke I've been saving up for a while. Firefangledfeathers 18:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm feeling a distinct urge to break out some Ullans. Do ye ken any @Tewdar:? Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Na, I cannae speak nane o thon. Tewdar (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Sock Puppet and Harassment

Hi, since im not really too familiar with how this works, and you helped me last time, can you run a sock puppet investigation on 31.219.85.253. This is evidently another sockpuppet of the guy, and his undoing my edits accusing me of being a sock because he's mad i got him banned for being a blatant sock lol. Thanks in advance. Comradeka (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

@Comradeka: I'm considering it. I also noticed Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1F33:3909:2:1:14D:66DC. With IPs, the great folks at SPI won't use the checkuser tool, as they won't connect an account to an IP for privacy reasons. This means we have to prove it based on behavior evidence, and there's not a ton that I've seen so far. It might be easier just to advocate for a block, as whatever user is using these two IPs is clearly hounding you and casting aspersions.

While we're working together, can I convince you to take the 'jannies' comment off your user page? Firefangledfeathers 02:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the evidence is rather clear. Firstly, even if this wasnt ingvario, the account owner still obviously guilty of sockpuppeting, as they are reverting all of my edits on numerous accounts (not just the two already mentioned). But, the message he left on my talk page makes it pretty clear it's him lol. What are the odds two(?) days after i get someone banned for sockpuppeting someone leaves a message baselessly accusing me of doing the same, referencing my having gotten him banned, and then reverting all my edits and doing nothing further, and it not being him? I'd reckon pretty low. He even says in the message that i'm "the most blatant sock he's seen in a while" (im paraphrasing here), clearly indicating that he's had accounts on here before. Moreover, the edits he's reverting are common sense edits, such as bolding the name of the subject of an article and adding a wikilink lol. Comradeka (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2021 (UTC)-

I appreciate the user page tweak. Could you let me know which other IPs are reverting you? It's easier for you to find them in your notifications than it is for me to dig through your reverted contribs. Firefangledfeathers 03:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1F33:D95:2:2:379:7453
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1D2A:DAF1:0:0:370F:3401
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1F21:2B1F:2:2:1A0F:31AD
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.219.85.253
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1F33:1F31:2:1:14C:AA85
• https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:8F8:1F33:3909:2:1:14D:66DC

Comradeka (talk) 03:56, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Working on it. Firefangledfeathers 03:59, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Done. Crystal clear behavioral evidence in my opinion. Firefangledfeathers 04:29, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

He's on a new sockpuppet https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/31.218.149.186 Comradeka (talk) 01:01, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Comradeka: I'm not sure if you saw at SPI, but an admin recommended we post about any new puppets at WP:AIV with a note linking to WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Orchomen. Firefangledfeathers 13:18, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Comradeka: @Firefangledfeathers: Our friend comrade won't go to AIV, he doesn't want Admin anywhere near his account. That's why he keeps getting you to do it for him. All rather futile either way. 31.219.81.194 (talk) 13:28, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Is firefangledfeathers not an admin lmao? Comradeka (talk) 13:36, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not. I would recommend not responding to the socks. Firefangledfeathers 13:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers Okay. I will henceforth do that instead. Comradeka (talk) 13:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Another Left-leaning Publication

I’m not about to give any money to Wikipedia. They’re just another left-leaning, untrustworthy source. 2601:2C4:C480:D680:C5:E883:2653:5C4F (talk) 02:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

––FormalDude ^talk 02:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

You've really come to the right place with this message. Thank you for letting me know. Firefangledfeathers 02:50, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

over categorization

I posted some of my preliminary thoughts about the broder topic of overcategorization related to categories such as Category:20th-century African-American people on my talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll take a look. I'm not sure I'll have a well-informed opinion to share, but I'm certainly interested in the result. Firefangledfeathers 21:51, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I noticed your edit summary on Mia Love. I do not think a person has to be notable per se for actions in that century to be placed in a category for the century. I think as long as they are a public figure during a century, even if not a notable public figure (so a city council member who is not notable, but later goes on to serve in congress for example) they can still be categorized with that century. That is not relevant in the case of Mrs. Love since she was first elected to public office in 2003, but it could be relevant in other cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip! I've seen the note ate Category:20th-century American people which says it's for people "notable for actions during the 20th century". Could you point me toward wherever the guidelines live for these categories? Or is it an unwritten common practice? Firefangledfeathers 02:29, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I do not think we can actually apply that rule as written. For example James R. Fouts is in Category:20th-century American politicians. He served on the Warren City Council from 1981, and was an unsuccessful Republican candidate for the Michigan State House of Representatives in 1976. He was also my high school government teacher in Fall Semester of 1998-1999 (our semesters in high school ended in January. I would not that the article refers to him as "Mayor Fouts" a lot in the text, when it should just refer to him as "Fouts". It may also over cover recent events. He has been mayor of Warren since 2007. Was he notable for being on the city council? Our current article has no pre-2007 sources, but at one point there was a source from the AP that mentioned Fouts in the 1980s. I know he made at least one appearance on a cable TV news show in the 1990s, possibly connected to an idea he proposed to allow some people under 18 to vote in Warren City election that never got support from others. He was president of the Warren City Council for part of the 1990s, and at least the Macomb Daily would have a huge number of articles covering him, Warren had by far the most colorful politicis of any city at the time. I am pretty sure you could find articles that would be saying significant amounts about Fouts' actions from the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press. More to the point I do not think "notable for their actions in that century" is going to make sense applied to a category like 20th-century American politicians. Much easier would be to include any person we have an article on who was an elected, and at least a nomination winning candidate during that time. This would especially make sense because a person could have never been notable for being a politician, but still be notable, but if they were an elected member of a city council it would not make sense to exclude them from the politician category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a good point. The last thing I want is for editors to spend time digging for 20th century sources just to apply a common-sense (I know that's a dangerous word) category. Fouts would probably hold up if challenged (unlikely) based on WP:NPOL applied to his 20th-century roles and the coverage you mention. Firefangledfeathers 13:30, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Edits and neutrality

Can you stop being such a censorious triggered "Karen" please and stop being the real edit-warrior on here? And actually maybe uh ADDRESS SOME OF THE POINTS AND FACTS in the section instead of suppressing them? Thanks, Kar.... The only ones "edit-warring" and "breaking rules" ARE THE REMOVERS OF SECTIONS THEY DON'T LIKE. So save your hypocritical whining and BS and warnings for them. Oh but you won't cuz you're all tribalist zombies and liars and lunatics and hypocrites....who accuse others of what you flops do a thousand times more. I put up a section. WITH VALID POINTS. Some asshole "Karen" (you) deleted it. WITHOUT REAL WARRANT.

Instead of actually addressing or speaking to or responding to any of the points and issues (regarding bias and how LEFT-WINGERS ARE THE BIGGEST PROVEN CRY-BABIES AND TATTLE-TALE "KARENS" ON THE PLANET, and how the article makes ZERO mention of any of that....). So get lost. You have no credibility with honest or factual people. Wikipedia (when it comes to political and "science" articles) is basically a failed and dis-credited LEFT-WING BLOG...and not a neutral thorough honest objective online encyclopedia. That's been known (and proven) for years now. Regards...... Summa Verbius (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Flame Barnstar
		You always have a cool head and are one of the most constructive editors in controversial discussions. Thanks for all you do! ––FormalDude talk 09:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Coming from the Dude himself! Thanks for the kind compliments. Firefangledfeathers 15:16, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

restoration of my text at SPI

you were right to do so--this was tricky to clean up and I appreciate the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 16:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I really appreciate your response here, DGG. I admit to a little nervousness about how my edit would be perceived. Firefangledfeathers 16:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Patrick Moore

You put in the article a statement that Dr. Patrick Moore had 'falsely claimed'. It is a serious matter to make a statement that anybody had made a false statement, there could well be serious legal consequences for any publisher if it could be shown this was not established in law. As far as I can see your only justification was an article in a newspaper. The policy of Wikipedia requires statements to have a reliable source. I reverted your edit because an item in a newspaper article, in this instance, should not be regarded as a reliable source. Further, the accusation is made in a biographical article of a living person. Wikipedia places very strict limitations on what may be stated in such articles. Please ensure you do not restore the accusation.--Damorbel (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate you bringing what is, in part, a conduct dispute here to my user talk page. In terms of my editing complying with WP:BLP, WP:V, and WP:RS, I am initially quite confident in my conduct but will happily think on it more. Part of your comment is a content dispute that's best brought up and discussed at Talk:Patrick Moore (consultant). Firefangledfeathers 17:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

He claimed that no scientific evidence that carbon dioxide contributes to climate change. This is simply bullshit. Of course there is heaps of evidence. The word "falsely" changes nothing in the content of the sentence, since everybody except those who have been misguided by denialists like Moore knows that it is false. The word is just service for the misguided ones, such as you. --Hob Gadling (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Question about WP:ONUS

Good day. If an editor reverts an edit citing WP:FRINGE, then the WP:ONUS should be upon them to explain their concern, and at least try to build consensus about their concern. Since you in that instance did not agree that the content in question was fringe, why then did you cite WP:ONUS? LondonIP (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

@LondonIP: I just commented at the article talk page before reading this, but part of my response there clarifies which parts of your edit I agree with. ONUS is a good thing to discuss on a user talk page, so I'd be happy to discuss it further. I cited the policy because you and other editors were editing over the objections of others to include new content in Alina Chan. As ONUS says, The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

As best as I can understand your viewpoint here, I think you're frustrated with under-explanation of the reasons your content was reverted. If it were an absolute lack of explanation, I would not only share your frustration, but join you in complaining about the conduct of the non-communicative reverter. As it stands, those disputing your content did give their reasons. It's fair of you to ask for clarification, but I encourage you not to frame those inquiries in terms of "You reverted inappropriately because your explanations were bad" but instead "Help me understand what your objections are so we can find a consensus version". Firefangledfeathers 20:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers, assuming good-faith, anything is possible, and I appreciate your advice. This however is just #20 or so in a long list of such "flash reverts", and we need to discuss when WP:ONUS is appropriate, particularly when WP:FRINGE is cited in the way it was then. Bearing in mind that we are talking there about the suggested leak of a non engineered virus, do you stand by your comment that the WP:ONUS is upon me to build consensus for my edit? Do you not think WP:REVERT and WP:ONLYREVERT have any bearing here? LondonIP (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Last part first: which parts of REVERT/ONLYREVERT do you mean? Firefangledfeathers 21:11, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be very easy for you to find parts of WP:REVERT and WP:ONLYREVERT that are relevant to this situation. The reasons given for my reverts were WP:FRINGE, and when the reverting editors understood that the pre-print was about a non-engineered virus, the reasons then changed to "direct quotes" and the such. This was yet another example of WP:FRINGE abuse. LondonIP (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

JJ article

Just wondered if you wanted to work on this together as you are the only one who has tried to draft paragraphs to try to gain consensus, so I thought you might be more interested than others. If so, please watch and read all the sources in the pre-14 November version and let me know what you think. Clearly there is significant notable info there, including self-evident contradictions, so perhaps you could help on how to include it in a way that will be less likely to be accused of being non-BLP compliant and just removed again. I did work hard sourcing it all so it is frustrating when people don't read everything and infer editor bias as opposed to understanding what the subject has actually said and what is shown in the videos. Thanks Uakari (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Uakari, I appreciate the prompt. That article has definitely slipped off my radar recently. I'll try and get caught up on the talk page conversations. I urge continued caution around original research. Even if contradictions are self-evident from primary sources, we should be relying on reliable, secondary sources to generate our article text. Firefangledfeathers 04:55, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you want to see if you can adapt the pre-14 Nov version to do that then and share here? The only true primary sources are I think the three Orange Rockcorps videos, but they only become notable in the context of the allegations that she fabricated injuries in that incident, in which case they would not be us doing original research as much as reporting on Morrissey's research. It is probably more accurate to say that the Hardtalk interview and the Fashion Targets Breast Cancer video segment are actually secondary sources, because she describes (supposed) experiences in them that supposedly occurred at times prior (apparent contradiction with 2016 stated in the Hardtalk interview as the year of the breast cancer scare whereas newspapers report this in 2014).Uakari (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I realized when I looked that there has been no talk page conversation to catch up on. It seems editors are either ok with the stripped down personal life section or are uninterested in adding more. I am mostly in that second bucket. A person narrating an experience from their own life is definitely primary. Firefangledfeathers 02:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth I thought your suggested paragraph about the allegations was fine except I would have preferred more detail. The whole thing is kind of POV now as if discussion of this major issue that was extensively publicised is deliberately being avoided. It's just a pity people were interested enough to object to the detailed version but not interested enough to work on an alternative. Therefore I'll have to consider rewriting and reintroducing the points by myself, but will likely face similar accusations of synthesis unless someone else can help. Uakari (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for helping!

	A grain silo
	Thank you for coming back to SpaceX Starship for many months, it really helps! Therefore, I award you a grain silo specially made for storing fresh, cold liquid methane (and LOX but ew) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, I also noticed that you edit mainly on "difficult" articles, like pseudoscience and conflicts. Hat-off to you on that as well. -- CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks CSC! Firefangledfeathers 18:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Anti-gender movement

Dear Firefangledfeathers,

I'm happy enough to take your suggestion to take the discussion on the article away from what was becoming an edit-war. My arguments are offered here: Given that the other party was the first to revert, and kept doing so without concrete and valid feedback, wouldn't it be the user Budhe who would run the risk of 'preferring their own version' (as discussed in the edit-war literature)? I have seen nothing to suggest from that party that the figure I mention in the article is not perfectly in alignment with the Anti-gender movement, nor do I accept that a source that contains that party's own words (which are also captured on video, but in a way that is in accordance with Youtube language and community standards) is subject to a ruling on weight. At no point to I seek to establish the veracity of the claims of the inarguable key figure that [name omitted] has become in the anti-gender movement.

I would appreciate something that approximates engaging with the validity of the claim, instead of what (appears to be) a weak usage of Wiki guidelines. At the end of the day, that personality is inarguably a figure against gender ideology. NO attempt thus far has been made to discredit that claim (which seems unassailable). Given that it is even placed within the 'key figures' section of the article, I'm curious if you may establish *exactly* how this breaks the letter of a guideline.— Preceding unsigned comment added by SDFausta (talk • contribs) 19:06, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there, SDFausta. I'm going to answer respond to part of your comment, but some of it would best be suited for the article talk page, Talk:Anti-gender movement, where other editors can be involved in the discussion. One relevant policy here is WP:ONUS, which states "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." This means that Buidhe's reversions are less problematic than yours, in this case. My concern about the content is an original research one. If Shapiro's views are associated with the anti-gender movement, there should be a reliable, secondary sources stating as much. If you have any more questions about policy/guideline/practice, I'd be happy to answer them. If you want to talk more about the article, I again recommend the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers 19:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@SDFausta: meant to ping you. Firefangledfeathers 19:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

url-status=dead

I have really tried hard to keep the size of this article smaller and to make editing easier. These unnecessary archive links work against both goals. If we allow this, there are editors who see it and then run bots that easily more than double the size of an article within seconds. Then the article becomes nearly impossible to edit. Otherwise, I really appreciate your good and careful editing. -- Valjean (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that article's size is an issue, but the presence or absence of archive links is not a major factor, with the size of the readable prose being the main issue. I can see your point about ease of editing. I don't agree, but also don't feel all that strongly about it. I won't stand in the way of another removal, and we could see if anyone else has thoughts on the matter. NYT archive links in particular are not a priority for me, as they're reliable archived by both the paper itself and archive.org, so we can get them if we need them. Firefangledfeathers 18:35, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Well, maybe we should discuss this on the talk page and see what others think. You could write a Pro paragraph/sentence and I'll write a Con. Does that sound reasonable? To keep this neutral and fair, let's write it up here first. -- Valjean (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

It sounds very reasonable. I meant to say in my first response that the appreciation for good editing is reciprocated. Firefangledfeathers 20:18, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Heading: Archive links to "live" articles, Pro vs Con

Section Lead: We'd like to hear the views of other editors.

Pro: Size issues aside, I think archiving links is an invaluable process in sustaining Wikipedia as a long-term project. I agree with the advice given in Help:Archiving a source: "Editors are encouraged to add an archive link as a part of each citation, or at least submit the referenced URL for archiving, at the same time that each citation is created or updated." The size of this article is too big, but archive parameters are not a major contributor to the size. More important than the size issue is the length of the readable prose, and our current overlength problem is not affected by archive links. It's conceivable that a zealous archiver might begin adding archive links to every source in this article, which I estimate would add 120,000 bytes to the size. I would still consider the benefits to outweight the costs, though I'd be amenable to reducing the number of archive links, knowing that the archives are there if they are later needed. Firefangledfeathers 20:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Con: I have really tried hard to keep the size of this article smaller and to make editing easier, and unnecessary archive links (to live articles) work against both goals. If we allow this, there are editors who see it and then run bots that easily more than double the size of an article within seconds. Then the article becomes nearly impossible to edit. I believe that we should allow archive links for articles that really are dead (url-status=dead), but not allow them for live articles (url-status=live). (sign)

• Con per my argument above. (sign)

Valjean (talk) 19:00, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

That looks good. I'll go ahead and add that, so please put your Pro comment and sign it right away. -- Valjean (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done, so please add your Pro statement right away. -- Valjean (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

You Reverted my RFC

Can you please tell me the reason for reverting my RFC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.199.32 (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi there anon, I explained my reasoning at the article talk page. A quick summary is: the RfC statement wasn't neutral and WP:RFCBEFORE wasn't followed. Firefangledfeathers 20:33, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Which noticeboard?

For that editor who is ALLCAPSING, AIV or ANI? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

With the spammed text, looks like AIV. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th: good choice. Firefangledfeathers 21:08, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

This one was my favorite

The edit where they decided to unyell a single word. —valereee (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Precious. Firefangledfeathers 21:45, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Advocate for early treatment

Why is this doctor being shut down for wanting to treat sick patients? Vaccines do not help sick people. 24.25.244.135 (talk) 08:42, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Which doctor are you referring to? Firefangledfeathers 15:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Violating neutral point of view on "Chauvinism"

You claim that calling Chauvinism "unreasonable" is a "critical part of the definition", despite the fact the Merriam-Webster dictionary never uses the word "unreasonable" to describe it. You also claim your(you) opinion not being represented "introduces bias". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doglo00 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The source cited in the lead says "irrational" and multiple other definitions support a near-synonym; Merriam-Webster uses 'undue'. I am fairly confident in my edit adhering to NPOV policy. That said, if you would like to debate the content question further, I'd prefer to do so at Talk:Chauvinism, so other interested editors can participate. Firefangledfeathers 16:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Meant to ping you, Doglo00. Firefangledfeathers 16:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Season's greetings!

FormalDude is wishing you a Hellish Hexennacht!

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Hellish Hexennacht, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person.

Don't eat red snow! ––FormalDude ^talk 08:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

In your honor I purchased and then discarded a cherry snow cone. Thanks for the holiday wishes! Firefangledfeathers 23:51, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

On Colourful Fire

Colourful feathery bloom

Happy New Year!

Hi Firefangledfeathers, best holiday wishes to you and cheers to a happy and healthy 2022!

Beccaynr (talk) 23:17, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Beccaynr: Feathers! A great choice. Hope your holidays are relaxing and that all of 2022's RfCs go your way. Firefangledfeathers 23:52, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy holidays!

Hey friend! Whatever it is you celebrate, I hope you're having a good one! Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Back atcha, Sideswipe9th! Firefangledfeathers 23:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hi FireFangledFeathers! I just wanted to stop by and thank you for all you do at BLPN. That's an extremely important policy, and I'm glad to have you around to help out. Thanks. And, if you don't celebrate Christmas, then please take it as a Happy Hanukkah, a great Dhanu Sankranti, a blessed Hatsumode, a really good Saturday, or whatever holiday you want to insert there. Zaereth (talk) 08:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Zaereth: agreed! I appreciate the Christmas wishes, and I hope you and yours are having a good one. Firefangledfeathers 23:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

RFA 2021 Completed

The 2021 re-examination of RFA has been completed. 23 (plus 2 variants) ideas were proposed. Over 200 editors participated in this final phase. Three changes gained consensus and two proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration. Thanks to all who helped to close the discussion, and in particular Primefac, Lee Vilenski, and Ymblanter for closing the most difficult conversations and for TonyBallioni for closing the review of one of the closes.

The following proposals gained consensus and have all been implemented:

1. Revision of standard question 1 to Why are you interested in becoming an administrator? Special thanks to xaosflux for help with implementation.
2. A new process, Administrative Action Review (XRV) designed to review if an editor's specific use of an advanced permission, including the admin tools, is consistent with policy in a process similar to that of deletion review and move review. Thanks to all the editors who contributed (and are continuing to contribute) to the discussion of how to implement this proposal.
3. Removal of autopatrol from the administrator's toolkit. Special thanks to Wugapodes and Seddon for their help with implementation.

The following proposals were identified by the closers as having the potential to gain consensus with some further discussion and iteration:

1. An option for people to run for temporary adminship (proposal, discussion, & close)
2. An optional election process (proposal & discussion and close review & re-close)

Editors who wish to discuss these ideas or other ideas on how to try to address any of the six issues identified during phase 1 for which no proposal gained are encouraged to do so at RFA's talk page or an appropriate village pump.

A final and huge thanks all those who participated in this effort to improve our RFA process over the last 4 months.

---

This is the final update with no further talk page messages planned.

01:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Moved notice at WP:LGBT

Just stopping by to let you know I've moved your RfC notice to the project's talk page, which is where I assume you meant to put it. If that's incorrect, feel free to revert. Have a happy new year. Isabelle ^🔔 23:46, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for doing that! Thanks to your fix, I realized I had cleanup to do at two other wikiprojects. Hope the bells ring in a happy new year to you as well. Firefangledfeathers 23:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

A nugget from the past

jpxg recently linked a thread where you said the quote below while discussing a related matter in COIN, and I was rereading the thread just now. The quote is still one of the funniest responses I've seen on wikipedia so I thought you might also enjoy reading it again as well.

I am both a greatly exaggerated witch and a greatly exaggerated communist, and if you persist in argument-by-comparison-to-historical-travesty I'll hex you and collectivize your capital.

Hope you've had some restful holidays and have enjoyed the new year so far. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 09:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks A.C.! Happy new year! Firefangledfeathers 16:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Article request

Nobody appears to have noticed the (now gone) request on the Lee Harvey Oswald article to correct the paragraph regarding Harry Holmes on the “Police interrogation” section which should be reflected to say “Holmes (who attended the interrogation at the invitation of Captain Will Fritz) said that Oswald replied that he was at the “front entrance to the first floor” when he encountered a policeman.” Could you do it, as I was the one who suggested you in the first place?213.107.50.37 (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's get a conversation going at the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers 16:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The current words, “went downstairs where he encountered Baker” give the impression Oswald said the encounter took place at the second floor lunchroom but Holmes clarifies that Oswald was talking about encountering the officer at the vestibule on the first floor by the front entrance. Holmes describes two set of doors which were in the building vestibule (which were a front lobby between two set of doors). I propose the paragraph could be rewritten to reflect Holmes’ testimony something like: “Oswald said he was at the first floor vestibule by the front entrance and wanted to see what the “commotion” was when he encountered an officer.”213.107.50.218 (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping

Hey, thanks for the courtesy ping at WP:COIN. On top of notifying me after the broken ping, it also taught me that editing pings doesn't always work, which I was not aware of. Much appreciated! AlexEng^(TALK) 10:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@AlexEng: you're welcome! I'm sure you'll get a chance to pay it forward. Firefangledfeathers 18:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Good catch on George Reeves

That range has been nothing but trouble for months. I gave them a 3 month vacation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

OhNoitsJamie, don't come here and pretend like we're friends. We're beefing now because you reverted me. Sure you self-reverted seconds later, but my honor has been slighted. I demand a duel, either in Weehawken or WP:VPP. Firefangledfeathers 02:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh snap. Gonna go work on a diss track (...what rhymes with Weehawken?) OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Daveed Diggs may be able to help with your research. Firefangledfeathers 04:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Preferred pronouns?

Hi! I forgot which pronouns you preferred being referred by. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 11:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi A. C.! They/them, please. Firefangledfeathers 13:32, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Perfect :)A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Peter McCullough

This man is the most published author in his field, and one of the most qualified people in the country, perhaps the world, so speak about Covid 19. To label his statements as misinformation is a clear indicator that you have either never heard the man speak for himself or you’re more interested in promoting propaganda than the truth. 166.182.84.132 (talk) 03:03, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You're presenting it as either/or, but both things are true. I've only ever heard the man speak through an intermediary using a tin can telephone, and on my good days I'm equally interested in straight-talkin' and brain-washin'. Firefangledfeathers 03:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Joe Manchin’s Italian surname

Good morning.

I know that the source says "Mancini" but the surname is Mancina. I come from the city of his ancestors and I can assure you that no one has the surname Mancini but many people have the surname Mancina, which is one of the most common: I myself have some ancestors with the surname Mancina.

Joe Manchin even came to my town and visited some of his relatives who have the surname Mancina.

I know that unfortunately the source says “Mancini”, but it is not telling the truth. —Samuele1607 (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Samuele1607, I am copied your comment to Talk:Joe Manchin and replied there. Firefangledfeathers 16:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@Firefangledfeathers: Perfect. Thank you! :-) --Samuele1607 (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Native Americans in the United States

Sorry, I skimmed the comments, but edited my own comments. I'm just so weary of having to revert various IP user's decisions to arbitrary switch American Indian to Native American in articles to create crazy concoctions like "Native American Land" or the "Native American Arts and Crafts Act." Sadly, some newspapers do this as well. Have a great weekend! Yuchitown (talk) 16:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)Yuchitown

I saw your comment pre-edit, but it didn't occur to me that the 'stop beating this dead horse' sentiment was directed at me! Thanks for your work reverting the nonsense, and I hope this particular batch goes away soon. Firefangledfeathers 16:56, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Ethereum/crypto categories

You've removed one I put in for Hoskinson. I based this on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalik_Buterin, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Wood, and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gavin_Wood. These have been stable for a while. Also, Hoskinson is a co-founder of 2 successful cryptos, cardano and Ethereum, whereas Buterin is just Ethereum. So I don't understand your logic. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyStar456 (talk • contribs) 16:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi GreyStar456. See WP:CATSPECIFIC, which states

Each categorized page should be placed in all of the most specific categories to which it logically belongs. This means that if a page belongs to a subcategory of C (or a subcategory of a subcategory of C, and so on) then it is not normally placed directly into C.

The guideline goes on to list the exceptions, and this case isn't one of them.

Thank you for point out the other pages with this issue. I am likely to make the same edit on those as well, though I'd prefer to get consensus with you before doing so. Firefangledfeathers 16:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt reply. It seems to me that the rule makes no sense; and is so badly understood that it is not being applied. It's not justo in the crypto. Look at Carlos Ghosn. He is listed with: Nissan people, People in the automobile industry, Renault people, Automotive businesspeople, Mitsubishi. How is it possible to reduce all of these to just Renault, Nissan, or Mitsubishi when he has run all these companies? And what's the difference between People in the automobile industry and Automotive businesspeople? In Hoskinson's case, to force the issue, you'd have to create a Cardano page. Do you see what I mean? GreyStar456 (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome. Like most Wikipedia 'rules', application across this volunteer product is imperfect. We have a cadre of editors whose main work is adding/removing categories, and I'm optimistic that implementation of this rule in particular is trending in the right direction thanks to their efforts. When I can, I try to help. With Ghosn, he should be in Nissan and Renault people, removed from Mitsubishi, added to Mitsubishi Motors people, and removed from People in the automobile industry. People in the industry vs. businesspeople, I'd guess, is about whether or not the person is on the business side of things. For example L. David Ash, an automotive stylist, is correctly categorized in Category:People in the automobile industry and correctly excluded from the subcategory Category:Automotive businesspeople.

I'm not sure if you're seriously proposing it, but a Category:People associated with Cardano is a good idea, provided there are at least a few other articles that would belong there. So far, no other biography articles are linked from Cardano (blockchain platform), but perhaps you know of others? Firefangledfeathers 18:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't thing I've seen a page that is correctly categorised, so I think your cadre has a lot of work ahead of it! I'll take a look at the pages I've worked on and try to apply it. So Hoskinson should be Ethereum and Cardano. But not people associated with cryptocurrency? Ghosn's 3 car companies + overarching Automotive businesspeople makes sense to me; but I still don't see why Hoskinson's taken out of people associated with cryptocurrency. According to the criteria, won't all the crypto people be taken out, so the category just disappears?GreyStar456 (talk) 13:04, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how many Cardano people there would be, but there are at least 2 Edinburgh professors on Wiki who are helping build Cardano. How many people does it take to make a category? GreyStar456 (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

GreyStar456, you're right about there being a lot of work! Good thing there's no deadline. Yes, categories are sometimes so thoroughly divided up that they contain only subcategories and no direct article links. Sometimes this is intentional. Three articles would be enough, I think, for a new category. Are the professors verifiably involved in Cardano, and is it mentioned in their articles? Firefangledfeathers 04:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll have a go at this. See what you think!GreyStar456 (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I've messed this up. I've created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_associated_with_Cardano_blockchain_platform, which is not a category page, but is listed in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cardano_blockchain_platform. Sorry! I can't change the name of the latter to People_associated_with_Cardano_blockchain_platform or delete the former. Help! you could do without people like me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyStar456 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey GreyStar456. I created Category:People associated with Cardano and put in all the articles that you had in People associated with Cardano blockchain platform. If you're ok with deleting the article and category you created, there's a speedy deletion process (WP:G7 we could use. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 00:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Firefangledfeathers, That's cool. Thought I'd have plenty of time in reading week, but time flew. Thanks again.GreyStar456 (talk) 15:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey GreyStar456, hope you got some good work done! Any objections to me working through the automotive categories we discussed above? Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 15:40, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Firefangledfeathers, That's fine by me. I appreciate you digging me out of the holes I keep digging! GreyStar456 (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2022 (UTC)