This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.
Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!
I got your message on editing a sensitive topic. Ottoman history or Turkish cities or anything related seem to attract much attention form nationalist editors. I could use some guidance. In the history of Van section there is a subsection that does not relate to any history or period but a controversial event. Actual history of the relevant period is totally missing meanwhile. I tried to address this and even the most minor edit to paragraph heading was immediately reverted. I tried to discuss in the talk page but no takers, only reverts. What venue should I follow, what are my options? How can I get an impartial judgement on this? Article itself is need of much work but I am concerned about edit warriors. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hudavendigar (talk • contribs) 23:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hudavendigar, I responded at the article talk page. I'd give that discussion more time before seeking other venues, but you might like to start reading WP:DR for some future options, pretty much all of which require lengthy local discussion as a starting point. Some advice: try not to assume bad faith on the part of other editors (e.g. that they're motivated by nationalism), and please try and ensure your communication does not hint at Armenian genocide denialism. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you believe that all meninists are anti-feminists or misogynists
Hi Lefjag, and happy new year. I'm not sure why you're making assumptions about what I believe, when I gave clear reasons for reverting your edits. Just to re-iterate, you should not add unsourced content and simultaneously tag the addition with [citation needed]; the WP:BURDEN for finding sources is on whoever adds the content. I reverted your next edit because it was unsupported by the cited source. PS: you don't need to ping users on their own talk pages, as a post there automatically generates a notification. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 07:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.
2022 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)
New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js
Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.
Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, formerly Alliance Defense Fund) is an American conservative Christian legal advocacy group[6] that works to curtail rights for LGBTQ people;[7] expand Christian practices within public schools and in government;[8][9] and outlaw abortion. Metro2fsb (talk) 04:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You mind saying what account emailed you? Just want to try to piece some things together. And a very heartfelt thanks for bringing that up, but also I dont think you should feel the need to disqualify yourself because of what some other dishonest person did, as I promise you that others will not have the same scruples anyway. Plus, youve always struck me as fair-minded and policy-oriented, so whatever your view Id welcome it to be added. Take care, and thanks again, nableezy - 17:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In general, it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it be done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus.
There was canvassing done via email?
Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail or IRC, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
Hi Metro2fsb. Just Firefangledfeathers, or FFF, is fine. Yes, someone was canvassing me via email, and I don't think their intent was to broaden participation and achieve a legitimate consensus. I'm not sure I can help with your draft, but I'll take a look. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually nominate the draft for deletion, but your user page, on which you pasted the draft. And I only nominated the user page for deletion because another user was having technical problems doing so. I'm not sure I'd support deleting your user page, but it would help a lot if you could put Template:userpage draft at the top of it so that it doesn't look as much like an article. I don't plan on doing much work to help with your draft, but I did find two sources, which I pasted at the draft talk page. I left a suggestion about ways to find more. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:09, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question from IntuitivePool (18:04, 10 January 2023)
I am still a new user, and I have only made a few edits. I have a question I hope you can answer. I am curious, am I free to do what I wish with my user page? Do I have to follow the same rules that apply to writing articles?
Hi IntuitivePool, and a belated welcome to the wiki! Your first batch of edits look great: some solid copy-editing and you handled your COI perfectly via a talk page suggestion. The rules for user pages are at Wikipedia:User pages, and most reasonable activity is fair game. You have broader license to do what you want in your own user space, with the exceptions listed at WP:UP#NOT. Mostly, it prohibits common sense things like copyright violations, promotional material, attacks against other people, etc. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about making a cover-all template that would go something like "This user is aware there are a lot of areas under discretionary sanctions. Consider them aware of all of them, but let them know you think they're being an asshole before bringing them to AE." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I'm starting an internship tomorrow for a military history museum, and I was asked to familiarize myself with Wikipedia so that I could add information pertaining to our collection. Are there any errors that I need to avoid to ensure that the information I edit is always accepted, and not rejected by other editors? --Micahctucker (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Micahctucker, welcome to Wikipedia, and congrats on the new internship. While there's always the chance that some of your edits will be undone, most well sourced, good-faith efforts at expanding the encyclopedia are accepted. You may want to take on a few newcomer tasks to get used to editing. Since you might be able to access some primary documents at the museum, I'd suggest reading WP:PRIMARY, which advises some caution on their use. Please don't make any edits about the museum itself, as you now have a WP:COI, but you are free to suggest such edits on the relevant talk pages. Let me know if you have any follow up questions, and good luck! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:53, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestions and concerns may be directed to the arbitration clerk team at WT:AC/C.
The drafting arbitrators warmly thank all those who have worked to implement the new procedure during this implementation period and beyond. KevinL (aka L235·t·c) 19:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Billy christopher platt! I like your enthusiasm. Maybe you'd like to start by editing some of those actress articles? You could do some copyediting, or read the cited sources looking for more info, or look for more reliable sources to add to the articles. Once you get a few edits in, if you'd like me to review your work, let me know. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:05, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Firefangledfeathers. Please read WP:TALK#TOPIC and WP:RFC. You are currently engaged in an edit war[1][2] on a Talk: page. I have never seen anyone edit war in that manner before. That is highly unusual.
The behaviour of several editors on that Talk: has resulted in at least one[3] person being unable to find the RFC and so commenting on the wrong thing in the wrong place. Usability of Talk: pages and usability of RFCs is fundamental to the way Wikipedia operates. Invasive Spices (talk) 20 January 2023 (UTC)
A discussion about improving the RFC question, especially when multiple other editors agree that there are issues with the RFC, is definitely on topic and a constructive use of the article talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've really never seen editors begin new sections on Talk:s before in your WP career? First time you've heard of this in your entire admin career? Any of you could have done so. There's even a special button specially for that on the page.
All of that repetition has misled at least one[4] editor such that he was unable to find the RFC. Invasive Spices (talk) 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Invasive Spices, I'm having trouble accessing your perspective on this issue. There's near-universal agreement that the RfC has issues in its formulation, and you're trying to stop discussion on how to improve it. I disagree with your interpretation of the diff you linked. That said, I feel very unattached to the outcome of that discussion, though I do object to the on-topic, good-faith comments of others being collapsed. I think that objection has been registered, and I've intervened as much as I care to. I won't make any further edits to the section header or any collapse templates. I urge you to change up your approach to that page, which I view as disruptive. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:55, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I'm doing nothing of the kind. Absolutely at no time should anyone change a section header to something unrelated. Any of you have been free to begin new sections for that kind of thing. Yet you are in stead filling up two sections and then changing the section header to retroactively obscure how inappropriate that is.
Who needs two sections to repeat the same distractions and why hijack an unrelated footnote[5] to do it? Invasive Spices (talk) 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Invasive Spices, I have plenty to say about why I think I'm right and you're wrong. If you feel like it would be helpful to you, I'd be glad tell you all about it. I mentioned above that I don't intend to make any more of the changes you object to, so I'm not sure if there's any other action or inaction you hope to get from me. If you're going to continue posting here, I would appreciate it if you would sign/date/timestamp your posts normally. I'm actually curious how you manage to avoid doing so, and would love to know your secret. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't WP:OWN the page – Whether I object or not is not the primary concern here. That said. Thank you. I will soon correct the footnote section so the derailing spam is confined to one section and not two. Invasive Spices (talk) 22:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My creation of the article From a Logical Point of View has been reverted by a bot (User:AvicBot) to maintain a simple redirection toward the article about Quine and I saw that you intervene after him to specifiy the redirection toward the section "Logic" of the this article. I'm not convinced by this choice. Qune elaborated his philosophy of logic in others articles and books like Elementary Logic, Methods of Logic, Philosophy of Logic and Set Theory and its Logic. And, reciprocally, From a Logical Point of View is not all about logic. It contains notably On what there is and Two Dogmas of Empiricism, so it's also about metaphysics and epistemology. Is it ok for you if I restaure my version of the article? I can develop more this stub. Wart Dark (talk) Wart Dark (talk) 14:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wart Dark. It wasn't that bot that turned the stub article back into a redirect, but experienced user Lithopsian. In his edit summary, he suggested (and I agree) that the redirect is more helpful to readers than a one-line stub with no sources. Maybe you could build out an article in a subpage of your userspace, or create Draft:From a Logical Point of View and work on it there? In the meantime, I'll change the redirect target back to the whole article. In addition to your points, I'm noticing that FaLPOV is also mentioned in the Set theory section, so there's no perfect section target. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:58, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Firefangledfeathers, I'm sorry I didn't read right the page history! I wrote a draft in a subpage of my userspace in translating the French article (of which I'm on of the main contributor). Does it seem enough good to be published in the main space? I didn't find a template to indicate in the references that it's a translation (an equivalent of fr:Modèle:Traduction/Référence), I only found {{Translated Page}} to put on the discussion page. Can you help me please? In English Wikipedia, how do you indicate on the main page that it's a translated article? Wart Dark (talk) Wart Dark (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Firefangledfeathers. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 00:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
This book has a little bit of coverage of SVOP, including verification of its founding year and influence. Based on the Google Books preview, I don't think the coverage is significant enough to support notability, but it's not far off. This book is similarly brief coverage, but it mentions the founding year, founder, and calls SVOP Russia's "leading public foreign policy organization". There are many hits for this group's name on Google Books and OpenLibrary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Firefangledfeathers. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi Hakkimhudawi. It looks like you wrote a draft article about yourself and it was speedily deleted. That's a frustrating start to your Wikipedia career! I hope you'll stick around. At User_talk:Hakkimhudawi#Welcome!!your user talk page, another user left you a welcome message which has some great links about editing Wikipedia that I suggest you read. One of the most relevant links is to Wikipedia:Autobiography, which contains advice about writing about yourself. It's very tricky to do so well, and I highly recommend editing other pages to get more familiar with the editing process and our policies/guidelines. As you read and edit more, let me know if you have more questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:27, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of asking you & the two other administrators to have a 'chat' with the other individual, on their talkpage. But, other editors have already tried, to no avail :( GoodDay (talk) 08:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the authority invested in me by myself I hereby award you the Third Opinion Barnstar in recognition of your 86 edits to WP:3O, providing third opinions on contentious subjects and keeping the active disagreements list updated. Your composure with those in entrenched, combative positions has been exemplary. Thank you and congratulations! — Reidgreg (talk) 01:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
because "removing poorly sourced items, ones which do not mention a color-blind casting process, and a chunk of text that cites Wikipedia in a way that is also OR; will restore some uncontroversial changes momentarily"
The very fact that "black washing" in wiki is auto-redirected to "color-blind casting" (though these are not the same things) was something I wished to call attention with the edit. First, it is clearly a related term, hence the redirect. Second, the source was used to justify this connection as it did, as do numerous others, make use of the term "black washing" in regards to "color-conscious casting", a term also listed on the Color-blind casting page. The fact that there is a "white washing" page and not a "black washing" page, despite them being effectively two iterations of color-conscious casting is a demonstration of biased entry production, not an aversion to it. Black washing, like so many other terms, is merely being called "offensive" because it points out hypocrisy and double-standards. That wiki editors are keeping people from hearing about the mere existence of this double-standard is demonstrable of your participation in the hypocrisy, not your objectivity. Nonperson1 (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nonperson1. Part of your comment is about changes you'd like to make to Color-blind casting. I encourage you to bring those up for discussion at Talk:Color-blind casting. It would help if you could bring the most reliable sources that support your proposed content. Discussion here is unwise, as there are more editors interested than just you and me. The rest of your comment includes some allegations of misconduct. I think they are unfounded. If you'd like to talk more about them, here is definitely the place for it. I'd appreciate it if you'd consider the most likely good-faith explanation: that I'm working toward an article that is supported by reliable sources. If you believe I have some other motive, I'd like to know what edits, comments, or actions you'd cite as evidence. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
EOD, you are just the best. I'm sorry to hear you won't be RFAing, as my recommendations for you have filled my EOD email archive.
Thanks for always making me laugh no matter what else is happening across the 'pedia. Re "sorry for the mess", I have round the clock police protection for a matter best not discussed on Wikipedia, but long story short, we had a (false) alarm yesterday, and the police had to come in to look around, and I had not yet made my bed! I was so red-faced ... thanks again for all you do, and for keeping me laughing as well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:44, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ew, considering my allergies with fatal potential, including dust mites (it's actually their excrement you know), I like that ... but then ... WP:MEDRS red flags going off just as I don't have time to follow up on that. Does this mean that if I stop making my bed, I can lower my overall histamine load and ignore my allergist's "acute abstinence from all forms of alcohol" demand, and start having a beer with my pizza again ? Lord knows I hope so, because what's an excellent filet mignon without a nice red :( And that antibiotic allergy is gonna kill me some day. How wonderful would it be if I never had to make my bed again, and then also got to imbibe occasionally. And I would owe it all to you! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Too late ... I've already told dear hubby I no longer have to make the bed beside FFF said so. (Social gatherings these days for us always involve an organ recital ... you know ... kidney, liver, skin, thyroid, pancreas, heart, etc ailments !). I have found myself in some very good company without alcohol, but still haven't quite figured out what to pair with meals ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:14, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey FFF, you mentioned at the recent SPI that you were hoping an admin would come along and indicate a better tool for detecting proxies. It looks like Favonian has supplied one in their unblock decline here. I hope that's helpful! Generalrelative (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I guess I've been making colcannon for years without knowing it had a name. I like to use the baby spinach / baby kale / baby chard mix available at my local grocery store :0 Generalrelative (talk) 18:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am Gregory Boleslavsky, mentioned in the article on OCR Systems. Article contains a number of inaccuracies which I prefer to correct. I do want to understand who wrote it so I can discuss proposed changes. --Nomoreocrforme (talk) 00:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured something like that. The problem is that some of the things attributed to the 2 other people mentioned I did entirely alone and earlier by years or months, chronology of other products is plain wrong, my title is wrong, oroginal personnel is wrong, etc. However if I describe things with absolute accuracy, my contribution will for sure appear greater than it is there. Basically the owner was retiring, sick, in a hospital with 5k and just me working for him. I got an offer from IBM, didn't want to work for a large co, saw an ad for microtek scanner, went to LA, convinced them to give me a guy to develop a driver for PC with, told Ted I will write a demo for the show in Chicago, did that, then sold Canon on the idea. They gave me and Ted 100k, I hired Vadim, and then became general manager and ceo and hired 50 more people, sold to a bunch of companies and managed everything til 1990. The I left and the co was sold to Adobe with my team moving there. That's it. But it is not at all what is in the article. Nomoreocrforme (talk) 03:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
timing -- 1985 February was when Ted decided to quit. I saw microtek scanner introduction in March, went to LA end of March, by end of April had a driver for PC and by July had a working demo that Ted and I went to NCC with in chicago in June or July 1985. Went from 0 sales in 1985 to 5 million in 1990. Nomoreocrforme (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had watchlisted this article for admin purposes, so I'm not going to comment for now in the ongoing discussion. But I do want to note that you owe me a new keyboard for pointing out that a story about randomly exposing one's genitals was a news flash. DMacks (talk) 01:54, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DMacks: but if I buy you the keyboard, you'll become a paid editor! Not worth the ass-ache I think.
Hi DearDrDray. It looks like you already figured out how to move the article. The next thing that will happen is that a new page patroller will review the article, so I'd suggest sticking around in case they suggest improvements. At a glance, I think the article could benefit from more inline citations (see WP:CS), and you probably shouldn't be citing quite so many press releases. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:04, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thank you for responding so fast!
Yes I did.
Got you, i will be adding more inline citations asap, but am having a hard time uploading VALID images of the sport's Logo & proclamation by the state of Florida. Im also looking for some external articles published in local media outlets (will upload them as they come in)! DearDrDray (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the neutrality concerns are baseless. You might want to tone down some of the language: things like "a clever combination" and "unlike any other sport in history". After a first pass, I'd recommend starting a topic at Talk:Hanetball360 to inquire about the specific reasons for the tags. You can ping the users who added the tags using Template:Ping, which will look something like {{ping|username}}. The good news is the DMacks, who added the neutrality tag, also marked the article as reviewed, so at least one other user thinks it's likely to pass our notability guidelines. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The equivalence of biological aging and clock time-keeping
Hi ArchersMusic. Changing a page's title is considered a move. To minimize disruption, Wikipedia won't allow editors to move pages until they are auto-confirmed, meaning they've made at least 10 edits and been around for 4 days. Other editors can move a page for you if needed before then. What page are you hoping to change the title of? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Firefangledfeathers, I'm here to take you up on your offer for a review of the Crown Heights Tenant Union! I haven't gone over the lead yet - I want to hear your thoughts on the body structure and article generally first so I can create a lead that follows the body well. Please take a look when you have the time and let me know what you think! It's nice swimming in uncontroversial waters lol. I want to try and push this one to be a good article, as I've always wanted one under my belt and there's quite a lot of coverage of this org stretching back a while. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 20:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please help me understand why I'm being harassed by the moderators? (please check out the hanetball360 revision)
1) Missipi is making false claims. Thats not copy pasted from anywhere - why doesn't he back up his claims? how else can I educate people on the actual sports terminology?
2) DMACKs is upset that I removed "lottery & gambling" from his page on passive income; with all do respect passive income as nothing to do with lottery or gambling....
Hi DearDrDray. You're catching me just as I'm about to be away from my computer for a while. I'll look into your concerns sometime in the next half day or so. I encourage you to be as civil as you can be when discussing with or about other editors. Usually, you shouldn't edit comments once others have responded, but I encourage you to adjust your comment just above to practice focusing on the content issues and not on uncharitable descriptions of other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thanks again for being so diplomatic & take your time. Whenever you do get the chance, please let me know your thoughts. DearDrDray (talk) 06:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DearDrDray you still need to disclose your WP:COII did not earn money for this, nor do I have any claims on the sport or any proceeds from it. I did this as gesture of kindness & am regretting it now still qualifies as a conflict of interest, especially when coupled with the extensive use of press releases, which multiple folks have suggested you remove. @Mako001: has provided a lot of helpful information for you. Please take the advice you've been given, or perhaps leave the article for someone a little more removed from the subject. We need what independent, reliable sources have said about the sport, not what the sport wants to say about itself. StarMississippi13:03, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
DearDrDray, first, thank you for adjusting your comment above. Responding to your other points:
It looks like you're referring to this removal of the Vocabulary section by SM. They gave two reasons for the removal, and even if the content wasn't copy/pasted, it was still unsourced. If I were you, I'd focus my efforts on finding reliable, secondary sources that comment on the vocabulary. Just as a personal preference, I think it might be better to have a Gameplay section that's written in prose, instead of a list, that talks about how the game is played with occasional definitions of the game's vocabulary.
I'm seeing that you later re-removed the lottery info from the passive income article with a more descriptive edit summary, and DMacks agreed with the removal in the next edit. Unless there's more to it, this would be a good one to let go.
SM is right that the COI concerns are reasonable enough that it would best for you either to declare or deny a COI at this time. If you do have a potential conflict, I urge you to read WP:COI and ask questions if there are parts that you're unsure of. Many editors with such conflicts edit productively and in line with policy seemingly effortlessly, but being a newer editor with a COI can be a bit of a minefield. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:26, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As always, thank you so much for your guidance & explanation! First and foremost, I will leave it all behind, it was just my amateur misunderstanding about how the Wiki system works. Second, perhaps it is best for me to stop trying to work on the page; hopefully others that are willing and able to source more credible information on the sport will contribute. Finally, I'm still extremely confused about the COI; I just tried to add it to the talk page; [ Talk:Hanetball360 ] can you please let me know if the way I did it makes sense. DearDrDray (talk) 04:20, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome, Doc! I moved the coi declaration to the top of the article page, where it's supposed to be. Recognizing when it's time to step away from a given article and focus on some of the 6.6 million other ones is generally considered to be a high-quality Wikipedian move, and it looks like you're in the game early. Happy editing! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, good call on words as words. I will trust your judgment on where to keep emphasis. For screenreader convenience and function, they do suggest using the {{em}} template, instead of italics. I was blown away I guess that every utterance of cis or trans tilted to my right. Okay. Carry on. Cheers! {{u|WikiWikiWayne}} {Talk}04:00, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi WWW, and cheers back! I'm a fan of using the semantically meaningful Template:em, but it wouldn't be appropriate for this use. We're not really emphasizing the words in italics. This is explained at the template page itself. I'll take a pass at the italics in the article soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the superb contribution on Heian Palace and the crucial help in keeping the article at FA level!
It was a real pleasure to have the chance to work with you on the article! Stca74 (talk) 16:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.
I was looking at the revision history for WP:CR and you said it is better to leave the RFC going. How long do you intend on keeping the RFC going? DDMS123 (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I got you into trouble last weekend; it was fun joking around, but can see in the cold light of day how could be misinterpreted. For the record though, thanks for the lols :)
ps, why are you not an admin? You are obviously widely respected and have excellent people skills and judgement (not saying this off the cuff, I see you around all the time). . Ceoil (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliments, Ceoil, which come with quite the content-creator cachet. For the short term, I'm content with the rights and responsibilities I've got, and I'm hoping for some real-life instability to settle before I consider any new ones. Appreciate the warm fuzzies anyway! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:47, 9 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand how bots work -- somehow I've got the impression that they are just written by various users, who may or may not consider themselves "owners" of them. Could you for instance go in and edit the bot to automatically display the archives it sets up? Milkunderwood (talk) 03:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Editors who want to run a bot have to get approval through Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval and multiple rounds of testing. You could not edit the bot, but you could talk to the bot's operator. My guess is that having archive bots automatically display the archives is more complicated than it sounds. They operate on article talk, user talk, and project space pages, many of which already have their archives displayed using common or bespoke archive box templates (e.g. Template:Archives). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to any person whose gender might be questioned with gendered words (e.g. pronouns, man/woman/person, waiter/waitress/server) that reflect the person's most recent expressed gender self-identification as reported in the most recent reliable sources, even if it does not match what is most common in sources. This holds for any phase of the person's life, unless they have indicated a preference otherwise.
I'm holding that this refers to people both living and dead. You've argued that a dead person is not legally a "person", and that the clause about "phase of the person's life" can't apply for that reason, additionally so because dead people do not have any "phases of life". Before we get into it, have I characterized your argument correctly? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Would you say the rest of the guidance of MOS:BIOGRAPHY similarly doesn't apply to dead people? "Person" and "people" are all over the page. For example, MOS:SAMESURNAME has "When referring to the person who is the subject of the article, use just the surname unless the reference is part of a list of family members or if use of the surname alone will be confusing." It is followed by an example about Ronald and Nancy Reagan, both of whom are dead. Why would the guidance give a non-applicable example? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"Person who is the subject of the article" sounds more like a historical figure to me, I'd discount that (as history is quite abstract). But generally, yes, people are people. If you hadn't noticed, a lot of our guidelines use questionable phrasing, and why not, eh? InedibleHulk (talk) 15:05, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh ya, the guidelines are a mess. Usually they're not quite so internally inconsistent as they'd be under your reading. I think it's unlikely that "who is the subject of the article" as a modifier is intended to relax and unspoken "this only applies to living people" rule. MOS:BIRTHNAME has a part that explicitly applies to "a person named in an article of which they are not the subject" (my emphasis), using the decease Pope John Paul I as its example.
There are uses of "person" or "people" that have no modifier at all, like MOS:LEADBIO: "The lead section should summarise the life and works of the person with due weight." It would be a great loss to the project if this section were construed to apply only to living people, necessitating the addition of new guideline (maybe MOS:LEADDEADBIO?) to cover the many biographical articles about dead people. Doesn't this strike you as exceptionally odd? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:37, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People live on in stories and works, nothing odd there. Odd to to consider their feelings after death as if they still literally live, that's all. Anyway, keyboard/port is crapped out again, alternate input's tedious, arbs coming out of the woodwork to support undue wheelbarrowing, so that's all for now. Despite some feelings, I'm not opposed to GID or out to make problems for everyone. Just think it's misread and misapplied in one case. Thanks for trying to explain and understanding more than many. Might be back, cheers! InedibleHulk (talk) 17:29, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if it comes to it. Generally, blocked/banned users retain the ability to edit their user and user talk pages, provided they don't do so disruptively. Asking for clarification about the block or requesting and unblock are usually the best uses, but I've never seen anyone complain about archiving. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:46, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The reason is I felt I could do this is because I saw the words "License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" at the bottom of the YouTube video, and when I click inside, the licence is hyperlinked to the CC-BY 3-0 Licence https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode.
Please may I just double-check with you that I have not done anything wrong? I have looked up the documentation and am reasonably confident, but as I am totally new to this would be grateful for any guidance. --AnxiousHamster (talk) 15:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Firefangledfeathers, I hope you're well. I noticed the request for Sarah Jim Mayo on the GOCE Requests page still has your {{working}} tag but you haven't edited the article since 23 April. Can you please let us know your intentions with the copy-edit? Thanks for your work there. Cheers, Baffle☿gab22:56, 9 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Firefangledfeathers, thankyou for being my mentor. I am very new to editing wikipedia, I have a passion in curtain areas and I like to keep pages as up to date as possible. However, I know there's a process to go through and I'm not sure if I'm doing it correctly. Please can you read this conversation on my talk page (copied below) and let me know if there is anything that can be done differently on my part for future edits,
Kindest regards,
The Relentless Ranger
May 2023
Hi there - Wikipedia relies on reliable sources to verify information, especially about living people. You didn't provide a source for your changes to the Louis Walsh (footballer) article, and I couldn't find one either. If you have a reliable source please let me know and we can change the article. Please let me know if you have any questions. GiantSnowman 19:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Hello GiantSnowman, thankyou for your message. I'm a committee member at the club so I've seen the changes made with my own eyes. Obviously that doesn't count as a reliable source. Maybe Risborough Rangers official website is a reliable source? I have the following link: https://www.risboroughrangersfc.co.uk/teams/186028/the-team. This still shows Louis at Risborough Rangers, however I'm not sure it will be a constant reliable source as that page gets regularly updated removing players who are no longer at the club, which obviously Louis no longer is as he was on loan. If you would like to see the source of the stats I updated on wikipedia, these can be found in the match day programmes of Risborough Rangers, available via the same link I added to this message. I hope this clarifies things for you. Any other questions please do not hesitate to ask and I'll be happy to try to help. The Relentless Ranger (talk) 13:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC) --The Relentless Ranger (talk) 09:02, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, The Relentless Ranger. I think that user talk page interaction looks fine. Many new users add quality information without a source, which is why we have the template that GiantSnowman used. If you haven't already, you may want to review the links in his message. I'm happy to answer any questions you have about those guidelines/policies. As you look for a source that covers Walsh's recent team history, I recommend looking for news sources that might cover transfers/trades/loans.
This award is given to Firefangledfeathers for collecting more than 20 points doing redirect reviews, in the May 2023 NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your help in bringing down the backlog. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 01:39, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Slow going, but I'm also working my way through Jenner and taking notes. Mostly it's just a polish job, and the article has great bones. Thanks for bringing it up to FA in the first place! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:53, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect drive: In response to an unusually high redirect backlog, we held a redirect backlog drive in May. The drive completed with 23851 reviews done in total, bringing the redirect backlog to 0 (momentarily). Congratulations to Hey man im josh who led with a staggering 4316 points, followed by Meena and Greyzxq with 2868 and 2546 points respectively. See this page for more details. The redirect queue is steadily rising again and is steadily approaching 4,000. Please continue to help out, even if it's only for a few or even one review a day.
Redirect autopatrol: All administrators without autopatrol have now been added to the redirect autopatrol list. If you see any users who consistently create significant amounts of good quality redirects, consider requesting redirect autopatrol for them here.
WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team, consisting of Sam, Jason and Susana, and also some patches from Jon, has been hard at work updating PageTriage. They are focusing their efforts on modernising the extension's code rather than on bug fixes or new features, though some user-facing work will be prioritised. This will help make sure that this extension is not deprecated, and is easier to work on in the future. In the next month or so, we will have an opt-in beta test where new page patrollers can help test the rewrite of Special:NewPagesFeed, to help find bugs. We will post more details at WT:NPPR when we are ready for beta testers.
Articles for Creation (AFC): All new page reviewers are now automatically approved for Articles for Creation draft reviewing (you do not need to apply at WT:AFCP like was required previously). To install the AFC helper script, visit Special:Preferences, visit the Gadgets tab, tick "Yet Another AFC Helper Script", then click "Save". To find drafts to review, visit Special:NewPagesFeed, and at the top left, tick "Articles for Creation". To review a draft, visit a submitted draft, click on the "More" menu, then click "Review (AFCH)". You can also comment on and submit drafts that are unsubmitted using the script.
You can review the AFC workflow at WP:AFCR. It is up to you if you also want to mark your AFC accepts as NPP reviewed (this is allowed but optional, depends if you would like a second set of eyes on your accept). Don't forget that draftspace is optional, so moves of drafts to mainspace (even if they are not ready) should not be reverted, except possibly if there is conflict of interest.
Pro tip: Did you know that visual artists such as painters have their own SNG? The most common part of this "creative professionals" criteria that applies to artists is WP:ARTIST 4b (solo exhibition, not group exhibition, at a major museum) or 4d (being represented within the permanent collections of two museums).
Reminders
Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
The New Page Patrol team is sending you this impromptu message to inform you of a steeply rising backlog of articles needing review. If you have any extra time to spare, please consider reviewing one or two articles each day to help lower the backlog. You can start reviewing by visiting Special:NewPagesFeed. Thank you very much for your help.
Hi, I just edited the page of Tom Christiansen. Can you make sure I did so properly? How should I act when I want to make an edit? --BenjaBruneau (talk) 06:21, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BenjaBruneau. Thanks for editing Wikipedia. There's a few ways you can improve your edit, starting from small to big:
Citations at the end of sentences go after the period. For more info, see MOS:REFPUNCT.
We prefer that references not just be urls. You can add parameters for things like the page title, author, date, and access date. There's guidance for this at Template:Cite web. Depending on what editing tool you're using—desktop v. mobile, source v. visual—there are some automatic tools that help with this. Let me know what you're using and I can be more specific.
Wikipedia aims to be a tertiary sources that collects and summarizes info from high-quality secondary sources. There are exceptional uses, but generally we would not want info to be cited only to stackexchange chat logs. The sourcing at that article was not great before you got there, so I wouldn't say you've made things worse. A better option here might be to completely remove the comparison to "Only tex can understand TeX", as no source was provided for the "inspiration'.
Thanks for the answer, which makes sense as I also appreciate alliteration.
I'm still working on the poem and it occured to me to also ask ChatGPT, which is good at this sort of synthesis. FYI, it replied:
What does Wallace Stevens mean by "fire-fangled feathers" in his poem "Of Mere Being"?
In Wallace Stevens' poem "Of Mere Being," the phrase "fire-fangled feathers" is a vivid image that serves to convey a sense of heightened experience and intense vitality. The poem explores themes of existence, perception, and the transformative power of imagination.
The line in question appears in the final stanza of the poem:
"The palm at the end of the mind,
Beyond the last thought, rises
In the bronze decor,
A gold-feathered bird
Sings in the palm, without human meaning,
Without human feeling, a foreign song.
You know then that it is not the reason
That makes us happy or unhappy.
The bird sings. Its feathers shine."
The phrase "fire-fangled feathers" suggests feathers that are illuminated or adorned with fire, symbolizing a kind of extraordinary brilliance or radiance. The image evokes a sense of something ethereal and otherworldly, transcending the ordinary. It implies a transformation from the mundane to the extraordinary, where the feathers themselves are imbued with the transformative power of fire.
Overall, the phrase "fire-fangled feathers" contributes to the poem's exploration of the realm beyond rational thought, where the ordinary boundaries of existence are transcended, and a deeper, more profound reality is encountered. It captures the ineffable quality of that experience, emphasizing its intense and vivid nature.
Our own article about Wallace Stevens is quite good and I was especially amused that he wrangled with Frost and literally brawled with Hemingway. How very like Wikipedia where our discussions so often turn into fights...
Andrew, I wonder if "brawling with Hemingway" is synonymous with "spent more than ten minutes in his company"? There are many critical takes on the poem, and JSTOR tends to cover most of the good literature and poetry journals. If you're signed in to The Wikipedia Library, this link will get you at some of them. The poem is often treated as Stevens' last one, though it's unclear, so it gets a lot of critical and biographical attention. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So glad to see you finally ran for admin. I expect you'll pass so I'm wishing you plenty of good luck and in case I don't run into you in the next few months a very nice summer.
I've seenthis movie before, and experience has shown that there is no correlation between how much support you get at RfA, and how good you actually are in an administrator. Indeed, I've found those passing with 80-85% support seem to be better administrators as they are the ones prepared to make difficult decisions that will get blowback. So hang in there. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:06, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we lose your content work, I'll regret my support :) <not really, but you know what I mean> That was much harder than it should have been, so go celebrate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:17, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent job! I am incredibly proud. Even when things got a little tense near the end, you handled things with confidence and grace. Now unwind, and go read all that secret deleted stuff you’ve always wanted to 🕵️♂️🤫 Moneytrees🏝️(Talk)00:22, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations and take a short break if necessary. You showed excellent resilience in a difficult RfA and persevered in the end! I would love your deeper reflections on WP:INVOLVED further down the line. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 00:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While I wasn’t on the supporting end of the RFA, I definitely wish you congratulations and best wishes as an administrator. I know you will do a great job, just remember WP:INVOLVED. (Which I know you will) - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆(𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 02:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!! I might not have been on the supporting side, but I know you'll make a great admin and I'm sure you'll be more careful around WP:INVOLVED than any admin who didn't go through this process haha. :3 F4U (they/it) 00:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There are cookies and scones (and hash brownies in the weird corner). Choose your armchair with care, some of the older admins get grumpy if someone takes their favourite place. SilkTork (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
grump grump*. Just… take your shoes off before using my ottoman. Welcome to endless free labour!
Now look what you've gone and done, you fool! I mean, um, welcome, you'll love it here and everyone will love you too. DMacks (talk) 03:10, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shiny new tools might be used to mete out justice, mercy or a dose of reality. Let us commit to not losing our cool when using them. Our only armor is the entire community's trust. We wear it for each other, each new contributor, and each new generation to come. May you ever be the community's trusted champion. BusterD (talk) 02:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And my axe! So far I've been keeping them on the kitchen floor in a pile with a sticky note that says "Don't trip." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firefangledfeathers (talk • contribs)
Congratulations on becoming Wikipedia's newest administrator! I am pleased to present the traditional baton to you. I'm sure you'll find your way around the tools soon, but if you have any questions, feel free to ask! –Novem Linguae (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm rarely here anymore but I had meant to support your request for adminship (not that you needed my support, but mostly just as a statement of confidence in you). Having seen you around here and there, I know you'll do a great job as an admin and will continue to be a credit to the project. I especially enjoyed your response to the question about the Wallace Stevens poem—you're absolutely right about the (gentle) irony in failing to understand intellectually a poem about the futility of intellectualization. :) MastCellTalk19:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A belated congratulations from me, FFF. I take particular pleasure in seeing the baton passed (again) from one of my nominees to another. I found that my own learning curve remained steep after receiving a mop, so if you ever have any questions please feel free to write. Vanamonde (Talk)13:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, though I'm only two admin actions in (and the second was fixing a mistake I made on the first). Firefangledfeathers (talk / [[Special:Contributions/Firefangledfeat
_by_Ron.jpg)
