Jump to content

User talk:Firefangledfeathers

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Jamarr81 (talk | contribs) at 00:38, 17 February 2024 (→What can I do if a RfC is being compromised by canvassing?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Contentious topics awareness notices (reviewed December 12, 2023)

February 2024

Information icon Hello, I'm Jamarr81 (talk). I noticed that you made a reversion that didn't seem very civil, so it may have been removed. Wikipedia is built on collaboration, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you.

From WP:Vandalism: 

The malicious removal of encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view (which does not mean no point of view), verifiability and no original research, is a deliberate attempt to damage Wikipedia.

From WP:NORESVAND: 

 ... if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself... discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits...

Information icon I noticed that you have reverted to restore your preferred version of an article several times. The impulse to undo an edit you disagree with is understandable, but I wanted to make sure you're aware that the edit warring policy disallows repeated reversions even if they are justifiable.

All editors are expected to discuss content disputes on article talk pages to try to reach consensus. If you are unable to agree, please use one of the dispute resolution options to seek input from others. Using this approach instead of reverting can help you avoid getting drawn into an edit war. Thank you. Jamarr81 (talk) 00:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]


What can I do if a RfC is being compromised by canvassing?

Hello Firefangledfeathers,

I believe that the RfC I opened a few days ago (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:_WCE-WRD/WCD) is being compromised by WP:STEALTH canvassing. Stealth canvassing can't be proven, and it is unlikely that it will be acknowledged by the users involved, but I am certain that it has taken place.

Is an in-depth investigation possible? Or, how can I balance the imbalance? Is it possible to ping users who took part in previous discussions and RfCs on the same topic? Æo (talk) 11:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Firefangledfeathers, I am not sure if you are aware that Æo engaged in WP:CANVASS on the 2022 RFC you closed. He even tried to manipulate the closing himself [1].
He pinged multiple editors that he already knew would vote on his side and they came and voted in his side. See the 3 editors he pinged as a group [2] and then called all 3 in the RFC and even shows discussions where these editors had supported his views [3]). One of them did not respond and 2 months later Æo chased after him because of a guaranteed vote [4]. The 2022 RFC results show clearly that 3 of the 4 Yes votes come from AEO and two of those editors he called in [5]. A more "smoking gun" example is this one where he tried to ping another editor into the discussion because he says they supported his views [6].
On this 2024 RFC, he pinged one of the editors to the last RFC who voted with him [7] and just as expected they voted the same way as Æo [8]. The fact the he is trying to ask permission from you collect votes via WP:VOTESTACKING is disturbing since RFCs are meant to call out editors for extra opinions, not to gang up and manipulate the RFC. Ramos1990 (talk) 14:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers knows about the 2023 RfC because they are the admin who closed it, Ramos, and what happened with that RfC has nothing to do with what is happening with the current 2024 RfC. I pinged Erp in the general WP:RSN discussion, not during the RfC and not asking her to comment a certain way.
On the other hand, I believe that you, Ramos, have stealth canvassed to the RfC most of those who have voted Option 1, given that two of them did not take part in the general WP:RSN discussion and have collaborated with you in past editing and discussions, and their arguments are all the same as yours. I also believe that your advocacy of the sources under discussion, against all evidence provided about their problems, is over the top; Ramos, do you have any WP:COI?
I also ping the administrators who followed the 2022-2023 discussion and RfC: Acroterion and Drmies. Æo (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always work alone and I do not ping people in general. I assume that if people are interested, they will follow a discussion and contribute to it. When you make an RFC, it spreads out to many noticeboards and if editors see it and are interested, they are free to contribute. I however, see multiple editors you called in the 2022 discussion from outside coincidentally voting your way and an editor whom you called in the 2022 discussion and this 2024 discussion, voting the same way [9]. You are quite specific as to why you called them there too referencing the 2022 discussion. I see no repeat editors on this 2024 RFC from the last one in 2022 on the opposite side. And also I never pinged anyone either.
The fact that you even say "Or, how can I balance the imbalance? Is it possible to ping users who took part in previous discussions and RfCs on the same topic? is quite disturbing considering your canvassing and the ANI I raised about it last year [10]. I rarely use ANIs. A neutral editor accepts the results of their own RFC, not try to manipulate it. I would say that your behavior is over the top, that you opened the 2022 RFC, tried to close it when consensus was against you, tried to influence the closers to the point that I had to request an uninvolved editor, raised up another RFC on the same stuff (WP:FORUMSHOP) a year later and engaged in some canvassing knowing how an editor would vote on when you made the 2024 RFC. All I have done, on my part is to provide reasons and evidence and tried to persuade editors in the noticeboards. I have not done any of the behavioral issues you have engaged in. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) Pinging is not the same as stealth canvassing, which is what I believe you have been doing.
2) My sentence above refers to legitimate measures to publicise RfCs, which may include the pinging of editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) and editors known for expertise in the field per WP:APPNOTE, in order to solve the stealth canvassing problem which I believe has taken place. My sentence does not refer to the practice of WP:INAPPNOTE, which includes vote-stacking and stealth canvassing, i.e. deliberately asking users to vote a certain way or inviting to the RfC people who one knows how they will vote.
3) You have already WP:PAttacked me two times during the recent discussion and RfC with ad hominem arguments, once again resurrecting and manipulating the facts of the 2022-2023 discussion and RfC (just like you did at ANI in Jauary 2023), and falsely accusing me of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. The latter means raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively, while I have not raised the same issue on "multiple noticeboards and talk pages" repetitively, and the new WP:RSN thread which I opened provides plenty of new material; this is what WP:RSN is made for.
4) Per WP:COICOIN, please answer to the following question: do you have any WP:COI pertaining to the sources which we have been discussing at WP:RSN? Æo (talk) 16:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.s. It is also telling that you rushed to respond here, with further attacks, when neither my initial comment here nor my notice of possible stealth canvassing on the RfC page contained any reference to you. Why did you feel called into question? In my eyes, this only confirms my suspicions. Æo (talk) 19:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Æo and Ramos1990, I won't be able to look into this matter until tomorrow. If there's any urgency, and if you think your case is solid, feel free to take it to WP:ANI. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no urgency. The RfC has only been open for a few days and will be open for another month. Æo (talk) 16:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers, if it is a disturbance to you that we discuss here, I can move the discussion to my talk page. In case, let me know. Æo (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't bother me if you talk here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Firefangledfeathers, sorry to bother, but I hope to just speak to you since I would like a fair minded look into the canvassing/controlling behavior that I reported last year as I am seeing the same behavior in this RFC. Tomorrow is fine. Please review what I have presented. I feel like this 2024 RFC is going through the same controlling behavior that AEO exhibited last year in the 2022 RFC - canvassing accusations were there too. Both RFCs are about the exact same sources, by the same editor, over the same issues. I think an admin needs to really take control of the situation. RFCs should not be this complicated. Ramos1990 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Æo, I'm inclined to give you a formal warning regarding canvassing. It appears that you have pinged editors that are likely to support your position. You have demonstrated some familiarity with the relevant policy (having cited it a few times), but appear to have fallen afoul of "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions". In the future, please feel free to ping all participants of a prior relevant discussion (something analogous to the 2022/23 RFC), but selective pinging is inappropriate. Please do not ping anyone further to the ongoing RfC. I'm holding off on the warning in case you'd like to make a clear statement in your defense, and I'm willing to change my mind if I've missed something.
    Secondly, Æo, I'm unable to take any action regarding stealth canvassing on the part of Ramos unless there's some clear evidence. If there's any on-wiki evidence, including circumstantial evidence, feel free to present it. Any off-wiki evidence can be emailed to me or another admin for review, but we can't take action based solely on that evidence, so you may want to skip over us and email a CU or ArbCom member per WP:BLOCKEVIDENCE. I see there's already a template at the top of the ongoing RfC related to canvassing, so the closer will probably factor that in.
    Ramos1990, have you contacted anyone off-wiki to solicit their participation in this RfC?
    Finally, both of you need to stop personalizing the debate. Leave comments on other editors' conduct out of it, and bring them up at a user talk page or conduct noticeboard if necessary. Given the quantity of words you've both contributed, I'd also recommend keeping further replies to a minimum. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding my pings, all those linked by Ramos are from the 2022-2023 thread except from this one which is from the 2024 thread, which, however, was not in the RfC, but was at the very beginning of the previous RSN general discussion (this was the original post; the RfC was started ten days later after much discussion), and in my view falls within WP:APPNOTE's editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics) and editors known for expertise in the field (and it was more a way to mention what the pinged user expressed in the old discussion, which I thought also applied to the new discussion, than an invitation to support my views). I did not invite anyone to the RfC. Note that already in her past accusations at ANI regarding the 2022-2023 thread, Ramos likewise tried to pass off some of my mentions in the general discussion as canvassing to the RfC, while they were from before the latter's existence. Æo (talk) 15:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the evidence of stealth canvassing, at the moment I can only point to the following circumstantial clues:
    1) Ramos showed up in the the RSN discussion exactly the day after I opened it, even though we normally do not interact with each other and she does not seem to follow the RSN assiduously. In the 2022-2023 discussion she did the same, and just like in the old discussion, also in the 2024 one she pushes forward her views without any consideration for the critical evidence provided. This is what leads me to think that she may have a WP:COI.
    2) Most of those who voted like Ramos in the RfC also happen to have long collaborated closely with her, supporting the same points of view, even in very recent discussions unrelated to our RSN discussion and RfC. This can be easily verified.
    3) Ramos rushed to reply to my opening message here, despite the fact that neither my message nor the tag I left on the RfC page made any reference to her or her views.
    4) During the 2022-2023 discussion an anonymous IP commented the following, raising alarms about stealth canvassing: Worth observing the Foorgood has repeatedly canvassed editors to this discussion; that's how Ramos1990 got here, for example. Æo (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) I have the RSN on my watchlist and saw AEO's activity.
    2) I am pretty sure I have overlapped in viewpoints throughout all wikipedia. I patrol many pages. I don't keep count. But my views are my own. Don't need anyone to speak for me.
    3) I saw "This discussion is being compromised by WP:STEALTH." in the RSN. Saw this thread in their contributions. So I took the liberty to show that actually AEO had canvassed in the last RFC and my suspicions of this one too.
    4) Like I explained in my ANI, Foorgood debated with me before. We were not allies and he acknowledged the debating [11]. Ramos1990 (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1) It is quite doubtful that you have a whole noticeboard that you do not appear to frequent in your watchlist. In any case, it should also be pointed out that you are not even normally involved in articled about religion demographics. Your editing activity is mostly focused on Christology and related topics. Your stubborn advocacy of the statistical databases we have been discussing on the RSN raises therefore some suspicion.
    2) This does not exclude the possibility that you have contacted people outside of Wikipedia asking them to intervene. None of those users who intervened taking your side and/or repeating your arguments are regular RSN participants.
    3) This does not explain your behaviour, nor the "liberty" you took to resurrect the 2023 ANI accusations, already disproven that year: ... for the record, I see no compelling evidence of canvasing: the relevant policy has clear carve-outs for persons who have previously contributed to a discussion with the same or substantially overlapping discussion on the talk page, for anyone who has expressed an interest in any discussions on the topic, and others who have some sort of legitimate prior interest in a particular editorial topic on a particular article, just to mention one of the replies to that discussion. Æo (talk) 19:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Firefangledfeathers, thank you so much for your consideration. To answer your question, definitely and categorically no. I oppose numerical unfairness like this in all forms on wikipedia. Everyone has a right to be heard in a fair manner without being ganged up on. And I accept the outcomes of all discussions even if they dissent from my views. In general, I do not interreact with other editors or socialize with editors on wikipedia. To each their own. Ramos1990 (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your statements. I'll review, and the next comments from me are probably going to be at your user talk pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:50, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Firefangledfeathers, another example of selective pinging in the current 2024 RFC. One editor showed sign of agreement with AEO and the first pinged in editor [12], then he pinged her during the the RFC on January 12 [13] and as expected, she voted the same way on January 13 [14]. They all voted the same option. Ramos1990 (talk) 16:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi once more Firefangledfeathers, Update: On January 15 (yesterday) AEO pinged two allies on this thread [15], one of which was another one of the 4 votes in the 2022 RFC [16]. Accordingly, they voted on the same way as AEO in this 2024 RFC on January 16 [17]. AEO and 2 out of the 4 voters from the 2022 RFC are repeat voters here voting the same way so far, related to selective pinging. Ramos1990 (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a WP:MENTION to quote another editor who expressed themself in the related discussion above the RfC. Note that my mention of that editor referred to the long debate they had with Ramos in the discussion above, given that Ramos was repeating one of the points of her argument again and again despite that user had already refuted it; my mention did not refer to that editor's first message linked by Ramos in her reply hereabove (this is a subtle difference, but it may be telling as to Ramos' unfair strategies in debates). In any case, that editor was already aware of the RfC, given that they took part in the related discussion above and also happens to be an assiduous commentator on the RSN. There is no invitation either to join the RfC or to vote a certain way. Æo (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from MichaelK314 on User talk:MichaelK314 (14:39, 16 January 2024)

I would like to create a wikipedia page for my artist. Can you please assist? --MichaelK314 (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MichaelK314. You'll find a lot of useful info about creating your first Wikipedia article at Help:Your first article. When you say "my artist", it appears you may have some personal or professional connection to the artist in question. If so, you may have a conflict of interest, and you'd need to read and adhere to our COI policy. Starting with article creation and working when you have a COI are tough, so you may want to start with some smaller edits to existing articles while you learn the rules and norms. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from FGusa on User talk:FGusa (14:44, 19 January 2024)

Dear Wikipedia Administrators, I am Faris Gusic, current Web Administrator on International University of Sarajevo. I was constructed by my supervisors to update the IUS Wikipedia page since it was last updated years ago. IUS has been changed since that day, new study programs have been added to IUS, few rules regarding public information changed ; and overall I edited the text for good look too. So could you please explain to me or at least give me permission to edit and that edit keep published https://www.ius.edu.ba/en/people/faris-gusic here is the link of my profile on Main IUS Website. And my wikipedia acc is linked to my business mail Thank you in advance. --FGusa (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FGusa, and welcome to Wikipedia. I see you have been blocked, so I'll respond at your user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from WXYZ2468 (04:24, 20 January 2024)

Hello, how do I change a page title? --WXYZ2468 (talk) 04:24, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WXYZ2468. We refer to the act of retitling a page as a "move", and you can learn about moves in general at WP:MOVE. You're able to move most pages yourself, though you should use the requested move process if you suspect the move might be controversial. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. I dont think it will be a controversial move. WXYZ2468 (talk) 04:43, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samia Suluhu Hassan GA renomination

Hi there! I've returned from my wikibreak and I just thought I'd let you know that I (finally) made your recommended changes at Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan/GA1 and renominated the article, in case you were interested in picking up where we left off. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:29, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thebiguglyalien. I'm glad you did. I think that article is close to passing. I have a bit on my plate right now, but I imagine I'll be able to pick up the GA2 review within the next month, and hopefully sooner. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Mandir

Hi - you have inadvertently just fully protected Ram Mandir after a request from User:Thewikizoomer, who has imposed his version by reverting at least four times today (you weren't to know that, because it goes back a lot of edits!) I had warned him for 3RR and asked him to revert his last edit or I would block him, but of course he is now unable to do that. I know about The Wrong Version, but I don't reckon there should be a reward for it. Black Kite (talk) 15:19, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2 of the mentioned diffs. were not related to any dispute (about construction), at the time of editing. The lead section is clearly disputed hence justifies Full protection. Thewikizoomer (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned here, talk page discussion was opened and dispute resolution was asked. Thewikizoomer (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the wikizoomer version was reverted a few minutes before the protection. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I've lucked upon that pinnacle of full protection: a version that no one is happy with! In all seriousness, if there are any unambiguous issues with the protected version, or if there's consensus for anything that needs to be changed, I'd gladly edit through the protection.
Thewikizoomer, if it's true that you broke 3RR, you're lucky to have just gotten a final warning. The revert rules apply even if the reverts are related to different content. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:44, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for the diffs related to 3RR, the given diffs. didn't appear like their words. Thewikizoomer (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I thank you for offering to edit, the primary dispute was about the Babri Masjid section in Ram Mandir article.
In the article's lead, this section

"The site is the former location of the Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE. The idols of Rama and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949, before it was attacked and demolished in 1992.[8][9][10] In 2019, the Supreme Court of India delivered the verdict to give the disputed land to Hindus for construction of a temple, while Muslims would be given land elsewhere to construct a mosque.[11] The court referenced a report from the Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) as evidence suggesting the presence of a structure beneath the demolished Babri Masjid, that was found to be non-Islamic.[12]",

appears to be misleading. Firstly I think it belongs to the history section of the article more than the lead and secondly, it says that the site was previously a mosque called Babri Masjid which was built in 16th century CE and the idols of Ram and Sita were placed in the mosque in 1949.

It is misleading because, the Babri Masjid was built there after destroying a ram temple there which was there before this mosque which is very clearly mentioned in the article of Babri Masjid here1 and here2. The court ruling about Ram temple being there before the masjid was built should also be equally mentioned in the lead and also it should be placed in history rather than the lead. A little explanation seems right too. Thewikizoomer (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to this in here 1 above, taken from Babri Masjid article,
The mosque was located on a hill known as Ramkot ("Rama's fort").[1] According to Hindus, the Mughal commander Mir Baqi destroyed a pre-existing temple of Rama at the site. The existence of this temple is a matter of controversy.[2] The Archaeological Survey of India conducted an excavation of the disputed site on the orders of the Allahabad High Court. Various materials have been found during excavation which suggest the presence of a Hindu structure beneath. The Allahabad High court noted that the Babri Masjid was not built on vacant land and the excavated underneath structure was not Islamic in nature.[3][4][5]
Starting in the 19th century, there were several conflicts and court disputes between Hindus and Muslims over the mosque. In 1949, idols of Rama and Sita were placed inside the mosque, after which the government locked the building to avoid further disputes.[6] Court cases were filed by both Hindus and Muslims asking for access.[7]
here 2 refers to this,
On September 2010, the Allahabad High Court upheld the claim that the mosque was built on the spot believed to be Rama's birthplace and awarded the site of the central dome for the construction of a Rama temple. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thewikizoomer, can you please move this all to the article talk page? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I copied this to the article's talk page. Thewikizoomer (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Hiltebeitel, Alf (2009), Rethinking India's Oral and Classical Epics: Draupadi among Rajputs, Muslims, and Dalits, University of Chicago Press, pp. 227–, ISBN 978-0-226-34055-5
  2. ^ Udayakumar, S.P. (August 1997). "Historicizing Myth and Mythologizing History: The 'Ram Temple' Drama". Social Scientist. 25 (7): 11–26. doi:10.2307/3517601. JSTOR 3517601.
  3. ^ PTI. "ASI report on excavation of Ayodhya site to be published as book: Minister". Economic Times. Archived from the original on 11 December 2020. Retrieved 2 December 2020.
  4. ^ Digital, Times Now (4 August 2020). "Did you know seven evidences unearthed by ASI proved a temple existed at Ayodhya? Details here". Times Now. Archived from the original on 6 December 2021. Retrieved 2 December 2020.
  5. ^ Web desk, India Today. "Ayodhya verdict: The ASI findings Supreme Court spoke about in its judgment". India Today. Archived from the original on 19 December 2020. Retrieved 2 December 2020.
  6. ^ van der Veer (1992), pp. 98–99.
  7. ^ "Tracing The History of Babri Masjid". Outlook (Indian magazine). 1 December 2017. Archived from the original on 2 February 2019. Retrieved 3 September 2020.

Logging in CTOPS enforcement

I think you have to log Ram Mandir protection change in WP:AEL. Thanks :) — The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:23, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Herald The protection isn't a CTOPS enforcement, rather a protection against edit warring content dispute. This doesn't go to AE logs — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 12:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DS pretty much has it. I didn't take this as an AE action. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 60

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

  • Three new partners
  • Google Scholar integration
  • How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Mandir talk page

Hey Firefangledfeathers, I am currently facing a problem with a new editor, The Indoman 360 he is constantly asking to remove the word 'hypothesized' from the article and since the page is fully protected and you are an admin, it would be perfect if you settle this problem.Thanks. Harvici 10:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvici, I don't see anything problematic about that users conduct. There's active discussion about what word to use, and I can't "settle" the dispute until consensus develops. If local consensus can't be reached, there are more steps of dispute resolution available. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bro I was not telling u to remove the word it is a discussion and everyone has rights to give their word and even to be on a debate when discussions are on.
I find it weird you coming here with the matter😁
@Harvici The Indoman 360 (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions from Blakestan2011 (27 January 2024)

How do I create an article --Blakestan2011 (talk) 21:16, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Blakestan2011. There's some great info available at "Your first article". Let me know if you have any follow up questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is legal for a 12 year old to get a tattoo --Blakestan2011 (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, and I know it would depend on what country/region/area you are in. This sort of question would be well-suited to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Humanities. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:11, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving thanks to myself and so many other users. You’re appreciated. Here’s a freshly baked cookie! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 01:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for thanking me for thanking you and them! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can’t stop laughing  :"D You’re welcome! Elvisisalive95 (talk) 03:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
For the constant presence and maintenance of Ram Mandir..!! The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting an opinion

Hello Firefangledfeathers. I would rather not be a part of another AE discussion so soon, and I try to avoid creating them out of single issues, so I was hoping to ask for your opinion on an incident. Is this an example of casting aspersions and a personal attack? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KhndzorUtogh. Answering your last question first: I would not characterize that comment as being a personal attack or a casting of aspersions. In my interpretation, the editor is saying that your actions in that discussion are evidence of bias. There are other possible interpretations, but absent any evidence for them, I'd assume good faith. Since the purported evidence of the misconduct is present in the discussion, it can't be aspersions, and it's less likely to be so if the accusations aren't repeated. And accusations of bias are not in and of themselves personal attacks.
All that said, our dispute resolution policy says "Try to avoid discussing conduct issues on article talk pages." Regardless of the merits of the accusation, bringing it up at that venue is disruptive to the process. Unless withdrawn, there are few imaginable good outcomes. Most of the time, editors called out in the wrong venue then defend themselves, and the defense is then rebutted, and so on, distracting everyone from the content dispute at hand.
I think you would be on solid ground if you wanted to politely ask the editor to remove those parts of their remark (which have not yet been responded to as of this comment) and say you would be willing to discuss any conduct dispute at your own user talk page or his. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:23, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WIAPA: Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views
"Anything else is a promotion by a biased editor. And KhndzorUtogh Yes, I'm calling out here. This isn't even a remote attempt at viewing the topic of the article and what the title should be through a NPOV lens"
Isn't this exactly what a personal attack is described as? KhndzorUtogh (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with the policy, and that's the part I re-read when you asked for my opinion. (In case it helps, for considering aspersions, I re-read WP:ASPERSIONS and the relevant bullet point at WIAPA).
I think the main factor here is that I didn't see the other editor blaming the alleged bias on any political affiliation (or any other affiliation). I think we should be able to—in the proper venue—communicate to other editors that we think they are displaying bias and letting that bias interfere with good encyclopedic decision-making. Again, I don't think that editor did so in the proper venue, nor did they do so in the best possible manner. It might be that other comments by them make it clear that they were specifically trying to discredit your remarks based on some affiliation of yours, but I'm not aware of any other relevant comments to consider. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Cowingzitron on User talk:Cowingzitron (21:59, 3 February 2024)

Hello, I just regained access to my wikipedia account (user: cowingzitron), which is to say, my dumb a** finally remembered my password from years ago :-p . In the last couple of years though, I have made a few edits without logging in, from the IP address 216.197.76.113, which I would like to have associated to cowingzitron. Specifically, I made all the edits from that IP address except the oldest one (which relates to Steel Pulse). Could an admin please help me move my edits from the IP address 216.197.76.113 to cowingzitron? Thank you in advance for your help. -- cowingzitron --Cowingzitron (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats on regaining your account, Cowingzitron! There's no way to move the edits to your account. You can declare on your user page that you used to edit as that IP. If you ever join any discussions in which you also commented as the IP, you may want to make that connection clear. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:03, 3 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for clearing that up for me.
My confusion arose because I had read the "Help:Logging in" article on Mediawiki and mistakenly thought it applied to Wikipedia as well.
Specifically, in the Mediawiki article, under the section What if I forget the password or username?, it says that a user in my situation can ask an admin to move their IP-published edits to their user account once they regain access.
After you replied, I read the corresponding "Help:Logging in" article on Wikipedia, which (not surprisingly) matches your response.
While I am mildly disappointed that my edits cannot be moved, I am glad I learned more about Wikipedia and its help resources (Mentors!).
Thank you again for your help.
P.S. I dig your username and taste in poetry. Cowingzitron (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to disappoint! Let me know if there's anything else I can do to help. PS: Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

24h block?

Hello,
Could the page be protected if the block is 24h, I don't see any evidence of it stopping after a block. Geardona (talk to me?) 02:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not optimistic, but I do plan on keeping an eye on their contribs. It would help if you do too. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, as for the page protection, would pending changes work? I am a reviewer and can manage any future issues post block. Geardona (talk to me?) 02:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we can resolve an issue by blocking one editor, we rarely use protection. If the editor resumes the disruption, we'll block them again and clean up as needed. This does not keep us perfectly safe, but I find myself trying to balance safety and the potential that a block might lead to a behavior change. We'll see. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, my thought was a partial block maybe? Using edit requests? Geardona (talk to me?) 02:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since there have been copyvio issues at other articles (and other projects), I think it's unlikely that a pblock would be effective. They'll either resume copyvio anywhere, and be blocked, or change their ways. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So we are in last chance mode basically? This is it unless they figure stuff out, and fast. Geardona (talk to me?) 11:52, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see that we give chances, I have another copyright issue if you have a second Frederick Jaeger Geardona (talk to me?) 13:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks! FYI, you don't need to include the revision where the content was removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Thanks for your quick response! Geardona (talk to me?) 13:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Zeinab Alamgard (13:11, 8 February 2024)

How can I use Talk page? --Zeinab Alamgard (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Zeinab Alamgard. If you go to any article, there's a link at the top, near the title, that says "Talk". You can also navigate to Talk pages using the search bar. Every talk page starts with the "Talk:" prefix and what follows is the associated article name. You could try "Talk:Serena Williams", which should take you to Talk:Serena Williams. Once you're there, the way to use talk pages is by discussing improvements to the article. You can learn more about the guidelines for how to act at talk pages here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:19, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Abasi-Andiong (19:16, 8 February 2024)

Hello, how do I choose an article for editing? --Abasi-Andiong (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Abasi-Andiong. The good news is you can choose almost anything, but that might come with some choice paralysis. You could check out the Wikipedia:Task Center for some ideas. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

January 2024 NPP backlog drive – Points award

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This award is given in recognition to Firefangledfeathers for collecting at least 10 points during the January 2024 NPP backlog drive. Your contributions played a part in the 16,070 reviews completed during the drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to help reduce the backlog! Hey man im josh (talk) 22:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers, just a note that I've updated the barnstar that you received, per our discussion. Sorry for the inconvenience and mistake! Hey man im josh (talk) 23:01, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot Page - birth name

You indicated that Elliot Page's birth name was never notable. I'm reverting you're change, but I'm sure you're aware that WP:N doesn't apply to birth name content within an infobox. It is, of course, verifiable in the citation (Canadian Who's Who) and numerous other sources. Samp4ngeles (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Samp4ngeles: I could have been more helpful by linking MOS:GENDERID, which does rely on an assessment of notability, or the talk page archives where we'd previously made that assessment. Sideswipe9th was much more informative than I was. I trust you're done edit warring at that article? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:05, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Samp4ngeles's latest set of edits to that aritcle, where I agree with your reason for undoing, I gave a de4 warning since they were already alerted about CT/GS. DMacks (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ta

Thank you for blocking the IP troll 153.181.48.17. I appreciate it. Carrite (talk) 05:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 05:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's back @153.246.161.89 See my talk page. Carrite (talk) 13:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He's nothing if not persistent. @66.11.61.139 See my talk page. Ta. Carrite (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked. Thank you for reporting. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Bud Light boycott

You mentioned to me that you reverted some edits on this article due to "editorializing." But I was not editorializing; I was adding context. In fact, I deleted a lot of editorializing that was already in the article, precisely because it lacked context. And in the process of doing so, both liberal and conservative bias got deleted, thus making the article more compliant with NPOV.

Also, you posted something on the article's Talk Page about reliable sources. Just because a particular newspaper doesn't have a reputation for being reliable doesn't mean it can't be a reliable source under certain circumstances. It can be a reliable source if the veracity of the information it provides is self-evident (e.g., a photograph of a celebrity smoking crack, or a video of someone saying curse words loudly to the camera). Conversely, just because a news outlet does have a reputation for being a reliable source doesn't mean that the words it prints are true. The Chicago Tribune once said that Thomas Dewey had defeated Harry Truman in the 1948 election, but we all know that wasn't true.

You can't always use the "reliable source" rule as a guide. Sometimes, truth which is self-evident can appear even in the tabloids, and if you ever read something that you know is false, you shouldn't put that falsehood in a Wikipedia article just because a "reliable source" says it's true. I mean, if Wikipedia were around in the 1930's, would you have written an article praising Adolf Hitler simply because the mainstream media at the time was giving him acclaim? Greggens (talk) 06:08, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are parts of your comment that would be best addressed at the article talk page. If you post there, I'll do my best to respond to you tomorrow (it's sleepy hour in my timezone). I agree with you in general about evaluating material based on more than just the general reliability of the source it's in. The next important question is "if this content only shows up in poor sources, does it belong in an encyclopedia?" Congrats on your Godwin's law speed run. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 06:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

COI editor

Hello - please excuse me if I am not reporting this in the correct format. A recently registered editor, User_talk:Deep_Purple_2013 is making a series of edits to the Karen Black article together with articles related to her: [18], [19], [20] and [21] Such an emphasis on one family to the exclusion of other subjects is sufficient enough, but the added content is of personal nature including family photographs. Advise regarding COI has been posted, but it has been ignored. Could someone investigate? 2003:D3:FF12:1D52:B55E:EBB9:DBF7:EF2B (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enhanced games

It begins, maybe:[22] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"overcome" is definitely a red flag. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reminded of editing a film-article with a COI-person at the other end. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Goldfishy1 on User:Goldfishy1 (03:01, 16 February 2024)

How do I make a title for a page and or edit it? --Goldfishy1 (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Goldfishy1. If you're looking to create a new article, there's a lot of great advice at "Your first article". You'll be able to decide on the article title, and the relevant policy is "Article titles". If there is an existing article with a title that needs to change, we call that "moving", and there's guidance on how to do so at "Moving a page". Your account is unable to create new articles or move existing ones until you've made ten edits, but you're pretty close already! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Firefangledfeathers&oldid=1208297601"