User talk:Firefangledfeathers/Archive 4

Thank you for your note about Rosalie Edge and your ambitions for the article as part of WikiProject Women in Green's July GA drive. I have updated the early sections and worked on the references, which I hope is a help. simongraham (talk) 07:21, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Simongraham: thanks!!! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Serious question - I just created a page that got autotagged with "disambiguation links added" - but how do I easily find out which of them are links to disambiguation pages? 🤔  Tewdar  13:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tewdar! Go to Preferences - Gadgets - Check "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange". Looks like it's just your link to Roundhouses. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brilliant, thank you very much! It was indeed the roundhouse link.  Tewdar  13:33, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aargh! I fucked up! I pasted my source on the article and published it by accident! Am I going to jail?  Tewdar  14:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right to jail! If you'd like to be scrupulous about it, you could tag the page for RevDel. Installing this script makes it easier. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:22, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I, uh... don't think I did it right. ☹️ Dartmoor for me, I guess.  Tewdar  14:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It were only twenty words or so, and they weren't even properly OCR'd, yer honour...  Tewdar  14:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're more likely to succeed on a plea of insanity! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't work last time... 🤷  Tewdar  14:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It got reviewed with "no action needed" I think... can I just be sentenced to time served (and remove the notice from the article) now?  Tewdar  17:13, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• • Proof that I'm not trying to pull a fast one...  Tewdar  17:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not super familiar with the copy patrol workflow or what their whole deal is even. I wouldn't object to removing the tag. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Say you made a comment, right, and then you later thought it wasn't a good idea, right, and then so you deleted it, right, but then someone else replied to it after you deleted it, but (presumably) without seeing that you deleted it, and then you asked them to delete their reply, right, but they wouldn't, and their comment kind of looks like it might be serious, right, so you ask them to clarify whether they're joking or not, right, but they don't, right, which kind of makes it look like they really mean it, right... what would you do next?  Tewdar  20:06, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, fixed. 😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭😭  Tewdar  20:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw all that happen in the diffs and groaned audibly. I imagine your not thrilled with what remains, but I assure you it will get lost in what's sure to be another whopper of a discussion. We're already at the point where no sane uninvolved volunteer is likely to trudge through it all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:42, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The remains are alright, I suppose. It was my fault anyway, so... that article discussion page is daft, even without my input! 😂  Tewdar  21:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely different note... if I, uh, am unable to move my draft to article space (like, say it was up for deletion after 6 months inactivity), would you submit it for AfC or something for me? It's probably good enough for article space now (just about), so I'm not asking you to submit garbage or anything... 🥺  Tewdar  11:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably give it a bump or once or twice and hope you can, uh, become able again. Failing that, sure, I'll give it a good go at AfC. Would you also like me to hold on to a letter that tells your sweetheart you love them? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:39, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not too much trouble... wouldn't want to take advantage... you'll have enough to do shortening that article to an acceptable length if I don't get round to it... "to my dearest darling, if you are reading this, this means that you have started editing Wikipedia, which was always my greatest fear. What dark forces, what evil events, have driven you to this diabolical path...?" 🌹  Tewdar  12:44, 17 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm willing to go along with your reasonable request that we wait 48 hours for objections to be substantiated, but instead, this user added a link to the talk page to the noticeboard, saying that I cannot be dissuaded? [1] How is this proper consensus building behavior? And meanwhile the user is ignoring the request for information or the talk page messages. Andrevan@ 18:52, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrevan: I don't understand Hemi's behavior here. I'm hoping an explanation will be forthcoming. AGF, they're trying to get this thing started as cleanly as possible, as it's likely to get messy quickly and stay messy for a long time. It'll be open for at least 30 days and closure will probably take a while as well. Given the timeline, I'm ok with a couple days to figure out what Hemi and the others want to say. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind waiting a few days but I agree that the behavior is puzzling. Hopefully there is a good explanation but the user has now started a thread on WP:AN. Andrevan@ 19:25, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think they're just trying to attract attention to this pre-RfC phase. I'm not sure. Unsolicited advice: triple-check your posts, stay as calm as you can, pretend like everything you say is about to be used as evidence against you at ANI or even ArbCom, anticipate social media or news media analysis/commentary, gird your loins, etc. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, been there, but thanks for the advice. Some might say "attracting attention" in this way is a form of WP:CANVASSing but I will let it play out. Thank you again. Andrevan@ 19:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for your help with the RFC. Andrevan@ 18:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I hope it all goes well. Right now my sentiment is something like "May god have mercy on our souls", but that might be my generalized anxiety speaking. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:47, 3ldid=23611998 -->

I've found that on some occasions. Highly passionate editors who get banned & don't take it well. Tend to not take it at all & soon begin either editing 'logged-out' or creating socks. I sincerely hope, this won't be the situation, with Lugnuts. GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It definitely happens. I share your sincere hope. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:40, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, nice to meet you.

Considering that this article has been declined a couple of times, do you have any suggestions for it? Do note that I have already attempted to improve the article based on the feedback given --Coolusernamemadeforwikipedia (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Coolusernamemadeforwikipedia! I'll take a look at the article, review the feedback, and get back to you at the draft's talk page (I'll ping you there). NIce username! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly sign your comment here.

I would also like to know here how Doug Weller is correct? Hope you will re-read my comment, and the evidence I provided and agree that "New Order" is a splinter group of "American Nazi Party" and that not only both of them are operated by different chairmans + staff members but are clearly opposed to each other. Thanks. 103.240.204.158 (talk) 06:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I signed and added a brief explanation, having re-read the discussion and skimmed the sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:25, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given to Firefangledfeathers for 27 reviews and 2 re-reviews in the July NPP backlog reduction drive. Your contributions played a part in the 9895 reviews that took place during the drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning MOS:CAPS. Sometimes it's difficult to keep track of all the MOS. Some of them at times, cross over each other :) GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

If I am planning on editing several things on a page, should I submit different edits separately or submit all changes as one edit?

Thanks --Qwertyu2244 (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Qwertyu2244. In most cases, either option is fine. I tend to default to multiple smaller edits, and I like to use edit summaries that explain what each change included. Other editors will work on multiple parts of an article for a lengthy period of time and then save it all at once. I can't find the exact policy/guideline, but I remember reading some relevant advice: if you know part of your edit will be more controversial than the rest, make the least controversial edits first in a separate edit. It'll make it easier for other Wikipedians to evaluate the changes and undo anything that requires further discussion. Hope that helps! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:48, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing my ping mistake: Qwertyu2244. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful, thanks! Qwertyu2244 (talk) 18:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Women in Green GA Editathon — July '22
		Thank you for your excellent contributions to Rosalie Edge at the WiG "Women and the Environment" editathon event! The article looks much improved. Best of luck with the GA review when it comes, and if you need any advice about your nomination you're welcome to reach out on the Women in Green talk page. Alanna the Brave (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alanna the Brave, thanks!. Thanks also for coordinating the drive. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:34, 5 id=1102314130 -->

Howdy! I'm interested in translating articles on Wikipedia. I noticed there's a tool for translation, but it's only limited to those who have done a certain amount of edits and been on Wikipedia for certain amount of time. Is there a way to get around this or can I translate articles another way? Thanks in advance! --Furaibou45 (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Furaibou45. As far as I know the Content Translation Tool is limited to users with 500 edits and 30 days tenure, and there's no way around the limit. Yes, there are other ways to translate, and the tool isn't all that useful anyway! Due to existing consensus on English Wikipedia, the machine translation function of the tool has been disabled. You can read more about how to translate articles at Help:Translation. Off-wiki machine translation tools are available, but please be sure to read WP:MACHINE and avoid creating unedited machine-translated articles. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you remove the citation to the conflict of interest? It's from the study's own disclosure? Readers should know that his research is funded through a grant from manufacturers of puberty blocker drugs. RaySmall88 (talk) 02:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RaySmall88. I like to keep article-focused discussions at the article talk pages. If you post at Talk:Jack Turban, other interested editors can see and participate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very fine line between "willingness to edit war" and a commitment to upholding Wikipedia's policies and guidelines to the letter. Please keep this in mind when engaging in article talk page discussions. ScrumptiousFood (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my best! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tildes are the squiggly-wigglies right? Is this correct? 02:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)02:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)02:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)02:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)02:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)02:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) think — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) that's — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) about — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) right — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:47, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Vital Barnstar
		Thank you for expanding Armour to 30 kB! Sorry for the belated barnstar, but it is well deserved for your copyedit and alt texts. I'd reckoned that a lot of blind people had thanked you for your work as well. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:35, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot CSC! Thanks also for your community organizing work. I know we're walking away from this drive with some expanded vital articles and some ideas about how to run the next drive. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, could you explain a bit more about your ideas and such? I really want to know about it. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a blast the way it is and reading with interest the ideas of others. Firefly's idea about focusing on prose size expansion sounds good to me, but I might be biased by my affinity for "Firef..." usernames. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:45, 20 id=1105345534 -->

Hey FFF, I would like to restore the longstanding consensus text pending a new consensus but cannot do so without running afoul of 3RR. If you agree that such an edit makes sense here, I'd encourage you to revert my last self-revert: [2]. But of course, as always, I expect you to fly free. Cheers, Generalrelative (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, Volunteer Marek volunteered for the gig. Generalrelative (talk) 23:34, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fly free sounds nice and all, but I mostly chill out on a palm tree and sing. Happy to see good work done without me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:13, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a lush life either way :) Generalrelative (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Generalrelative this looks like an attempt at tag team editing.♥ L'Origine du monde ♥ ^{♥ Talk ♥} 05:54, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might look like that to someone who 1) fails to assume good faith, and 2) fails to do the basic due diligence of looking at the diff. If you had done so you would have seen that I was here suggesting FFF might revert to restore the same status quo that you reverted to restore here: [3]. Please tone down the battleground behavior now, or at least take your concerns to my talk page. Generalrelative (talk) 06:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I want to create an article about our company. Can you please help me? --Franvoy (talk) 16:01, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Franvoy. The first thing you need to do is submit a username change request, as company names are not allowed as usernames. See WP:RENAME for the process, and let me know if you have any questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FFF, thank you again for your peer review of Paul Goodman. I'm planning to wrap up the review and move any remaining discussion to the talk page so wanted to check if you had any oustanding thoughts/replies before I did so. czar 21:51, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were either a participant in WP:DS2021 (the Arbitration Committee's Discretionary Sanctions reform process) or requested to be notified about future developments regarding DS reform. The Committee now presents Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions/2021-22_review/Phase_II_consultation, and invites your feedback. Your patience has been appreciated. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do i become autoconfirm --BENARDX (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

English Wikipedia user accounts that are at least 4 days old and have made at least 10 edits (including deleted edits) are considered autoconfirmed. Cheers, Fettlemap (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BENARDX: exactly what Fettlemap said. You have more than 10 edits, so you should be auto-confirmed about 36 hours from now. The permission change will happen automatically at that time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:27, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, does that mean I'm already auto confirmed?.... How do i know... BENARDX (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow thank you, now i understand ❤️ BENARDX (talk) 23:05, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I signed up for a Wikipedia account because I'm concerned about an "edit war" (an admin called it that) going on with a page I'm interested in. My primary concern is that this admin pushing for the edit seems to be biased towards one side of this conflict (it's very niche and related to micro internet personalities) due to outside of Wikipedia activities.

I didn't know this ask your mentor option was even a thing or I would have reached out to you first. What I did do was find a neutral Admin to address my concerns to. I probably made a fool of myself, but you can see my posts here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sergecross73#Mary_Sue.

Reasonably, the admin in question showed up to defend herself. Her response was reasonable, and then another admin showed up to vouch for her edits. Everything seemed on the up and up, but then I got curious about the other admin so I took a quick look at their edit history. Low and behold, this other admin has also been heavily involved in edits related to this micro internet personality. What the heck are the chances?

So I guess my primary question to you is, is there a better way I can address my conflict of interest concerns on Wikipedia that ensure neutral feedback? Also, feel free to provide any suggestions or feedback for me. Thank you! --WMO1234 (talk) 02:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WMO1234. Having caught up with the linked discussion, it looks like you're in the middle of a minefield. My advice is to leave the minefield. I don't have any good advice about how to proceed forward through the minefield safely, and I think the most likely outcomes of such a move would be unfavorable to you. I encourage you to think about what other kinds of articles would be interesting for you to edit, and to focus on those for a while. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:51, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course I wouldn't edit the article I'm biased towards. It seems patently absurd to me that anyone with a conflict of interest would, and therein lies my concern. If you can, I'm curious about your perspective on how conflicts of interest are handled on Wikipedia. Thanks. WMO1234 (talk) 03:01, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI is our conflict of interest policy. I wasn't suggesting that you edit any specific article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was looking for something like, "This step in the editing consensus process typically resolves your concern." Or, here's this link and COI's are very rarely applied to editing disputes because they require a very high threshold to apply. Thanks for the link though.

I didn't mean to suggest you were implying that I edit any specific article, but instead you definitely implied that I shouldn't edit a specific article, which I agree with. "Leave the minefield... consider what other kinds of articles would be interesting for you to edit." I only mentioned one article to you. WMO1234 (talk) 04:47, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have never once made an edit in relation to Keffal or Destiny (Correction, I realized I once made a single word copyedit in relation to Keffal due to my watchlist), the two personalities you seem interested in. I don't even know who Destiny is, and I only know the broad strokes about Keffal. I strongly recommend you stop throwing bad faith allegations around on talk pages. -- ferret (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keffals with an s! Good evidence, I think, that you're not particularly involved in the topic area. WMO1234, when I said other, I meant ones that aren't related to the Keffals/Destiny. I see you've already started doing so, and the edits looks good. That vandalism you removed had been in the article for more than a year, and it was blatant stuff.

For steps that resolve your concern, the relevant policy is WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. As I read your concerns, they seem more focused on conduct than article content. You're already at the second step, seeking admin attention to the issue. In the future, it's best to start with polite inquiry at the relevant user's talk page. I wouldn't recommend doing so here, as other admins have already chimed in on the matter. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:48, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Rosalie Edge you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 23:41, 5 Sept

The article Rosalie Edge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Rosalie Edge for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Mike Christie -- Mike Christie (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! Thanks a lot Mike! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:45, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, FFF! I hadn't even heard of Rosalie Edge and now I'm very glad that I have. Generalrelative (talk) 17:24, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks GR! Shout out to the folks at Women in Green. I wouldn't have learned about her if they hadn't suggested that article for improvement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. [4] really hates PRRI. See Talk:Public Religion Research Institute#Bad source. I see that PRRI is used quite a bit in mainstream media. Their edits look like massive edit warring with a very weak case. I've just given them a gender DS alert and hope this behaviour stops. I did ask about it at Talk:LGBT rights in Wyoming but that was before I discovered they've been going to all or most of the articles using PRRI and deleting. Doug Weller talk 16:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gah - I hit the wrong link and reverted your edit on RSN. My revert has been reverted and the appropriate people have been sacked. Ravensfire (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to forgive you or become your wiki-nemesis. Let me know which you prefer! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

I mentioned you in an existing edit warring complaint, for your violation of this Arbcom ruling.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol | October 2022 backlog drive
On 1 October, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled and for maintaining a streak throughout the drive. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles. Redirect patrolling is not part of the drive. Sign up here!
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

(t · c) buidhe 21:16, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 52, July – August 2022

• New instant-access collections:
  • SpringerLink and Springer Nature
  • Project MUSE
  • Taylor & Francis
  • ASHA
  • Loeb
• Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:21, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Clean & Pristine is an American based company and we are just browsing Wikipedia to see if we are able to get our business info and stats on Wikipedia, is this possible? not entirely sure how the process works. --Clean & Pristine (talk) 12:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Clean & Pristine. The first thing you're going to run into is that we have a policy against company names as user names. You may be temporarily blocked and asked to change your name. Instructions on how to do so are at WP:RENAME. Let me know when you're renamed and back around! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:45, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.pinknews.co.uk/2022/09/03/jameela-jamil-pronouns-non-binary-twitter/

Uakari (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oooooof. That sucks. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:33, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I made a mess for the Copyrights in the Shroud of Turin page. I got it. My first modification. Can I send another attempt (better written) after you clean-up? Am I blacklisted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prismak (talk • contribs) 21:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Prismak. No, you're not blacklisted from anything. Instead of re-adding a non-plagiarized summary of the content, I encourage you to post at Talk:Shroud of Turin and see if others will support your proposed text. One editor already objected to it on non-copyvio grounds. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:25, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, for sharing your comments. Hope it helps. I am not an expert in this topic, but I know enough to see the issues. For now this is all I think I can do. Is there a Wikiproject pseudosceince? I cant find it if it exits. Any other suggestions you have for me to raise this or my headsup note on WP:MED is enough? Venkat TL (talk) 17:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi VTL. Thank you for bringing up the issue! I think your post at WT:MED is good enough for now. If a few days of discussion can't push the article in a better direction, there are other dispute resolution options available. While I have you, I encourage you to be a bit more collegial with Chiswick Chap. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions. I was doubly shocked, first with the state of the article with GA tag and then with the pushback by C. Chap. Will keep your advice in my mind. Venkat TL (talk) 17:08, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 5th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Firefangledfeathers for copyediting 1 long article during the GOCE September 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Firefangledfeathers for copy edits totaling over 12,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2022 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So blingy! Thank you for coordinating the drive! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 7 October 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Rosalie Edge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that American environmentalist Rosalie Edge (pictured) was called "the only honest, unselfish, indomitable hellcat in the history of conservation"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rosalie Edge. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Rosalie Edge), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 12,405 views (516.9 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of October 2022 – nice work!

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:24, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One picture speaks a thousand words, mostly obscene & over most millennials' heads

Smg85051 (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Firefangledfeathers, how are you doing? I got an email saying you are my new mentor. I don’t know what a mentor is or that I even had a mentor before this. Can you tell me what a mentor is and how having one affects me? Thanks.

-Aliooopqq Aliooopqq (talk) 12:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Aliooopqq. My role as your mentor is just to answer any questions you have about editing Wikipedia. For you, having a mentor doesn't affect you very much. If you need me, I'm here! If not, you're welcome to start completing some of the suggested edits you see when you sign in or pick an article that interests you and make some improvements. Let me know if I can help! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:22, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for clearing things up! Aliooopqq (talk) 13:23, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...attempting to pile on by brightening your day with some Cheez Whiz :P Generalrelative (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Golly gee! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed this was kept!! :) Absolutely great work, and apologies I left you with so much heavy lifting. Best Ceoil (talk) 16:16, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wooohooo! It was a joy to work on her article, and I didn't mind any of the lifting. Thank you for all the excellent content added. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:21, 16 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Firefangledfeathers,

Much has happened since the last newsletter over two months ago. The open letter finished with 444 signatures. The letter was sent to several dozen people at the WMF, and we have heard that it is being discussed but there has been no official reply. A related article appears in the current issue of The Signpost. If you haven't seen it, you should, including the readers' comment section.

Awards: Barnstars were given for the past several years (thanks to MPGuy2824), and we are now all caught up. The 2021 cup went to John B123 for leading with 26,525 article reviews during 2021. To encourage moderate activity, a new "Iron" level barnstar is awarded annually for reviewing 360 articles ("one-a-day"), and 100 reviews earns the "Standard" NPP barnstar. About 90 reviewers received barnstars for each of the years 2018 to 2021 (including the new awards that were given retroactively). All awards issued for every year are listed on the Awards page. Check out the new Hall of Fame also.

Software news: Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have connected with WMF developers who can review and approve patches, so they have been able to fix some bugs, and make other improvements to the Page Curation software. You can see everything that has been fixed recently here. The reviewer report has also been improved.

Suggestions:

• There is much enthusiasm over the low backlog, but remember that the "quality and depth of patrolling are more important than speed".
• Reminder: an article should not be tagged for any kind of deletion for a minimum of 15 minutes after creation and it is often appropriate to wait an hour or more. (from the NPP tutorial)
• Reviewers should focus their effort where it can do the most good, reviewing articles. Other clean-up tasks that don't require advanced permissions can be left to other editors that routinely improve articles in these ways (creating Talk Pages, specifying projects and ratings, adding categories, etc.) Let's rely on others when it makes the most sense. On the other hand, if you enjoy doing these tasks while reviewing and it keeps you engaged with NPP (or are guiding a newcomer), then by all means continue.
• This user script puts a link to the feed in your top toolbar.

Backlog:

Saving the best for last: From a July low of 8,500, the backlog climbed back to 11,000 in August and then reversed in September dropping to below 6,000 and continued falling with the October backlog drive to under 1,000, a level not seen in over four years. Keep in mind that there are 2,000 new articles every week, so the number of reviews is far higher than the backlog reduction. To keep the backlog under a thousand, we have to keep reviewing at about half the recent rate!

firstly the "consensus" you refer to decided to violate the wikipedia guidelines regarding correct gendering of trans women with absolutely no justification besides some lazy transphobic stereotypes, secondly when I tried to start a disscussion on the talk page everything I posted was deleted. given this is the case how am I supposed to remove the trasphobia from this article so that it conforms with wikipedia guidelines? 65.92.127.4 (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage you to post a comment at the talk page that includes no comment on other editors. Maybe something like "I think the article should use she/her pronouns, because X, Y, and Z. There are high-quality sources that do so, including Sources 1, 2, and 3." Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did and got deleted. Any more advice? 65.92.127.4 (talk) 15:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're also IP 70.30.30.243, it looks like all of your comments so far have included personal attacks or incivility. My advice is to avoid that and focus your comments entirely on the content and sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

saying "this is transphobic" is incivil? sus... 65.92.127.4 (talk) 15:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

not to mention, how the hell would you what's in all of my comments when most of them have been deleted? 65.92.127.4 (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

eh, whatever, don't start an edit war and i don't care 65.92.127.4 (talk) 15:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you decide that you do still care and come back with some content-focused points. It wouldn't surprise me if there were quite a few reliable sources published since 2014 that use, or even advocate for, she/her pronouns. FYI, your comments are still visible in the talk page history. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:21, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

but there shouldn't be a need for new sources. the article is about a person who lived as a woman for the last thirty years of her life as demonstrated by the sources already provided, therefore per wikipedia policy she should be identified with female pronouns. the only reason there is any controversy at all is because certain people have decided to invent arbitrary standards applied to no other article in order to justify making the article transphobic.

seriously, do you of any other situation where someone would say "yes, this person is a woman but we cant call her she/her without sources?" 65.92.127.4 (talk) 15:27, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Getting pronouns right for historical figures right is a challenge across many articles. People like James Barry (surgeon) and Public Universal Friend both come to mind. I don't think the case for d'Éon will be as complex. Seriously, you should go for it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

go for what? correcting the article? i already did. all we need now is no transphobes coming along and reverting it... 65.92.127.4 (talk) 15:54, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I saw! You're also running into some prior consensus at Barry's article. When I said "go for it", I meant starting a discussion about d'Éon that focused on the content and didn't accuse anyone of transphobia. If you keep acting the way you have been, it's likely you'll end up blocked. That might be an acceptable outcome to you, but I'd be bummed to lose an editor interested in trans history. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:59, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

how the hell do you start a conversation with people who delete your messages and ignore you? they are the ones ignoring wikipedia policy and starting edit wars, why am i expected to put in effort to convince them to stop? when someone is violating wikipedia policy specifically in order to be transphobic the only proper response should be to remove the transphobia and prevent them from vandalising the article again. 65.92.127.4 (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been holding out a slim hope that conversation with you might nudge you toward behavior that is less likely to end in a block. I'm feeling pretty discouraged and am going to stop responding. If you ever start to feel like maybe changing up your style might get better results, I'd be happy to talk again. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:16, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i dont see any reason to pander to bigots. never did work and never will.

no need to worry tho, i won't be going anywhere. 65.92.127.4 (talk) 16:38, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Firefangledfeathers, I've blocked the IP for continuing the same disruption that led to the blocks on thier previous IP.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I missed that they'd been blocked on the previous IP. Oof. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:31, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Firefangledfeathers for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE October 2022 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 20:25, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago, new page patrollers got the backlog to zero. Due to the unprecedented success of the backlog drive, it will be ending early—at the end of 24 October, or in approximately two hours.

Barnstars will be awarded as soon as the coords can tally the results. Streak awards will be allocated based on the first three weeks of the drive, with the last three days being counted as part of week three.

Great work everyone! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm a mentee of yours with a question for you— I've been working on finding sources for a few different articles, and I've been having some difficulty developing certain inline citations. When I find a .pdf attached to a website (like a company's budget report, for example), I often have to download the .pdf to view it. Because it's not a webpage, citations need to be manually generated. However, there is no listed template for this type of document on the citation generation tab. Have you run into this before? So far, I have been listing these items as Journals and have been adding as much information as I can provide. Do you have any advice on how to cite these documents or any resources I could check out? Thank you for your help!! -T.K. --TradukasKlare (talk) 13:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi T.K.! Template:Cite web is fine for references like that. For the link: usually, when you're about to click on a link that will download a PDF, you can instead right click the link and select "Copy link", or something similar. This is the url you should use in the citation template. For example, at Leicester College, this link is the one you should use in the reference. Most urls that lead to PDFs include ".pdf" in the url itself, and the template knows to make that fact visible. Since this url doesn't include the filetype, you should add the parameter " |format=PDF" to the template.

Incidentally, I think the correct title for this reference would be " ... for the year ended 31 July 2021" not 2022. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:09, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Thank you for response, this is incredibly helpful! I'll be sure to implement the cite web template in future citations.

Thanks also for catching my typo in the reference title, whoops! :) I appreciate your help. TradukasKlare (talk) 14:12, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:16, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please use Google Translate and translate Persian gulf into Turkish. Some Ottoman mapmakers indeed called it "Gulf of Basra" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gym Gordon (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gym Gordon, I'll reply at the article talk page and ping you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I manage to get this to you before you submit the 3O, one of the two permalinks had an error. The two comparable revisions should be: x and y. A 3O page seemed to be linked in x by mistake. Regards 17:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC) by James Lewis Bedford (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it out! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:15, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting to remove the slurs from that page, but who do I contact about having some more revisions hidden on the abovementioned page? 120.21.22.48's uses of a slur have been revdeled, but subsequent posts that incorporate them haven't been. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Khajidha, I usually just email a recently active admin. I agree with you that revdel is needed. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Khajidha: I normally jump on the IRC channel via the link at WP:REVDELREQUEST. I find the response time there is usually pretty quick. Taking a look at the page history now, it looks like everything that should have been nuked (the two posts by the IP, and the two auto-signature signs by SineBot) have been hidden. Is there any other revisions that look like they should hidden? Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Everything seems fine now. I'll save that link for future use. Thank you to all. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This award is given to Firefangledfeathers for collecting more than 25 points doing reviews and re-reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions. Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Worm Gear Award
		This award is given to Firefangledfeathers for collecting more than 7 points per week doing reviews, in the October NPP backlog reduction drive. Thank you for your contributions Zippybonzo | Talk (he|him) 09:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Featherperson, I think that ping did not work at Republican Party RfC. At least I didn't get any. SPECIFICO talk 17:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! It wasn't my ping to start with, but I went ahead and pinged everyone TN05 meant to (leaving off you and everyone who's already commented). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

helllo i want to know how to write an article --Tmattoo (talk) 18:49, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tmattoo, and welcome to Wikipedia! You can find a lot of solid advice about writing articles at Help:Your first article. You might also want to use the tutorial, which goes over more than just article writing. If you have any questions as you're browsing those resources, I'm here to help! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		Women in Green Editathon — October '22
		Thank you for your excellent contributions as GA reviewer for Maria Simon (sociologist) at the WiG Wildcard Edition editathon! Best, Alanna the Brave (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have been so swamped IRL that I've barely kept up ... did I just forget to add those back when I started them? Too tired to sort it out, but that's my best guess ... thx for catching that if that's the case. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SG! Yes, I think it may have slipped your mind as you were coming back from vacation and getting through your to-do list. I feel bad no one started the discussions without you per your request. If I'd been more experienced/bold and less involved, I might have gone for it. You're welcome, of course. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:19, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again ... my vacation was followed by extended family visits and difficult circumstances ... I haven't yet caught a breather, and am so thankful you caught that ... all the bst, S SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, You helped me with Cardano categories recently. I'm now working on a new page about the royal photographer Hay Wrightson. There are several photographers who've worked with royalty who do have pages (eg Adams, Beaton, Park), so I'd like to start a new category. The question is, what to call it? - I started with 'Royal photographers', but that would bring in all royalty, and I want to focus on British royals. - Also, it could be that the photographer is royal (eg Snowdon and the present Princess of Wales has had photographs of her son published). - 'British royal photographers' could mean the photographer is British, as does 'British royalty photographers'.

So I've ended up with 'Photographers of British royalty'. It does the job but is a bit long. Then I'm thinking, go for 'Photographers of royalty' and not worry about other royal families or the nationality of the photographer (that would let in Canadian Yousuf Karsh). And I suppose international is better. Would you have any advice?

There are lots of subcategories for photography, eg on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yevonde_Middleton: 20th-century British photographers - Hay, yes 20th-century English women artists 20th-century women photographers English women photographers Photographers from London - Hay, yes (if the page means worked in London; not sure where he was born) GreyStar456 (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GreyStar456, hope you've been doing well. My instinct would be to create a subcategory of Category:Portrait photographers and call it "Photographers of royalty". If the category ends up being big enough, it might then make sense to split it up further. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:21, 16 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Firefangledfeathers, That's cool. Good point about the subcategory. All fine apart from a battle with an OTT crypto editor. I'll try to be more careful with making the category this time!GreyStar456 (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 53, September – October 2022

• New collections:
  • Edward Elgar
  • E-Yearbook
  • Corriere della Serra
  • Wikilala
• Collections moved to Library Bundle:
  • Ancestry
• New feature: Outage notification
• Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

reviews in black

Thank you for quality articles such as Joseph Ranger (seaman) and The Sweet Flypaper of Life, for exquisite reviewing for GOCE, FAR and DYK, for help with ERRORS, RfCs and after page moves, for generous edit summaries, for a poetic user name, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

You are recipient no. 2776 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:19, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sweet moment in a stressful time. Thank you for the kind words. I feel more gratitude than I have time to express! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for you help on Resource Exchange. Here's the new Shengtai article. Best wishes, Keahapana (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, and thanks for the article! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, Firefangledfeathers! Your work on H.D. has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the great coordination, Nikkimaria! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

congrats! We rock ;) Ceoil (talk) 10:41, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are being contacted because you participated in this NPOV noticeboard discussion. There is now an active RfC on this issue on the Male expendability talk page. You are welcome to lend your voice to the discussion. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:02, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I do lend the discussion my voice, can I get it back later? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can you say there has not been discussion? Stub was creating in english after seeing clozee in french using independent sources. Was denied by user MurielMary on September 11 because in users opinion "IMO her achievements" are not notable. Now same user comes back months later to remove page? Artedm (talk) 02:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artedm, I responded at the draft talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

Many thanks for the Tanahey searches. Would you happen to know whether the articles could easily be associated with their issues' volume and issue numbers, for a more complete citation, especially given the offline/paywall nature of the sources? No worries if that's unfeasible, but it would be greatly appreciated.

– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JMW! Good call on the complete citations, I'll add the info soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:55, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.

The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted

Hi, you have restricted this user before and same IP is still posting unsourced DOB on this page. Can you please assist? Thank you.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:History/Leila_Rahimi 205.178.18.180 (talk) 15:36, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP205. It wasn't me that restricted that other IP, but our friendly neighborhood binational root vegetable, ScottishFinnishRadish. SFR, you blocked 24.219.36.2 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) back in October for a month for adding unsourced DOB to Leila Rahimi. They're back and are now just adding the unsourced year of birth; see edits on 12/8, 12/9, 12/9, and 12/14. Year of birth is less of a privacy concern, but it still needs a source. I'm only seeing unreliable scraper sites mentioning even the year. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:01, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again, this time for three months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:04, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christmas presents.jpg

Hello Firefangledfeathers! I hope you enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world. Thanks for your work to maintain, improve, and expand Wikipedia. ––FormalDude (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, dude! Seasons greetings back atcha. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:20, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Firefangledfeathers for copy edits totaling over 6,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE December 2022 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 14:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the shiny, and thanks for coordinating the blitz! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Seasons greetings!
	Wishing you joyous holiday spirits, Firefangledfeathers! and best wishes for the New Year

Beccaynr (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What an exquisite card, Beccaynr. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, Firefangledfeathers!

The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:43, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Raccoons! What a lovely choice. Happy holidays to you too Rhodo. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]