User talk:Firefangledfeathers: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:54, 6 December 2021

Discretionary sanctions awareness notices (reviewed September 25, 2021)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Thank You

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

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

Osibisa / Updates - random and inaccurate deletions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third Opinion Opining

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

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

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

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

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

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

LHO ARTICLE

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

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

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

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

This is ow we d'speak down ere

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sock Puppet and Harassment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another Left-leaning Publication

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

––FormalDude

^talk 02:31, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

over categorization

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

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

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

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

restoration of my text at SPI

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

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

Dr. Patrick Moore

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

@@ Line 124: / Line 124: @@
 you were right to do so--this was tricky to clean up and I appreciate the help. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><span class="autosigned" style="font-size:85%;">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:DGG|DGG]] ([[User talk:DGG#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DGG|contribs]]) 16:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)</span>
 : I really appreciate your response here, DGG. I admit to a little nervousness about how my edit would be perceived. [[User talk:Firefangledfeathers|Firefangledfeathers]] 16:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
+== Dr. Patrick Moore ==
+You put in the article a statement that Dr. Patrick Moore had 'falsely claimed'. It is a serious matter to make a statement that anybody had made a false statement, there could well be serious legal consequences for any publisher if it could be shown this was not established in law. As far as I can see your only justification was an article in a newspaper. The policy of Wikipedia requires statements to have a reliable source. I reverted your edit because an item in a newspaper article, in this instance, should not be regarded as a reliable source. Further, the accusation is made in a biographical article of a living person. Wikipedia places very strict limitations on what may be stated in such articles.
+Please ensure you do not restore the accusation.--[[User:Damorbel|Damorbel]] ([[User talk:Damorbel|talk]]) 16:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)