User talk:Fyrael

RE Oliver Typewriter Page

It looks like you are trying to help maintain the integrity of the page. Thank you thank you thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.17.150 (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Yellow Fever Disambiguation

My reasoning for the term "yellow fever" being derogatory is that it specifically contains the term "yellow", which is a racist term used to describe East Asian people since they are perceived to have "yellow skin".

Furthermore, the term "fever" implies a disease. Hence, the term "yellow fever" implies that the person who possesses/expresses yellow fever is diseased or deranged.

A term which contains an explicitly racist term within it, whilst also alluding to an illness, is inherently derogatory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Compare the term "yellow fever" to this --> "nigger addiction". I have just made up this term now to describe any non-Black person who has a sexual preference for Black people. The term follows the exact same etymological formula as "yellow fever". Do you accept this term, or do you object to it because it contains a racist term within it? In the same way, the term "yellow fever" is unacceptable and should be considered "derogatory" rather than just "slang". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You've made a bizarre and inaccurate assumption in thinking that I don't consider this phrase derogatory, which my edit summary did not imply at all. I reverted your change because 1) it added inaccurate details about the term and 2) it was not at all aligned with correct style for disambiguation entries. I have now modified the entry to include this word that is of the utmost importance to you, while still following MOS:DABENTRY. And in future you should not try to command other editors to "not challenge" your edits. Discussion is a constant and necessary part of Wikipedia. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The word "yellow" when used to describe Asian people is already widely considered to be racist on a level paralleling the words "nigger" or "wog", etc. Due to Asians living in the West (especially the United States) frequently referring to themselves as "yellow", the term's derogatory meaning has somewhat subsided. The same phenomenon has occurred with the words "nigger" and "wog"; many Black Americans refer to their friends as "my nigger" (usually spelt "nigga") and the term "wog" seems to be tolerated by certain Greek Australians; for example, there is a famous Greek Australian YouTube channel called "Superwog" which makes fun of this term.

The term "yellow fever" makes a direct reference to the concept of Asians having yellow skin. This is similar to terms like "Banana", "Egg", "Twinkie", etc. All of these terms are inherently racist, even if only mildly so. The term "Banana" is both equally used with pride and with hatred; Asian Americans who identify more as (White) American tend to embrace the term, whereas Asian Americans who identify more as Asian American tend to use it as a pejorative term for these "assimilated" Asian Americans. Meanwhile, the term "yellow fever" is almost exclusively used as a pejorative. It is very rarely presented as a source of pride.

The term "yellow fever" is not only racist but also sexist. It specifically describes White men who are attracted to Asian women. The frequency of the term being used to describe White women who are attracted to Asian men is extremely low. In fact, the sorts of people who are opposed to the former, known colloquially as "WMAF", are usually completely fine with the latter, known colloquially as "AMWF"; in fact, they even often encourage the latter, since most of the people using this term are, themselves, Asian males. As evidence of this, if you look through the article "Asian fetish", there is absolutely no mention of White women with a preference for Asian men. There is a comment about this in the Talk section of the article, with someone mentioning K-Pop male pop stars, but there is no reference about this in the article. The article talks almost exclusively about White men who sexually predate on Asian women due to their perceived "submissiveness" and them being "petite". There is no mention of the same phenomenon occurring between the opposite genders.

Furthermore, as if the term couldn't have another layer of offensiveness to it, the term "yellow fever" is also offensive to people who actually have the disease "yellow fever". Just like how calling a healthy person a "downy" is offensive to people who actually have down syndrome, saying that a White man who likes Asian women has "yellow fever" is offensive to people who might actually be suffering from the very real disease which is also called "yellow fever" (and I do not think this a coincidence that these two terms share their names). And it's also insulting anyway to insinuate that someone's personal sexual preferences should render them diseased.

The term "yellow fever" has entered the common Asian American (and Australian, as far as I know) lexicon. I believe that most people understand exactly how offensive this term is, but they use it anyway because they have been desensitized to the offensiveness of the term. It's just like how you see young people frequently using the term "Nibba" because they don't have the "N-word pass" which would allow them to say "Nigga" or "Nigger".

I have come up with this term "nigger addiction" to demonstrate the ludicrousness and hypocrisy that this term "yellow fever" should be so widely used and accepted despite being so incredibly offensive.

And when I was saying "don't challenge my edits", that's because the original description was a load of horsesh*t. The term is almost exclusively used to refer to White men who sexually predate on Asian women. It doesn't have anything to do with any other combinations of races or genders. And it's more than just slang; it's vulgar, derogatory, and offensive. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You're extremely confused. I've just explained that I wasn't debating the "derogatory" part of your description, and in fact left that word in the entry, so why have you just delivered a diatribe about how offensive you find the term, as though I've done the opposite? Maybe you're confused about why I've shortened the description so much, in which case I would point you (again) to MOS:DABENTRY. Descriptions on these pages should only contain as much detail as is helpful for disambiguating between topics, and what I've left there is more than enough to distinguish it from the other topics. Disambiguation pages need not convey the full weight of a term; that's what the article is for. And regardless of what you thought of the description, when you write "don't challenge my edits", the message that sends is "my opinion is absolute and unquestionable", which will get you nowhere constructive. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The term doesn't have its own specific article. In that case, this entry should be removed entirely from the Disambiguation article since there is nowhere to redirect to. The article "Asian fetish" is a separate but related article. There are many problems with the Asian fetish article. I have proposed that it be split into two articles. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

I've seen your proposal and it seems like a decent idea to me, although I'd be surprised if there isn't content on Wiki already for fetishism of Asian culture. Can't say I know where it is though. That said, the article as it stands has quite a bit of information on the concept referred to by the "yellow fever" phrase, so the entry has plenty of merit. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

The phrase "Yellow fever" is only relevant to the Asian sexual fetish frame of the article, rather than the cultural frame. I'll leave the current version of the disambiguation page as is. If the article does end up being split in half, then I'll relink to the relevant half. By the way, I'm pretty sure there are pages for obsessions with specific countries, such as Japan, China, and France. However, there isn't really an article already in existence which specifically discusses Asian obsession (aka fetishism) as a whole. This is the article, but it mostly talks about sexual fetishism rather than a more innocent obsession with culture. I personally believe that the two concepts of cultural fascination and racist sexual fantasies should not be conflated. Prior to my edits of the Asian fetish article, it seemed to imply that sexual fetishization and cultural fetishization go hand-in-hand, which is simply not the case. For example, if I'm interested in the French language, does that mean I'm also interested in French women? Probably, but not undoubtedly. There are many people who can be interested in or obsessed with foreign cultures without becoming sexual predators. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

And even if I was interested in French women, that still wouldn't necessarily make me a sexual predator. There is no direct correlation between being sexually interested in a particular race (ethnic group) and being a sexual predator. However, the article Asian fetish implies that all White men who are obsessed with Asian women are sexual predators. Furthermore, the article primarily talks about White men fetishizing various Asian ethnic groups. There is no mention of, say, Black men fetishizing Asian women, or White women fetishizing Asian men. I think there might be some mention of White men fetishizing Asian men, though. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Oof

Please forgive ignorance -- digesting the entire WP knowledge base takes time -- but I don't understand what you mean by "If you manage to get this to stick on the Roblox article". What's wrong with the Roblox article, or what do you mean by "stick on" it ? Could perhaps have more concisely referenced just the Memes piece -- reference included in the Roblox piece, but this way it includes far more useful pointers. Took some time to untangle the "Oof" usages of many others; this was an attempt to archive some of that knowledge in a useful way in response to finding nothing relevant on WP. With many thanks for editorial consideration. --Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordSurd (talk • contribs) 17:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for coming here to talk, and I appreciate that it takes a long while to get used to the various policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. There's almost no end to them. And in this case, there's an entirely different set of guidelines because Oof is a disambiguation page, not a regular article. You can read all about them at WP:DISAMBIGUATION, but the purpose of such a page is just to help readers quickly find the correct article when they searched for a term that has more than one meaning. So, we do not add content or sources to disambiguation pages; we only add entries with a single link to a wiki article that has the information they want. In this case, that would be the Roblox article. The problem is that currently this meme doesn't appear on that article. You would have to add it to the article, and see if other editors agree that it belongs, since not every meme is notable enough to be worth including on Wikipedia. That's what I mean by the "sticking" part. Just seeing if it doesn't get removed. Let me know if you need more information. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I just noticed you removed my disambiguation entry for acronym "Out of Facility" which pointed to the article "Out of Office". The disambiguation entry contained the information tying "OOO" with "OOF" and did have the reference, just not to something with initials "OOF". These two acronyms are used interchangeably in the tech industry (especially any region with Microsoft employees). I get that you removed OOF because it doesn't have a "out of facility" article all of its own. Could the OOF disambiguation entry be restored if an "out of facility" redirection to the "out of office" article is created? "OOF mail" is a subculture thing that nonetheless gets poked and ridiculed in tech workplaces with ex-Microsofties, but perhaps it's not so well known that it should have its own full article. I have added a list item for OOF to List_of_business_and_finance_abbreviations#O. Frazierjason (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

While it's certainly better if a topic has its own article, the actual minimum requirement according to the disambiguation project is that some mention of the term appear in an article. Now that it's been added to the abbreviations list, that technically counts. Personally, I feel like only encyclopedic topics that could possibly have their own article one day should appear on disambiguation pages, but that's not the consensus. I can add an entry for "out of facility". -- Fyrael (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Looks like I'm not the only advocate of adding an "Oof" sound/meme entry here. I have not gotten back to this because the Roblox page is locked, and I have not yet figured out how to propose adding an Oof sound/meme note there (further unlikely accepted if there have been problems with page alteration); I believe that was your requirement for allowing the Oof disambiguation entry, rejecting the references I proposed and which *did* make the connections. There must be a better way than leaving the whole situation wedged by a lock on a different page. -- WordSurd (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

To clarify a few things:

• I did not "reject" any references. References of any quality simply don't belong on disambiguation pages, as is stated on the overview: WP:DABYESNO. Although I would reject the second one, as fan wikis very much do not qualify as reliable sources.
• It is not "my" requirement that the term be mentioned in the linked article. It's a guideline that is very directly stated at MOS:DABRELATED.
• I did not know the Roblox article was locked. I can see how that made my suggestion seem a bit unreasonable, although it's not difficult to request an edit. The official method is detailed at Wikipedia:Edit requests, but even if you make a casual request on the talk page it will get a response.

And yes, multiple people have tried to add this Roblox entry to the disambiguation page, with varying levels of quality. To be frank, the Roblox user base seems to skew quite young and so inappropriate edits to related pages are rather expected (that's why the Roblox page is protected), especially when you combine that topic with a meme. I honestly feel like nobody will care about this "oof" thing in like 3 years, but I'm not super familiar with the game or the meme so I'll leave it up to editors on that page to decide. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

My apologies; no personal blame intended (grateful for assistance realizing what I'm radiating without thinking); just slow learning how to do things, unfairly blaming the messenger, and short on time to devote. Persistence is because I've been surprised how quickly [so] many people recognize this sound -- which I had neither heard, nor heard-of before -- and how much invested affection has been devoted to a brief burst of audio. While "that was my childhood" has been sad to hear often repeated, it's a fragment of culture that may be around for a while to come. It's also my first vignette of intellectual property law applied to an isolated sound, which will be interesting to watch. Thanks for all your help. -- WordSurd (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Ways to improve Eat Your Heart Out (band)

Hello, Fyrael,

Thank you for creating Eat Your Heart Out (band).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The subject meets WP:BAND criterion #5, but it's not clear that it meets WP:GNG despite that.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Ceres

Thanks for the implicit explanation with a policy reference.

While happy to defer to greater experience, I find your explanation -- especially drawing from the text of MOS:DABPIPE -- somewhat contradictory to the changes you made.

As you expanded to me above (under Oof), Disambiguation pages are handled differently, and I have not read everything there yet, so please forgive subjectiveness and clumsiness, where the policy probably is clear, but it seems unusually verbose (adding information, duplicating fluff now stored in multiple places) to spell out in so many words that one "community" also extends into the adjacent state, and that the other "community" is in a particular county, where the entries are locations, not the communities, but I will digest more how-to, recognizing that I am probably wrong.

I noticed only AFTER posting that there is also a Ceres *Township* in NY, already on the list, which turns out to enclose the Ceres hamlet, though nothing on the page reflects that, so there is probably a better way to include the NY/PA split, and township name, though the hamlet is not the township, and I don't know what township or equivalent is inhabited in PA, and it's not clear that county names help anything -- it's just that one connection goes to a county page; perhaps Ceres, NY (with no entry of its own) should reference Ceres Township, NY, which does have an entry, though it probably also needs expanding.

As for not hiding sources, MOS:DABPIPE seems to specifically say use #REFERENCE(s), rather than pipe(s), when that is the objective, but that is not what you did. The Ceres, NY entry actually goes to Genesee, NY which would by that reasoning seem to call for a reference. The bar seemed succinct, but I will read up on the policy. I followed the example of many other pages in using a pipe to link to the page with the information, while showing what is relevant locally... as Oof is not Roblox, just a topic partially found there... no obfuscation intended... but I have not looked at that page in a while and may remember inaccurately... and maybe common pipe usage is in error. Ceres, OK -- as a small unincorporated place, with only a one-word entry under Noble County (also perhaps deserving of #REFERENCE treatment to not hide that ?) seems unlikely to get its own entry any time soon, though now there is a dangling link that will probably never gain a destination.

Grateful for your articulation; mostly spelling out confusion that I will clarify with reading.

Also trying out signing, so ignore if wrong.

WordSurd (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Oliver Typewriter

The IP is removing sourced content from a featured article, and has been reverted by others. If you believe content should be removed, it needs to be discussed on the talk page. Эlcobbola _talk 22:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Did you read my edit summary before reverting? The link in the source doesn't lead to anywhere that has information. It is essentially unsourced. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

And also the edit that I restored didn't remove any content. It changed the wording slightly. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Have you read WP:DEADLINK? You're removing content from a featured article, and that removal is disputed. That content has been there over ten years. Эlcobbola _talk 22:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Characters of Diablo for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Characters of Diablo is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Characters of Diablo until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Please explain both your cowardice and censorship

This does not make Wikipedia look good. In fact, it only endorses the widely held viewpoint that the "free" encyclopedia is controlled by a relatively small cabal of users with a clique-ish sense of "right"

I made this point incredibly clear. In any other Wikipedia page, if something is irrelevant or unsourced, it is removed with prejudice. This however apparently has to do with progressive values and thus cannot be questioned.

An article regarding the MP 40, a firearm largely revolving around the second world war - operated by, exclusively, men in military uniform or (much more rarely) combat partisans, 98%+ of whom, again, male.

Why would the article have 3 "action" photos, with soldiers in the field, a German medallion recipient, and... an unknown female partisan holding one for a staged photo.

Unless she was culturally significant ("MP 40 Maggie") or otherwise had some overarching value to add to the article, there is no reason for her to be pictured. Not only that, but it creates an inaccurate representation of the users and operators of this weapon.

Absolute cowardice to avoid acknowledging this fact or even making the slightest attempt at rebuttal, but instead silencing somebody who was quite literally "asking for relevance and sources"

You do absolutely no credit to Wikipedia by your actions. As if this place couldn't get damaged enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.208.5 (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I see that you are incredibly bitter about your perception of Wikipedia, but refuse to actually listen to its other editors. Zero people have told you that your input is not wanted. They simply disagree with you and have told you to go to the talk page so that maybe a consensus can be reached instead of repeatedly swapping the page back and forth. This is a completely reasonable request, which is why that's the behavior strongly encouraged by WP:BRD, as you have already been told. It's not bureaucracy to discuss things; it is in fact the only way to have a project like Wikipedia where users attempt to collaborate on content. I have already opened the discussion on the appropriate page, so I won't waste time by duplicating it here. Baseless name-calling like this section title will not get you anywhere, nor will claims of political bias. Just argue the facts in the correct place. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Ibraheem Samirah Notice

Dear Fyrael, can you please follow up on Ibraheem Samirah's anti-semitism and his promotion of white-washing it through probable sock puppetry if you've got time. I've noticed you've been involved with re-establishing some of his potential edits. Thank you for your anti-vandalism efforts, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

My Respect!

Thanks for reverting the article (Sabai) back to its previous content. This anonymous user keep messing up this article with provocative edition 3 times this week. I'm just new to Wikipedia and quite busy. Hope there will be somebody safeguarding the article. I don't know how to request the administrator to protect the article! If you can please help! Appreciate it! <3 Maine Ferrick (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Please help!

Hi! The anonymous user keep dismantling the sourced text. Everything is messing up again! Please help protect the article! My gratitude! Maine Ferrick (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Page now protected from editing by anonymous users for a month [1]. Thank you both for your efforts! ~ mazca ^talk 14:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"No Sense Edits"

It's a complex story is that proposition, for recent Tir na nOg undone additions - reverted to past form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.134.255 (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have undone some additions you've made, but I truly cannot understand what that content is supposed to mean. Could you let me know what your source material is, so maybe I can see what it says and we can get it onto the page with better English? I understand how hard it can be on here if you're not a native speaker, so I'd like to help. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

The Druid Path, Marah Ellis Ryan, 1917. It's a collection of short stories with the Title story included being the rather formatted Tir na nOg rendition. An in depth description of its content can be difficult to organize but my intent wasn't vandalism - as just a start of a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.134.255 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, another user reverted your message here because they thought it was related to other vandalism on my page. Thank you very much for the source! I'm trying to parse through it now. -- Fyrael (talk)

I sourced it as through the Celtic Revival, as I did those other additions to that sentence with those IP addresses, in that article. She seemed to have achieved some acclaim and to me the story seems relevant/original etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.134.255 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Like I pointed out, I think she had talent. My involvement into her led me along the lines of getting this far/here etc. I think she took herself seriously and would enjoy an elevation in her Revival ability but I don't want to spend much time on it like this as waiting for you understanding of a read through/parsing might not mean much anyway as Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source cited could be what it should be about for us here at this juncture, I'd guess (for a short cut out of this with better things to be doing now etc.)?

Don't tell me you're a fan? Ha ha

Either way, let's go now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.185.100 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

your revert on unit

[2] : I would agree that unit of action is not a proper name - it slipped through my scrutinization. But, and let this please sink in, having mere names on top of a list that also contains the concept physical unit deep down below is just plain ridiculous. And so then is the alphabetical ordering of the headlines starting with "arts". How often did you wish to look up a "1997 album by the Australian band Regurgitator" when you were wondering about "units"? Please. Don't make me loose my trust in WPns -- Kku (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

If any disagreement at all from other editors is going to make you lose faith in them, then it's simply going to happen. Conflict and discussion are unavoidable in a collaborative project. Anyway, if you want to promote popular entries there are a few options such as creating a common uses bit as outlined in MOS:DABCOMMON or just reordering the categories. We do not have to be slaves to alphabetical order for the categories (and actually they're already not in full alphabetical). Adding a pointless "proper name" hat to the Arts category simply wasn't the way to do it. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that when deciding what to promote we need to focus on the topics that we think users are most likely seeking, possibly using page views as our best metric, rather than what any individual believes is most important/educational/intellectual. I'm very pro-science myself and understand the desire to put those ahead of the more frivolous entertainment stuff, but I think it's important to respect the purpose of disambiguation pages. And I'm not saying the Arts entries on Unit are the most sought after, as I haven't looked at any stats yet. Just trying to prevent future conflict. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi

	Hi
	Hi Fyrael, Thank you for the kind guidance as though i have the knowledge for my subject im new to the wiki. Is this the right way to send a message to you? or is there another way? Please let me know. Appreciate - RORA RORAGEMS (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that certainly works, although you can also use plain text like this. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Shroud

Would this be better? I think this enhances the chances of people actually figuring out what that link refers to (not everyone knows Shroud's year of birth):

• Shroud (video game player), Michael Grzesieka, streamer and former Counter-Strike: Global Offensive professional player

Let me know what think, thanks for the tips! Tschis (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Nobody would need to know the year of birth to find him. He's the only video game player and in fact the only person in the entire list. If someone arrived there looking for a player or streamer, how would they not recognize the current entry as clearly the one they're looking for? We're meant to use only as much detail as is useful to differentiate between the topics listed and I don't see how the extra details you've added set this entry apart from the others more than simply "video game player" already does. If you're thinking that the year of birth is not very helpful, I totally agree. It's useful for pages like James Carey where all the entries are people and you might only know some historical event they were part of, so editors end up including the year on lots of disambiguation entries out of habit or something. If you removed the year, I wouldn't complain. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that my tone might've been more critical than I intended, but I'm afraid I do genuinely think this is one of those times that the guidance "in many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary" applies. I'm open to hearing your ideas though, if you believe we need to take further steps to differentiate from the other entries. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Don't worry, I understand your point of view. I'd personally prefer it to be more intuitive than "just enough to differentiate", but that's in the realm of personal taste. I took long to reply because I did not get notifications about the response, sorry! All is good, will just leave it as it is. Thanks! Tschis (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverted Edit

Hello,

You reverted my edit stating (Reverted 1 edit by Galendalia (talk): Some weird vandalism? (TW)) on the article Afterlife_(disambiguation). It actually was not, I was going through and delinking where things had more than one link and I meant to hit skip on that page not save, so that is my fault. I apologize for that. Thank you for fixing it. Please be careful in using the term 'vandalism' though. I almost always start with AGF when I am patrolling :) Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 17:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I do assume good faith while editing and agree I shouldn't have jumped to that term before looking into the user, but I become highly suspicious when an editor's edit summary claims typo fixing but the actual edit is not similar to typo fixing. Vandals frequently use that type of summary in the hopes that nobody will bother to look at their edit and I dare say the vast majority of cases where a summary is completely mismatched to the edit are instances of malicious editing. I would suggest you not use that edit summary when trying to clean up extra links, since that's not typo fixing. And if it's a script or tool inserting that summary, then you should look into the settings of that tool because it's not being helpful. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Overlord

It is very relevant to the MW3 timeline, play the game first ABruhRandomUser (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Pretty sure I have played that game, though I certainly don't need to have in order to make a call here. Just because it's "relevant to the timeline" of one game or series doesn't mean it belongs on a disambiguation page. Those guidelines exist for a reason. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

BRD

The cycle is WP:BRD. You here bold, I reverted, went to the talk page, and you still refuse to engage. Your behaviour needs to improve here. And you need to use the talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

I did not refuse to engage, you simply did give me the opportunity. You are also not correct. You very obviously performed the bold edit here, which I reverted. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Headbomb, I'm guessing you think that I'm the bold editor here because you stated in a summary that the entry was up for a year and then I removed it, but that's also quite wrong. You added it a year ago and it was immediately removed by another editor. Then last month yet another editor added it again, which I reverted. Its inclusion was not the status quo. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, it is me Kuro. I appreciate you fixing some edits I made on disambiguation pages. I do not know how to edit because I was new to the Wiki. Could you tell me how to edit correctly? Kuro the black dog (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Behave project not popular enough?

You reverted my "good faith edit", justified by the Behave project not being popular enough yet. Interesting. More than 2,000 stars on GitHub defines a "not yet popular enough" project? By which standards?

--Bittner (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that I did not link the guideline that applies to this. It is MOS:DABMENTION. Basically, the bare minimum that's required for an entry on a disambiguation page is that the topic is described on a wikipedia article that we can link to. So, if you believe this project is worth noting on a page like Behavior-driven development, then please add it there first with a reliable source. Then it would become appropriate for the disambiguation page. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

"1C" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 1C. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 24#1C until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

ty

ty 2601:246:5800:9250:1C4D:9EAD:48CF:4361 (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

what’s up?

what did you do to my article on POV (band) and why? RocksAreAlive (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

If you click on the link that says "diff" in the edit history, you can see exactly what I did. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

You should probably also check out WP:OWNER. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Fyrael! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Do categories for people by century go by birth year?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to . The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Spanish companies established in 2020

A tag has been placed on Category:Spanish companies established in 2020 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

30000

30000 inches of 36.37.154.99 (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Fyrael, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

English

Last day, you left a message on my talk page saying that I had "changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another" but you didn't specify which edit were you referring to. Can you please mention the edit so that I don't make this mistake again? Thanks, Churot (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Churot, it looks like you've done it at least a couple of places, but I was referring to this edit. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, will surely try not to make these silly errors again. Churot (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

SEC: Disambiguation

Hi Fyrael, Sorry, that was my first disambiguation edit. It is apparent I misread the red link instructions in the manual. I now understand red links better and will revise the contribution, by removing the red link, I will add a citation to Saga Transactions to provide context there. Please feel free to review my changes. DJSoundDog (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Mumbo Jumbo

Hi Fyrael, I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Mumbo Jumbo disambiguation page, which added the section "people" and included Oli Brotherhood, the Minecraft Youtuber known as Mumbo Jumbo, or simply Mumbo.

I'm not fully sure as to why you reverted my edit as I believe he is popular enough (7 million subscribers) to warrent mention here. If you could get back to me with an eplanation, I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

MandatoryMist77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandatorymist77 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

MandatoryMist77, I apologize for not including an explanation this time, but if you look through the history of that page you'll see repeated explanations on the many other occasions that someone has added this person. Per WP:DABYESNO and MOS:DABMENTION, we must at the very least be able to link to an article that describes them in order to have a valid entry. Disambiguation pages are meant to guide readers to a page that holds information on the topic they were seeking, not just to list every possible meaning, regardless of the popularity of that meaning. I hope this helps, and thank you for reaching out to discuss instead of immediately reverting back. -- Fyrael (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

And furthermore, if you believe this or any other topic to be notable, then you can take a crack at writing a new article for it. Just find some sources and see how it goes with the article wizard. -- Fyrael (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

-

	-
	hi RenataHanynets (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

AIV

Have you considered using WP:TW or WP:REDWARN (best in combination) for reports to AIV or other menial tasks? This makes everything faster and simpler. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Notice of No Original Research Noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically regarding the whole Take Me To Church debacle - if for any reason you'd prefer not to be mentioned in the discussion, please let me know. Thank you for your contributions :)--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walmart Soundcheck, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Cheetah Girls and Calle 13. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Nitro

Hi, I'm not quite sure what you meant by "it's not a separate topic, just a list related to one already-listed topic)". I listed it under both medicine and chemistry because people looking it up may look in either section per MOS:LONGDAB: "Choose subject areas that don't overlap. If overlap can't be avoided (e.g., record labels that fit under both "Music" and "Businesses"): For one or two items that fit in multiple sections: duplicate these entries in all appropriate sections."

(Undid revision 1029096609 by Facts707 (talk) this really shouldn't have been duplicated before; it's not a separate topic, just a list related to one already-listed topic)

Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I removed it because we should generally only have one entry covering each topic that's ambiguous with "Nitro", which in this case is Nitroglycerin. We should not be tacking on additional entries for articles that are just related to a topic that's already listed. In my opinion, this would be equivalent to having an entry for Nitro (a rapper I just made up) and then directly below it an entry for Nitro discography. That second entry is outside of what should be covered on a DAB page. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dynasty Warriors (film) has been accepted

Dynasty Warriors (film), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Flexa

Hello, Fyrael. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Flexa".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Storylines

Hey, I hope you're well :) I just wanted to let you know that the storylines section do not need to sourced for soap operas, per the guidelines :) I hope you have an amazing day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: instead of saying "the guidelines" could you link me to this guideline? Wikipedia has quite a few. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

It's WP:Soaps under the storylines section. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Question

I tried to add the authors name into the citation but it didn’t work. Can I please have help with just that one thing? CallOfDutyFan101 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Intentional Edits

You informed me that one of my edits did not have a proper edit summary or that my edits appeared unintentional. The edits were intentional and I will provide a better summary this time.

Thank you

Thank you for your message and advice. I will surely check it. --00None00 (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Why not warn vandals?

I see that you reverted many edits here for good reasons, but is there a reason why you did not warn User:Historian9724 for their poor edits? I will apply the warnings to their talk page. Warnings inform other users and recent changes patrollers if a user has previously vandalized articles. In the case of User:Historian9724, no one would know unless they looked at their contribution history. Not sure if you use Twinkle or Huggle, but if not, here is the warnings template page. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Removed changed content

Hi Fyrael,

Thank you for your message about [[3]]'s Page

About references : I can't link to articles, as there weren't any But I have a copy of all the judgment decision whose dates are cited in the update. Do you need them as a proof ? how can we do ?

Thank you for your Help Akaouette (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Akaouette. If I'm understanding right, you mean that you have physical copies of the court documents? In that case we could use this template: Template:Cite court. You just need to supply some of the information the template expects, such as litigants, name of the court, date, etc. Also, do the documents give some kind of official case number? And also just out of curiosity, can I ask why you're in possession of those documents? Are you a journalist or similar? -- Fyrael (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello Fyrael, Can you reach out to me directly on my email? DaVarryl Williamson. I need help edited my personal page. DaVarryl Williamson. I am happy to talk with you on the phone if you email me first. I will send you my phone number. Thank you. davarryl.williamson@gmail.com. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaVarryl wililamson (talk • contribs) 21:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Lido Pimienta

I added to the Lido Pimienta page myself because she in concert identified as pansexual. Last night. I would have taken footage had I known I'd needed it. I believed that specifying her sexuality would be empowering not only for other pansexuals but especially pansexuals of color, who are not often represented in media. But if you want to take that visibility away, it's really your loss. 2601:441:4580:9850:5810:87E5:4010:CA81 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

You got me. My primary goal on Wikipedia is to further marginalize as many minority groups as I can. My hands would probably be tied though if you bothered to find a published source like our policies require. Personally, I'm totally on board with you that we should just take editor claims of personal experience as fact. Actually just last night I went to a Trump rally where he also revealed he was pansexual. Nobody should question me adding that to his article, right? -- Fyrael (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Simon Tam (disambiguation)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Simon Tam (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi FRYRAEL, MANY THANKD FOR YOUR RESPONSE. WILL DO SO SOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaushka&Bharat (talk • contribs) 15:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for inputs

Greetings,

Came across your well studied response @ Talk:SEPTA regarding October 13 incident. During some other talk page discussions I came across similar questions about article Vs. relevance of crime to the given article. One user positioned problem statement as ""Which objective criteria to establish relevance can be devised?" I came up with some encyclopedic tools (Since one of the discussion still under way I can't give ref to that discussion to avoid charge of forum shopping) But I have copy pasted my opinion in my user sandbox and looking for and requesting inputs.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Roman

Hi

When you reverted my edits, you said: "Reverting good faith edits. I don't see how an English speaker is going to be looking for this term from this page" Which edit in particular? I appreciate the simplicity of the version before my edits but because they are no nuansed they are inaccurate.

Happt to take this to the talk page but this is the summary

(1) I changed

Rome, the capital city of Italy

to

 Rome, the inhabitants of a geographical location in Italy 

My reason: is because Roman can mean geography so I made it more aligned with that

(2) I changed

Ancient Rome, Roman civilization from 8th century BC to 5th century AD

to

Ancient Rome, a historical time span during classical antiquity that covers the Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic and the Principate

My reason: Ancient Rome has specific references to the Kingdom, the Republic and the principate stated by Augustus that historians aknowledge as the first real phase of the empire. It questionable to include the period after the crisis of the third century and the Diocletion reforms as Rome only had symbolic value and was no longer where the Empire operated from. The reference to the 5th century alludes to the western roman empire but this is not different to the eastern roman empire but adding that takes us into the medieval age so better left out. Being more specific on what we refer to the periods rather than a date range is more useful as well.

(3) I changed

Roman people, the people of ancient Rome

to

Roman people, an identity associated with subjects of the classical and medieval empire

My reason: Roman became a politicial term after 212 AD with huge implications of identity of people and goes beyond just ancient rome. Simply linking to the roman empire and the byzantine empire (which is reaally one of the same and hence why I alias iut as medieval empire) correctly refers to this without getting into the debates.

(4) I added

Romanitas, a collection of political and cultural concepts and practices by which the citizens of the Roman Republic defined themselves that continued on in the time of the Roman Empire
Walhazl, a reconstructed Proto-Germanic word meaning "Roman" which is where Wales gets its name from and what French and Italian speakers in Switzerland are called

My reason: Romanitas, as we call it now, was a huge deal during the days of ancient Rome. Not including it here I thought was extremely lacking. The US was heavily impacted by this for example. Walhaz I I can understand why that edit should be left out but to me it's an extention of the Roman identity.

(5) I moved

Epistle to the Romans, shortened to Romans, a letter in the New Testament of the Christian Bible

My reason: It's shorterned to a reference of people that we now called roman people during ancient rome which are both what we already list as most commonly referred to

Elias (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, thank you for informing me about removing my edits on "Brown people (racial classification)" page.

I am new to Wikapedia editing, as you may have suspected, so I did not know much about editing. I saw that the page did not have enough information on it so I wanted to add more. I would like to know what you mean by adding sources? Could you help me with this?

Thank you The word of ju (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No problem, The word of ju. If you're asking about sources in general, that just means the source of the information you're adding, such as the book or newspaper article that you read. If you're just asking how you add the source when you're editing, then you can read Help:Referencing for beginners. Let me know if you have more questions. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Low-tech

I don't know if the recent modifications on Low tech by CorneliaSupera are "written in an enyclopedic tone" and maybe "speak from one very specific point of view". Anyway I added back the removed images, at least.