User talk:Peregrine Fisher

DYK nomination of Home for Christmas (TV series)

Hello! Your submission of Home for Christmas (TV series) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Achaea (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Game articles

I was thinking that working on some of those iconic game articles I mentioned previously may be a bit taunting, but if you are interested, there may be an easier way to get your feet wet – I just added several Origins Award-winning RPG adventure/sourcebook stubs under "Expand" on Template:RPGBox contents that could use some love. :) Check it out! I have been busy, those are just the tip of the iceberg. ;) BOZ (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a DnD wild hair is going to bite me soon. I'd like to write a notable article on "Red Dragon" or "Gold Dragon" or similar, if I could find the sources. Actually, what do you think are the most likely to be notable DnD monsters? I see demigorgan has already been merged. hmmm.

I wrote this for the hell of it Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom#The_lunatics_are_running_the_asylum Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to remind myself. Demon type XVII, or whatever was a Balrog. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I started This and its talk page as a response to the slew of D&D AFDs we have been experiencing for the last few months. If you want to try resurrecting any of those, or any other redirected article, find your sources and let me know so I can restore it for you. You might be thinking of our good buddy Balor, who could use more sources before Sauron's evil eye turns his way? BOZ (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re:Signpost

Hi P. Fisher, I saw your note on The Signpost talk page and would need to see a draft of the article before I could say anything about it as editor-in-chief. Could you send me a link? The subject, as I take it, is roughly "everything that's wrong with Wikipedia". We get quite a few of these articles proposed and I should say that most of them don't work out - the subject is just too big! I'd suggest focusing on one or two related problems. The basic rules for talk pages apply to a Signpost article, so no personal attacks or anything like that. Original research is definitely allowed. We also follow the principles of journalism, so if you don't think you couldn't publish the material as an op-ed in a respected local newspaper, you probably can't publish it in The Signpost. And unlike most of Wikipedia, to be published in The Signpost, our project rules say that the piece must be approved by the editor-in-chief. If you want to publish it on your own talk page, of course, you are free to.

So, it's a fairly serious task to get something like this published in The Signpost, but I'd love to see it. I'll be direct if I think it needs improvement or I just can't use it. Good luck!

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I replied there. I'd like to read those articles about WP's problems that you didn't publish. Too bad. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avi Yemini moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Avi Yemini, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your page to draft space (with a prefix of Draft: before the article title) where you can work on it with minimal disruption. When you feel that it meets our notability and neutrality requirements, and is thus ready for mainspace, please submit it using the Articles for Creation template on the page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you copy stuff from another Wikipedia article, you must provide attribution; that's best done with a {{copied}} template on both the relevant talk-pages, but an edit summary is also sufficient (you can make a dummy edit to achieve that retroactively). Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I wanted to say, thanks for your participation in the discussion at talk:race and intelligence, and I hope you'll stick around there. There is a need for more people who care about this article being edited in accordance with consensus and Wikipedia policy.

Also, I encourage you to read this discussion, which is about the changes that were originally made by Onetwothreeip and most recently restored by Volunteer Marek. Aside from my proposed change to the lead section, these changes are the article's largest current source of dispute.

These changes were first opposed by consensus on the article talk page, and when the justification for the changes was brought to the RS noticeboard, it was decisively opposed by consensus there as well. I would like some outside help or advice about this situation, in which the article is now being edited in a way that completely disregards the consensus that's been established on the article talk page and at at the noticeboard. You seem like an experienced editor, and this type of situation happens on the article somewhat often, so please mention it if you have any ideas about how it ought to be handled. 2600:1004:B16F:ED4F:AD6E:73F4:58C4:99 (talk) 10:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Template:Z33 As I'm giving these alerts to others I felt I had to give one to you also. You might want to usu the new DSAWARE template, mine says {{Ds/aware|ap|e-e|gg|ab|blp|ip|a-i|cc|r-i}} Doug Weller talk 14:19, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Home for Christmas (TV series)

On 24 January 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Home for Christmas (TV series), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Home for Christmas, Netflix's first Norwegian TV show, was inspired by televised Nordic Christmas calendars? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Home for Christmas (TV series). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Home for Christmas (TV series)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

--valereee (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, man. :) BOZ (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Imp (Dungeons & Dragons)

The article Imp (Dungeons & Dragons) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. TTN (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your post on AE

Hi there, I am not sure if you are aware, but your post to the Arbitration Enforcement page is on the project talk page. Did you mean to open a new case on the project page? If so it is here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement‎ but you may need to give a bit more detail as to what the issue is. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this post, as it's not formatted correctly. If you'd like to make a request for enforcement, please use the template you can find at the top of the page, as AE is not a general discussion board. If you would like to open a more general discussion of the issue, somewhere such as the incident noticeboard or dispute resolution noticeboard would be an appropriate venue. If you are requesting some enforcement action, please feel free to repost as a correctly formatted request. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please wait and see whether Volunteer Marek reverts against consensus again, before making a report about him? The article has just been locked in the stable version, so it's possible the situation is resolved now without having to file a report. 2600:1004:B11A:2404:D4DC:2D86:F016:1026 (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You reading replies here? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally, but after you made the post at AE that was removed, I decided to post in your user talk suggesting you wait before filing a report. And then I saw that someone else had already opened a discussion here, so I commented in this section instead of making a new section. 2600:1004:B14C:C919:E950:81A9:B8D8:510 (talk) 17:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you have your reasons for not creating an account. Anyways, I don't know the history of the article like you, but I don't think Volunteer Marik is really the problem (could be wrong). Seems like he did a little revert to test whether we really have consensus, and I'ts looking like maybe don't, if I'm the only one will to try and get the page to match the "consensus". I feel like you and a few others agree with me, but maybe not in a boots on the ground kind of way. And apparently opening an arbcom thing requires a bunch of work. I guess there's a template, and they probably want diffs and who know what else. I've been rejected twice so far. Maybe you could work on that if you don't want to edit the actual article? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to the banner at the top of WP:AE, only registered users can make reports there. I have a pretty good idea of how it's done, though, because I helped another user make a report against Grayfell last year. [2] If things get to a point where a report is necessary, I can tell you what I know about how to do it.

I haven't been directly editing the race and intelligence article because for a long time, it was set so that only registered users can edit it. However, the article had a few edits yesterday from an IP user, so maybe that setting has changed recently. If others keep editing the article in a way that contradicts the outcome of the talk page discussions, I guess I can assist in dealing with that, but I still have a pretty strong aversion to that approach. When people edit the article in a way that disregards consensus on the talk page, there must be a better way to deal with it than by edit warring. 2600:1004:B14C:C919:E950:81A9:B8D8:510 (talk) 20:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like your opinion about this sequence of edits: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Do you think this constitutes canvassing? It doesn't seem like it could be appropriate to post the same thing in six different places. 2600:1004:B14C:C919:E950:81A9:B8D8:510 (talk) 01:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's canvassing to a certain degree, but I don't think it's that bad. Talking about the 8 to 4/5 split, if someone went and notified just the 8, or just the 4/5, that would be bad canvassing. He may actually draw in editors who agree with the 8!

To put it bluntly, we probably need some edit warring to take to AE. Say I'm reverted by person A on Monday, and person B on Tuesday. "Hey arbcom, everyone is reverting me!" Arbcom will say "maybe your the problem and you shouldn't make edits that get reverted". Peregrine Fisher (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of possibly starting a talk page discussion asking whether other editors would support changing "blacks" to "black people", and "whites" to "white people". I've just looked at several sources taking both perspectives on this article's topic, and the words "blacks" and "whites" definitely are the most common terminology. But I also think this particular change matters less than the mass removal of sources, and we haven't yet had an in-depth discussion about which terms should be used. Before I start this discussion, there's one dilemma I need to ask you about.

Broadly speaking, the editors who prefer Onetwothreeip's version of the article are in the minority, but they're clearly the more active and determined group. I also think we already know that those editors support the change in terms. But in order for the proposal to truly achieve consensus, it also must have some support from the larger, but less active group of editors who supported restoring the stable version. Do you think for the purpose of this particular discussion, about whether some of the editors who supported restoring the stable version would nonetheless support the change in terms, it would be acceptable to ping just those 8 editors? Or would that still be inappropriate canvassing? 2600:1004:B11C:60B2:1C45:645C:CFE0:F8BA (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't do any selective pinging, especially as an IP. People would look askance.

Also, that's basically saying "fine, we'll let the 4 win, then see if they will discuss things reasonably". They wont. If we can get the consensus version in place for a while, then the 4 will want to discuss everything. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus

Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Race and intelligence/Current consensus during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. jps (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries

It would be helpful if you didn't copy/paste your entire post into the edit summary – it takes up a bunch of screen space unnecessarily. Just a few words that sumarize what you did is helpful, per WP:ES. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV forks

You mentioned that being a POV fork is not a valid reason for deletion. I wanted to make sure you're aware of our WP:POVFORK guideline which states that it is an unacceptable type of content fork. We can certainly discuss whether or not Race and intelligence counts as a POV fork, but your assertion that this is not a valid deletion rationale runs counter to our guidelines and is unlikely to sway the outcome. –dlthewave ☎ 04:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer there. I could be in the wrong. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:40, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BE

The editor making that comment is, per WP:QUACK, the same IP and location as an IP-hopper at Human genetic clustering, Racialism, etc. It's the same editor as 142.116.165.244 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) which is blocked, and this charming page history including overtly offensive and threatening comments. Per comments on my talk page from Doug Weller, this IP range includes enough positive contributions that it's likely shared by multiple users, and blocking it should be a last resort. I reverted this per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Evasion and enforcement, the comments may or may not be superficially appropriate, but this editors behavior is inappropriately disruptive. Grayfell (talk) 04:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that, and I'll leave it alone. Thank you for your service.Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a 'BE'. I read stuff on here from my phone, and sometimes edit when bored. 2605:8D80:648:1B4D:5360:2F1D:EF2F:174C (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]