User talk:Crumpled Fire
- 1 Hi!
- 2 Edit warring
- 3 Page move
- 4 Apology
- 5 2 things to do
- 6 Ides of March
- 7 Kim Petras
- 8 Yule
- 9 Article Feedback Tool update
- 10 Page move after being warned against moving pages without discussion
- 11 Disambiguation link notification for March 9
- 12 Nomination of Moist IV for deletion
- 13 Barnstar
- 14 Disambiguation link notification for September 28
- 15 GA review of Saturnalia
- 16 Orphaned non-free image File:ChristmasWishesAlbumCover.jpg
- 17 ArbCom elections are now open!
The move of Christ to Christ (term) was without consensus and a somewhat dramatic move. Please discuss on talk before making these big time changes. I will have to ask for the move back, and a discussion on the Wikiproject Christianity before the issue can be resolved. History2007 (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
- History, you are absolutely right, and I have taken your lead by starting discussion at Talk:Christ (term)#Requested move - unfortunately I could not undo this with another page move, something is in the way. Elizium23 (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
I must apologize for my over-hasty reversal of your edit, which I misunderstood because of having too hurriedly read only the diff. I think your revised edit is better than the one I reverted and I congratulate you for it. Esoglou (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
- No problem, and no need to apologize... just a simple misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing it up, cheers. Crumpled Fire (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
2 things to do
- That was just one of the archives. There was another that the Christian use had to be with the major Christian discussion else the Muslims wanted more real estate upfront as well, that was why it was moved down, not to have too much Christianity upfront. Will have to look more at archives not that I can be bothered for such a trivial/petty discussion. By the way, regarding this, you did not have your facts quite right... But I am tired of this genius discussion now... History2007 (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for making it clear which era style was established in Ides of March. When I started contributing to it, I saw IPs editing in BC/AD, and named editors reverting based on WP:ERA. I didn't bother to check the history myself, and I should've. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Let me tell you, I was as surprised as you are--I also reverted the removal of the birth name. However, after discussion on talk and at WP:BLPN, there was a clear consensus that putting the birth name in the lead violates WP:DUE, because it places undue emphasis on a name the person very deliberately does not use, which probably appears on none of the person's legal documents, etc. The information is included further down in the article, but not in the lead. Note that the "always in the lead" is in WP:LEAD, which is a part of WP:MOS, which is itself a guideline, and thus should be used with discretion, and may not be universally applied. I was convinced that (and, more importantly, there was a clear consensus that) removal of the birth name is correct and more in line with our core policies than including it. In any event, since this was recently discussed extensively, and at a noticeboard with uninvolved participants, the burden is on you to show that consensus has changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for elaborating, but where exactly is the information "included further down in the article" as you stated? There is literally not one mention of the birth name, or even any explicit mention that Petras was indeed born as a male. Were you aware of this?Crumpled Fire (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
- Huh, I thought we agreed in the discussion to leave it in the early life section. I don't have time to look for it now, but I could be misremembering; feel free to check; it should all be in the archives, I think (some was on noticeboards, but I think we linked to the discussion; if not, I'm pretty sure it was WP:BLPN). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Crumpled Fire. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.
We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.
Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Page move after being warned against moving pages without discussion
- Ok, thanks very much for agreeing to discuss in the future. My rule of thumb is that if the article has been virtually ignored for some time (not counting gnomish edits), with no activity on the talk page either, then I feel free to move it. If that's not the case, I open a discussion. It's only because you were warned about this before that I went to ANI. I don't know if anything needs cleaning up. I also don't know how I would !vote in a discussion over a move, it was the behavior not the names that concerned me, but I don't think that will be a problem in the future. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks Dougweller, your rule of thumb seems pretty fair, and on reflection it was dodgy behavior especially with someone who has made a controversial move before... I just figured I'd give a go of boldly moving it in the hope of saving a lot of unnecessary discussion in the event it went uncontested. Upon further reflection I realize that high-traffic articles (especially ones about culturally-controversial subjects like this) are quite likely to be controversial in some way or another regarding title moves. Crumpled Fire (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Northfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moist IV until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
|The Christianity Barnstar|
|Thanks for all your contributions to WikiProject:Christianity related articles! Keep up the good work! With regards, AnupamTalk 19:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)|
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Google Doodle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Go. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
GA review of Saturnalia
Hi, the bot seems to have failed to notify you, so I'll do it. I've begun the GA review of Saturnalia; in the main the article is clearly of good quality, but I've noticed a few issues that will need your attention. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:ChristmasWishesAlbumCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:ChristmasWishesAlbumCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)