User talk:Fyrael

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

RE: Epic ...[edit]

Replied at Talk:Epic#RE:_Epic_poetry_at_top_of_page. Michael! (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the vandalism. What a pain. Please keep up the surveillance and good work. PraeceptorIP (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Bob's Burgers :)[edit]

As long as they keep airing episodes with plotlines revolving around the burger of the day, its not resolved. But hey thanks anyway! :D --RThompson82 (talk) 03:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

After I saw how many comments you had made under that section, I figured you would think I was talking about burger of the day. That's my mistake for assuming you had only responded to one topic. I was actually referring to the way late comment about the Belchers living in New Jersey, which had already gone through official dispute resolution. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Input request[edit]

Would you mind to weigh in on this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#First Appearance vs Cameo? Please and thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 12:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Your reversal of DAB entry on Lucifer (disambiguation)[edit]

Hi Fyrael.

May I ask why you reverted the non article entry on Lucifer (disambiguation) ? What is wrong with a no article entry, thereby showing the reader that there is not yet such an article and saving the reader time looking for one ? Aoziwe (talk) 10:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching out, Aoziwe. In short, disambiguation pages are just meant to direct a user to other existing Wiki articles. If a topic is not mentioned anywhere else on the Wiki, we would consider it not notable enough to be mentioned on a disambiguation page. You can find out more about what types of entries we do and do not want to include at the Manual of Style, and more specifically MOS:DABRED (even though you didn't include an actual red link, having no link at all is pretty much equivalent). I hope that clears things up a little bit. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt response. I would thought that a DABRED is not the same as a unlinked dab entry. Almost every article in wikipedia mentions subjects that have no wikipedia article, so why not a DAB page. Such an entry tells the searcher that what they are looking for is not hidden under another title but none the less they are looking for their subject under a recognised title. (FYI, it was not my unlinked dab edit you undid.) Aoziwe (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I appreciate the clarification there. I probably shouldn't have made assumptions. And to clarify something in return, I'm not trying to defend my edit here. The manual of style makes it very clear that each entry needs to direct the reader to a Wikipedia article. I'm just trying to explain why I believe the policy is that way. And it really comes down to a couple of lines right at the top of that style page: 1) "Disambiguation pages are not articles; they are aids in searching." and 2) "This style guideline is intended to make the search more efficient... by avoiding distracting information." If we allowed Mercury (disambiguation) to include every youtube personality, local band, and minor fictional character then the list would grow from already too long to just about unusable. So, a line has to be drawn somewhere and it was decided that a topic had to at least be mentioned somewhere in an existing article (and again, DAB pages are not articles). -- Fyrael (talk) 22:18, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Fair point. Aoziwe (talk) 11:54, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Fyrael. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Helene[edit]

I see you disambiguated the link to Elgin. I tried to do so a year ago and could not determine which Elgin it was because I could not find Highway 47 near either Elgin. I suspected it wasn't Elgin at all. I put this on the talk page. How did you make your conclusion? MB 21:42, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with you that "Highway 47 near Elgin" is probably incorrect since the highway is supposedly contained within Orangeburg county and neither Elgin is within that county, but that part is a direct quote from the newspaper source. I was actually thinking that the Elgin I picked was in the next county over and maybe they were using an extraordinarily generous definition of "near", but looking again I see that Kershaw doesn't even border Orangeburg. It's hard to know what to do with a situation like this where the source is probably wrong (unless there's actually another Elgin in Orangeburn which Google isn't finding). If you have any better solution, feel free to discard my edit. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I've done a bit of Google mapping just for curiosity's sake and didn't find anything (town, road, whatever) near 47 that's called Elgin. I'm pretty convinced that the newspaper printed the wrong thing and I'm just going to remove that sentence. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh ha, you already did it. Very nice. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:44, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
(Just had an Edit Conflict trying to leave this message:) Since the highest rainfall was in Bamberg County, which is adjacent to Orangeburg County, and there was also very high rainfall in Orangeburg County, and Highway 47 is in Orangeburg County, I decided to just drop the mention of Elgin and say "Highway 47 in Orangeburg County". That much agrees with the source. Leaving out something from the source that can't be verified elsewhere should not be a problem. I also note that the source was the National Weather Service, reported by AP - so not local people.MB 05:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


FYI, you overlooked a little piece of vandalism with this revert: immediately before the two edits that you reverted, this one was made by a related IP. Same IP and M.O. as on another article with this followed by this. Both are repaired now. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Cool. Seems like you've got it handled. I was just patrolling recent changes. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)


You edited this page recently, leaving it with a statement which I've flagged as dubious. The discussion is here if you wish to see the rationale. Thought I should let you know. Regards, Swanny18 (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Eagle and Child[edit]

Thanks for correcting my 'PTM' error on the 'Eagle' disambiguation page - I'm not an experienced editor - My motivation was to clarify the distinction between the Oxford Eagle and Child pub and the Cambridge pub ('The Eagle') which is still often also known by its old name 'The Eagle and Child'. Would the correct approach be to have a new disambiguation page with just these two listed? (Both pubs are very notable, otherwise this wouldn't be worthwhile). I've not yet created a page of any sort, which led me to my PTM mistake - I hope it isn't a further error to write this on your page? (apologies if so)

Gilgamesh4 (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for reaching out. I'd like to think it's never an "error" to post on another editor's talk page so long as it's done in the spirit of collaboration. Also, sorry for reverting your edit with just a policy link; that's not the greatest of manners. Getting onto the task, I don't think we'd want another disambiguation page in this case since there's only two pubs with their own wiki article that are known as Eagle and Child. We should just be able to add a hatnote to Eagle and Child with this template: {{About|the pub in Oxford|the pub in Cambridge|The Eagle, Cambridge}}. That way anyone mistakenly arriving at the Oxford article will easily find the Cambridge one. This practice is described in WP:TWODABS if you want more details. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks - I'll look at WP:TWODABS - best regards Gilgamesh4 (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Your reversal of my edit to the Transformer Disambiguation page[edit]

Fyrael - hi.

What would be your suggestion to deal with the fact that there ARE countless numbers of switch-mode power supplies being made today, and have been made for decades, which ARE referred to as "electronic transformers". There are millions of them installed around the world.

Is the problem that the SMPS article also needs to be edited to reflect this?

BAS2017 (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2017 (UTC)


The common meaning of slash is slash. What is wrong in having that as the first entry listed? ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 05:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I think that we should try to follow what's laid out in the MOS for disambiguation pages: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Disambiguation_pages#At_the_top_of_the_page. In short, the first line should only read "Slash is XX.." if there is a primary topic, which there currently is not (if there was, then Slash would go directly to that article and we would be discussing Slash (disambiguation)). Now if you want to start a move discussion to make Cutting the the primary topic, that's totally fine. Also, if you want to move the Cutting entry to the top of the list (underneath the introductory line), that's also fine, but your previous edit had actually removed the Cutting entry altogether. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:16, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:CREST (International)[edit]

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

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. Winged Blades of GodricOn leave 13:44, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Fyrael. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

NSA is the National Security Agency[edit]

You have reverted my last change and another removed my language to clarify a disambiguation that I thought would be helpful and involved some statistical research internationally. I am working on a project that was LABELED NSA by the NSA themselves that has nothing to do with them. This is fouling the American language and your action of the reversion is implicitly discriminatory against the English language. Coal is black, coal is carbon, but the NSA is not the National Security Agency. So now I can either bring up some PRIMAL stuff from newspapers published in 1900 before the existence of the National Security Agency, as I say I am working on a project involving NSAs (Non-State Actors), but is is very wrong to mislead people and it is also wrong of so many Wikipedia editors to use NSA in articles without stating the full name at least once. I don't get it or why you all are so insistent on sidelining all things called NSA except the National Security Agency? It is distasteful and misleading to send people who could be looking for any one of 30+ other things directly to the National Security Agency article that was originally introduced when Wikipedia was started written and made by an NSA officer that was not allowed to make the article! As a Wikipedia user I think Wikipedia can do better than to have awnry and possessive idealists that are willing to keep the statement there, "NSA is the National Security Administration" they are initials that represent "most commonly" an entity. The three letters NSA are not protected, they do not "exclusively" represent the National Security Agency and the reversion you made adds a FALSE STATEMENT to Wikipedia using legal word terminology that is incorrect. NSA is a term that according to Google is a registrable domain name and is available in 121 flavors, someone can register now thanks to ICANN, but that would be stupid because everyone knows that the NSA can only stand for National Security Agency. It remain in my mind that with all the things out there that could be NSA other than the National Security Agency the disambiguation page needs to come first before the article and the real Wikipedia policy needs to be put forth despite the erroneous authors that made assumptions (probably mostly NSA employees themselves illegitimately writing in Wikipedia, all dumb as shit except Snowden of course). Put a feather in your hat! Keep the edit reversion unless the logic I presented appears relevant, I will stay out of working with this type of correction editing and leave disambiguation up to the disambiguation experts like you, I guess all the trademark holders of the three letters for their particular disambiguated uses registered in the United States patent office are just you subordinate subjects of ignorance, thanks. Problemsmith (talk) 11:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Since other editors seem to have given you more than sufficient information about primary topics (and because of how extremely uncivil you are, doing the exact opposite of WP:GOODFAITH), I won't bother to address all the incorrect assumptions you've made in that regard. Instead, I'll say that if you are making the ridiculous assumption that every editor who disagrees with your edits is some government agent or paid shill, even though they're simply following the same guidelines as they do on literally thousands of other disambiguation pages, then you need to re-examine your entire paranoid thought process. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I cannot agree with the policy because the policy is one that is too political and rubs the rule the wrong way, the only reason the disambiguation stands is because of the number of edits that utilize the direct link which somehow justifies bypassing the disambiguation. So you all insist on making exception to the rule which I can accept and even understand. Still with all that has been said. You and all others are ignorant to accept the presentation that says, "the NSA is the National Security Administration," (because it cannot be anything else?) you and the others all know and understand that the initialism NSA "most frequently stands for the National Security Administration," because NSA CAN STAND FOR many other things like the 30+ domains that are registered and over 30 other organizations, moreover there is no law relative to these initials. In reality there is hardly any purpose for the disambiguation page, because you all insist on saying the NSA "is" instead of NSA stands for someone has to be an idiot to send someone to the page or even use it at all, it serves no purpose because the first statement states that "NSA is" cancelling everything that follows it! Problemsmith (talk) 07:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

"fay" spelling[edit]

It is used (as is "fey", etc etc) -- thanks to dumb Anglophones and their non-phonemic vowels. Example: [1]. For future reference do you think it would be helpful if I put such uses is in refs on the disambiguation pages? Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Sorry-- I just realized it was heị/he/hey/hay that you reverted me for -- here's the "hay" example usage for that [[2]]. I'll probs create other dabs and redirects later if that's ok. --Calthinus (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


Hey Fyrael, thanks for keeping an eye on things! Just to clarify further, early mortality syndrome (aka acute hepatopancreatic necrosis syndrome) is actually a completely different disease than necrotising hepatopancreatitis. They have similar effects, but are caused by different vectors and affect different species. It seems at some point the two diseases got a bit mixed up on Wikipedia though and information about EMS was added to the necrotising hepatopancreatitis article instead of going into a separate article for that disease. If I have time, I'll try to write an article about EMS some time soon so that it isn't a redlink anymore. There are plenty of sources about it. Cheers! Kaldari (talk) 22:16, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Hmmmm, I see. Well that puts the disambiguation entry in a bit of an awkward position. I suppose the best route is to just remove the entry until we actually have an article with information about this EMS. Thanks for reaching out. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Meg Myers - Numb[edit]

Her bio on her twitter page that I linked to officially revealed the information I had submitted.

I now see the line you're talking about, although I would very much still argue for waiting until we have a WP:RELIABLESOURCE for the information. Wikipedia doesn't strive to have up-to-the-minute information about releases, so it's ok if that takes a day or two. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


Thanks, Fyrael. If you search for "Anthony Wiener," you land on his page, so I thought I was on safe ground. I didn't notice that this happened via a redirect... Eleuther (talk) 16:53, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep, that's entirely understandable. I only checked the spelling myself because I figured that there was no way he wouldn't have already been added to the page if the spelling was right. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:05, 21 May 2018 (UTC)


Hi -- I think you probably are watching the page so you'll likely see it anyway, but just in case you aren't, I left you a message on the Pact (disambiguation) talk page for your thoughts on the multiple disambig question. Thanks! matt91486 (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2018 (UTC)