User talk:SnowFire

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

I've kept a few old talk page comments like DYK notices out of vanity.

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On June 9, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Commonwealth v. Kneeland, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Discharge petition, was selected for DYK![edit]

Updated DYK query On February 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Discharge petition, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

DYK[edit]

Updated DYK query On 30 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Revolt of the Comuneros, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK: L'Encobert[edit]

Updated DYK query On 23 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article L'Encobert, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Revolt of the Barretinas[edit]

Updated DYK query On September 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Revolt of the Barretinas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

PeterSymonds (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Nico Smith[edit]

RlevseTalk 00:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay)[edit]

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Graphic Designer Barnstar Hires.png The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
Thanks for the ratification maps you added to US Constitutional Amendment articles; they're a great addition. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay)[edit]

The article Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your help in bringing Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption to Featured Article status. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 22 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that television showings and online streaming of the documentary Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence were stopped after a blogger discredited its key photograph ? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence), 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.

Alex ShihTalk 00:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Mosaic (murder mystery)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 19 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mosaic (murder mystery), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Steven Soderbergh's Mosaic is both a mobile app and a television miniseries? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mosaic (murder mystery). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mosaic (murder mystery)), 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.

Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Kevin Deutsch‎[edit]

I think the anonymous user technically has a point: the two sources cited for that sentence only support Kevin Deutsch‎ fabricating sources. I think the solution would be to add there one of the later sources that covers his fabricating quotes and events. -- Pemilligan (talk) 15:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pemilligan: I added in very short comments indicating which sources are being used for which words in the sentence, and added an extra reference, but I really don't think it will help. It's Deutsch, he's self-interested, it's not REALLY about sourcing policy, it's about his vanity attempts to impose his own PR over what the news articles say. It's not like he's going to be convinced. If it keeps up, I'll just request semi-protection again; he is a banned user, after all, and isn't supposed to make any edits at all. SnowFire (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire: Looks good. Yeah, I realized who you're dealing with. That's what I meant about his "technically" having a point. I think the lead is more bulletproof now. -- Pemilligan (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Noyes Museum[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 12 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Noyes Museum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the director of the Noyes Museum of Art said it "was in a beautiful location but it was in the middle of nowhere"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Noyes Museum. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Noyes Museum), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Tex Schramm[edit]

Regarding my edit at Tex Schramm to remove Tex in quotes, MOS:NICKNAME says to only use quoted nicknames if "it is not a common hypocorism[c] of one of their names". I think a reader would recognize that Tex is a diminutive of his given name Texas, and a redundant quoted name should not be needed in this case. Let me know your thoughts.—Bagumba (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba:: I will admit that I don't know anyone named "Texas" myself, so I could be wrong on this, but it doesn't strike me as "common"? At the very least, the name "Texas" is a very uncommon name - well, globally at least. That said, it does follow the "shortening to the first syllable" rule, so what do I know. If you really feel passionately, feel free to re-remov it; just that means "Tex" is nowhere in the lede, which seems wrong, because it might cause the reader to wonder why the article is titled that. SnowFire (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
Not restating the nickname is like with the Tom Hopper example in the MOS, where his full name is Thomas Edward Hopper. Now you have a good technical point about "Texas" not being "common", but I believe the spirit of the guideline is to not quote obvious nicknames, common or not.—Bagumba (talk) 21:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your idea[edit]

I have made a comment in Talk:SeaTac/Airport station. Your idea is reasonable but see my explanation to why I think so (sidesteps the question if the buses go to the station or are adjacent, this is cited as "adjacent" possibly because one must cross two streets to get from the station to the southbound bus stops. Vanguard10 (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Want to add something like this?

Bus and rail connections[edit]

King County Metro buses:

  • RapidRide A Line: to Tukwila International Boulevard Station or Federal Way Transit Center
  • Route 156: to Southcenter Mall, Des Moines and Highline College
  • Route 180: to Burien, Kent, and Auburn

Sound Transit buses:

  • Bus 560: to to West Seattle, Burien, Renton and Bellevue
  • Bus 574: to Tacoma and Lakewood in Pierce County

moe. (band) page move[edit]

Would you be able to lend your support to a page move, please? I have asked that this page be moved, per Wikipedia's rules (here). The band's name is moe., and it is listed in all lowercase letters with the period. It follows the same rules as bill bissett, danah boyd, and k.d. lang. Thank you. 208.44.170.115 (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2018 (UTC)#

C-evo[edit]

Please stop removing valid reception sources, there is nothing more to say here. About the infobox, there was no discussion, and there is not policy enforcing the unsuitable VG box. cheers Shaddim (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC) EDit: Consensus about software needs to include me. Consensus about SOFTWARE needs to include more than the VG portal. so no consensus. Not even in the linked discussion on VG there was no consensus. Shaddim (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your revert[edit]

Hey, I read the move discussion and it still does not change the fact that the name its using is not one of the available naming convention styles (as a side note, out of 5 people in the discussion, 3 were in support of some kind of move). This is a hidden category which isn't viewable by any reader (unless looking for it), so please don't revert. --Gonnym (talk) 00:34, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: The naming conventions are just that - conventions for the "average", normal case. They are not binding rules and even if they were, they sometimes conflict. Basically, what's the purpose of the category? My assumption is that it's a "maintenance" category, which means it is an invitation to perform "maintenance", e.g. page moves, on everything in them. The problem is, what is to be done about cases where there is a consensus to use a title that is not an "available naming convention style"? This implies that there is no maintenance to be done. If that is the purpose of the category, then it shouldn't be in it, or should at best be in a "cleared for use / endorsed by at least some editors" subcategory to distinguish articles at an unusual title due to intentional choice vs. articles at an unusual title simply because the article creator didn't know any better. SnowFire (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
You are correct, the conventions (and in particular), our naming convention, don't fully apply to this article and you are also correct in that the motive of this maintenance category is to eventually fix articles in it and your idea of a white-listed category might be something worth adding. However, in this specific case, implying that the latest vote found a consensus for the title is wrong. 2 out of the 5 did not support a move, while the majority (3) thought that the current title is wrong, but couldn't agree on a new one. That is part of the reason why I didn't jump in on this (or other articles), but instead added them to this category. Some of the articles are easy fixes, while others should need extended research and discussion to find a better name. --Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Thanks for the reply.
I suppose I was unclear and should have separated my concerns: A) What do you think should be done for a hypothetical article where there is an indisputable consensus its current title is correct? (From your reply you're okay with a whitelisted category for this, or just not including them.) B) What should be done for articles that are just wrong without any evidence of long inertia, an argument for it, or anything? (For this, I would agree that your category is perfect.) C) What should be done when at least some editors are defending the current title as proper - perhaps it's not even clear that the television guidelines apply - but other editors, perhaps including yourself, disagree? (This is the Mosaic case.)
Basically, setting aside the merits of Mosaic's current title, I'd personally argue it'd be better to be "conservative" and only focus on the B set in your category. The C set is inherently an issue of policy, not of simply maintenance. Maybe there isn't a strong consensus for a title, but there isn't necessarily a consensus on how to fix it. It's okay to have, say, a user-space list of "articles that I think are totally misnamed!" that include C-space stuff. But adding them to a category has a certain official imprint to it that Something Is Officially Wrong, when editors in good standing are saying otherwise. It's not good to predecide such matters.
Anyway, there is a cut-the-knot solution to this: do you have any better ideas on how to title the Mosaic article? Bear in mind that not participating in that RM were some WP:VG people back when the article was first made who also took a puzzled look at the title, shrugged, and then said "yeah I guess I can't think of a better title." Also bear in mind that it's not originally a TV show so the WP:TV guidelines are not necessarily gospel. If there is some better title that didn't come up in the RM, I'm happy to listen to suggestions! SnowFire (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
For scenario A - if there is a consensus for a title that goes against a guideline then a white-listed category should be created so it its state will be acknowledged but not be miss-identified as needing a fix. For scenario B - If an article is using a title style not in the guidelines, either the guideline should be changed to accept that (if that's what the consensus decides) or the title goes in this category until someone wants to start fixing the issue(s) with it. For scenario C - I'd say this also goes in with category B. If there is no consensus for that title and instead is left at "no consensus", then hopefully eventually someone might be able to find a title that works or get a consensus to support one or the other. Aside from Mosaic, I didn't encounter any other articles that differ so outside policy, so it's really its own scenario. I don't really have a fully established idea for the title as I didn't research it and see what RS call it, but my gut feeling is that it would be something along the lines of "interactive x" - either interactive film (not movie), interactive miniseries or interactive storytelling / interactive story. --Gonnym (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Thanks for humoring me and using a different category name! SnowFire (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
This is the internet so its hard to distinguish between a real response and sarcasm, but I hope it was real. I never wanted to stream roll over anyone, just to get some articles fixed and figure out why some aren't (if there is some kind of common theme). Some new information has already came out of this process. --Gonnym (talk) 10:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Yes, the above comment was sincere and not sarcastic. It's great that you're paying attention to the issue, I just wanted to make sure we didn't force everything into a one-size-fits-all approach. SnowFire (talk) 13:39, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Opinion needed[edit]

Hello. Would you be interested to say your opinion about the issue raised here — Talk:List of heads of state of Angola#Requested move 2 November 2018? Thanks in advance. --Sundostund (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, SnowFire. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Gamesdonequick Wiki[edit]

Are you like the only active person on the GDQ wiki cause I asked something in the talk yesterday and no one has responded to it yet Sorry to bother you :P Zebrazach20062 (talk) 21:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

GDQ again :P[edit]

So someone came by and made the facts have dots and they look ugly to me i will be getting rid them unless you are ok with them also some stuff has been changed so we should make sure its all accurate and what we want instead of IP's doing that :PZebrazach20062 (talk) 06:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Ben Mendelsohn page[edit]

Hello: Your edit removed the entirety of the actor's filmography, which is not acceptable. Also not convinced your statement about director not being a column in filmographies is accurate, but no matter; please don't trash a section of an article straightaway without having the fix ready, or in the alternative, suggest it on a talk page first. You did neither.--Brad Patrick (talk) 17:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

@BradPatrick: Thanks for noticing. Obviously this wasn't intentional, and preview was misleading because it "looked" like the table was still there and lacking a column thanks to the table immediately beneath it. Sadly VisualEditor, terrible as it is, is the easiest way to delete a column, so I was stuck using that which I don't normally. Anyway, take another look; happy to discuss the "director" column issue, but it's really random in my opinion, barring - maybe - actors who do a lot of work with a single director (e.g. Samuel L. Jackson & Quentin Tarantino, maybe). There's lots of fields about a movie that could potentially be included, why pick Director? SnowFire (talk) 18:00, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

A page you started (Eddie Gallagher (soldier)) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Eddie Gallagher (soldier).

User:Hughesdarren while reveiwing this page as a part of our page curation process had the following comments:

Nice work!

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Hughesdarren}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Hughesdarren (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of link language wrapper templates (June 2019)[edit]

A discussion has started about wrapper templates of {{Link language}}. You may be interested in participating because you participated in a related previous discussion. E^pi*i batch (talk) 03:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC) (Retro is my main account.)

Disambiguation page style[edit]

Hi,
I saw your comment on the revert for Doug Jones; this may be a misinterpretation of what dab page style calls for.

Per MOS:DABENTRY:

Keep the description associated with a link to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link. In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary. If the type of entry is identified in a header (e.g. songs, films), it usually does not need to be repeated verbatim in the description.

Brevity is considered a key virtue of dab pages. The typical reader isn't there to learn about all the Doug Joneses; they're there to find the page for a specific Doug Jones. Saying "Doug Jones the boxer is an American boxer" does not help the reader; it slows them down—especially the ones who are not looking for any boxer at all.

Hope this helps -- NapoliRoma (talk) 03:24, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@NapoliRoma: I'm of the opinion that "In many cases" in that guideline is wildly overblown. Sometimes solely the article title is sufficient, but this is rare. I'm a fan of brevity in disambiguation, yes, but I think that "bare" links are almost always a bad idea since they provide literally no context. They also force the reader to switch between the description and the actual Wikipedia article title, which is not good; a reader who is just checking the bluelinks will still get the experience you want, but a reader who is reading the explanations will be forced to dart back to the actual titles if some of them are "empty". So actually I'd argue your style can be slower for the reader. Anyway, for Doug Jones in particular, I feel that even adding "American" to boxer helps. There's brevity and there's a complete lack of context; obviously I'm against rambling paragraphs too, but I do think a short description (<10 words usually, sometimes <6) is usually merited, and is certainly merited on the Doug Jones page. SnowFire (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate your opinion on this, but it's not "usual disambiguation page style". It's the opposite of the guideline, which says—five times—that the goal is brevity.
I'm at a loss to understand how "Doug Jones (boxer)" provides "literally no context". It has his name, and his differentiating occupation. There are no other boxers on the page. "Boxer" is everything a reader needs to know to get to the proper page.
Besides brevity, one of the key MOS:DAB guidelines is to not hide the disambiguating element of a topic article title. If the bluelinks were the extraneous material that readers are supposed to skip over, it would seem to me we'd be minimizing them, and not the additional verbiage.
I'm not against additional descriptions where they're useful and warranted. For example, Doug Jones the politician is most well known for his Senate victory, and although "politician" is a unique description, "Senator" is arguably what most readers would be looking for.
But I can't see any reason to add that Doug Jones (American football) is an American football player. There is no guideline that says "it's helpful to have a description, even if it's redundant", and in fact there's a guideline that says not to do that.
--NapoliRoma (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

"I had a geologist friend give the article a look over"[edit]

Special thanks for doing this on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Payún Matrú/archive1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jo-Jo Eumerus: Yeah, that was the actually relevant sentence of my review, everything else was basically fluff. An anti-pattern that FAC sometimes falls into - less recently as best I can tell, but certainly a few years ago - is overemphasizing "prose" over content. Prose is nice, of course, but accuracy & comprehensiveness is even better, so getting a check from people who are at least familiar with the material is super-important so as to avoid the worst-case scenario of well-written nonsense. (I MIGHT be slightly bitter at the one time I went to FAC being supported by people who knew the topic but opposed on vague prose grounds, so I'm a bit biased, I admit.) Anyway, good luck on the FAC, and nice work! SnowFire (talk) 22:55, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I still remember the complaints on WT:FAC about this tendency. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Any advice?[edit]

Hi SnowFire, I did not appreciate the tone and implication of your comment at 1947-49 Palestine war, but take it in good faith nonetheless.

As I have written elsewhere, the current situation is akin to having an article called the Great War, covering the period 1914-18, and then a sub article called World War I covering the period 1917-18 (post the entry of the United States). The two names “1948 Palestine war” and “1948 Arab-Israeli war” are synonyms in common speech, so our unique way of treating it causes confusion to readers, as evidenced by the pageview stats.

Frankly it’s an embarrassment to Wikipedia’s coverage of the Middle East conflict, and we have been unable to fix it.

As an experienced editor, could you provide any advice on the best way to make progress here? I am trying hard to make this encyclopaedia a place that readers can trust, and find attacks like your own to be disheartening.

Onceinawhile (talk) 14:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Thanks for the message! A few bits of advice:
  • It is considered bad form to heavily modify a RM after it starts, and especially to ask everybody to vote yet again. An anti-pattern Wikipedia has - not accusing you of this to be clear, but it's an issue - is what do you do have you have 5 zealots who show up everyone to loudly declare that the color orange is bad and should be banned, and there's 1000 editors who don't really see a problem with orange (but aren't zealous pro-orange editors). Process needs to be designed not to reward sheer bloody-minded persistence. As a result, you need to be extra super transparent when trying to "reset" a vote, especially when a bunch of people already voted oppose. Either copy their original opinion into the new table, or ping previous editors who voted and solicit their opinion. You really don't want to give the impression of just burying results you don't like and being like the hypothetical 5 editors who all hate the color orange above.
  • For the pageview stats, isn't it possible that most readers are only interested in the Arab-Israeli war part of the conflict?
  • For your analogy, consider another case: perhaps somebody made an article on "Extended World War II" that included the Spanish Civil War, the Japanese invasion of China in 1937, etc. Would it be surprising if most people still went to the WW2 article that starts with the invasion of Poland? That doesn't seem like a problem. Because that's the argument against.
  • For the best way to make progress, see above - if you're really sincere about this new table, ping anyone who voted in the original RM and/or include their opinion in your new table. Don't assume that editors surely would have changed their minds had they seen your new arguments. (Alternatively, give up on the fancy table and just go back to the normal RM votes in text.) If the RM doesn't succeed, then start smaller - work on the subarticles, work on the ledes, and check the sources. You can do a lot just via productive editing that happens to conform to your preferred structure. SnowFire (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi SnowFire, thank you very much for taking the time to write this. I agree with your first bullet; my intention was to find a way to get all those who have contributed to remain involved. It’s not easy when you’re deep into a topic and those voting clearly haven’t bothered to read the sources, since everyone’s votes count the same (even if they’re not supposed to under wiki-theory). I had pinged all the opposers after my new proposal was already laid out,[1] but no one responded or engaged. What I didn’t expect was for people to start voting on the new proposal in the table when they did[2] (it was supposed to be up for further comment) so I had to make some quick decisions. I had wondered about trying to close the original RM but didn’t want to look like I was trying to ignore the existing comments. So it’s a bit of a mess, and not intended to be this way.
As for your second bullet, the answer is an unequivocal no. I don’t know how else to prove this to you or anyone else if people won’t read the sources. That will answer your third bullet too – the answer to your analogy is also in the sources. It is incredibly frustrating, particularly since Bolter and I made a big effort to lay the sources out clearly for everyone to read on a subpage. If too few people will read the sources, is there any way I can hope to fix this?
Onceinawhile (talk) 18:06, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi SnowFire,
The new voting table has now got traction, with 10 participants. I am hopeful that with a few more, we can find a resolution to this decade-old discussion.
Please could you add your vote for all five options there?
It's hard for us to judge true consensus without getting your broader view.
In an ideal world you might scan the scholarly position on the name debate at this link, put 1948 war into google to check whether there is any scope for confusion with other topics, and compare it to this situation.
Whatever you decide, I will accept as your final word.
Onceinawhile (talk) 10:04, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Category:People of the Revolt of the Comuneros has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:People of the Revolt of the Comuneros, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 4 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL, was acquitted of murder in a trial that included a surprise confession by a witness claiming he was the murderer himself? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL)), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

SGDQ record setting[edit]

Hey SnowFire, just wanted to inform you that a GDQ-sponsored talk show has mentioned the record. Would this count as a reputable source, as it is on the official GDQ Twitch channel? I've included a direct link on the Talk page here. Thanks! 108.28.233.115 (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

International year of indigenous languages[edit]

Hey, this is Abhinash here. I want to let you know about your comment on a specific statement. "Indigenous people speak an overwhelming majority of the world’s estimated 7,000 languages and represent 5,000 different cultures." You mentioned it as impossible but let me tell you it's not impossible, it's a fact. https://www.un.org/en/events/indigenousday/ please go through this link and read about this. Also if you ask UNESCO and the host of International year of indigenous languages (iyil2019) they will tell you the same thing. I hope you will go through the mentioned links and get some insights to clear your doubts. Abhi179 (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Abhi179: Hi, thanks for your message! I recognize you were just mimicing the source, but I think the source was somewhat inartfully phrased as well. To me, it sounds like a claim that indigenous people (all of them) can speak all of 4,000+ languages - an obviously ludicrous and insane claim. Yes, yes, it's clear on re-read what it "really" means, that of the world's estimated 7,000 languages, indigenous people are the speakers of most of the lesser spoken languages . but it should be rephrased to not require that mental juggling, IMO. It's also not clear if this is really "lede" material. For the second part, I again recognize it's in the source, but it's still a problematic statement. "Cultures" isn't something easily countable. The world's cultures are important, but it's a category error to make it a math equation. The rights of indigenous people of just one culture are still important, and indigenous people's interests wouldn't somehow be more important if we used a scheme that said it was 50,000 different cultures rather than 5,000. So I don't really see the benefit of including this factoid, even if it was qualified by how exactly these cultures were being "counted". SnowFire (talk) 11:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Leonard Jones (American politician) for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Leonard Jones (American politician) 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/Leonard Jones (American politician) 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. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

GA review of Babylon 5[edit]

Hi, thanks for reviewing Babylon 5. I edited it to address the majority of the points you raised, especially the broadcast history section (which I hadn't noticed was such a dumpster fire). The only thing I left unchanged was the 'intellectual' adjective for the Minbari, which I think is fair. I don't think describing them as 'religious' would be accurate as it's only one caste of their society. Perhaps the adjective could go altogether, but in any case I think the weight of points you raised are now resolved.ElectricalTill (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

@ElectricalTill: Yeah, the broadcast section reads a lot more coherently now, thanks!
For the Minbari... well, they're more "advanced" than humanity, but that's more due to being around fancy space tech longer rather than them being super-nerds, so "intellectual" feels weird. (And "advanced" is misleading since the Vorlons are even more advanced, but also again more due to being older, not necessarily smarter.) More generally, the whole Minbari plot is largely focused around religious stuff: the bit about Minbari souls mixing with human souls, the fact that the cast regulars are priestly caste members, etc. For how humans interact with the Minbari, sure, the rangers have cool ships, but it's also some sort of philosophical / spiritual culty thing that members are taught, too. "Only one caste" seems a little dismissive; while this should obviously be taken with a large grain of salt to avoid fanboy over-extrapolation, but 1/3 of the population being "priestly" is absolutely gigantic! (Same with 1/3 being warriors.) You only see that kind of rate among, say, ultra-orthodox Jews in Israel, where nearly all the males train to be rabbis. SnowFire (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't mean to sound dismissive, only to say that the religious caste (in numbers, at least) doesn't represent a majority of the Minbari society (nor do the other castes). At least, I had always assumed the three castes had broadly similar numbers, and I don't think that's contradicted in the series. I take your point about the overall spiritual outlook though, perhaps that is the word to use.ElectricalTill (talk) 08:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

fort pillow[edit]

I have gone over this incident in detail including reading primary sources. I did a lot on the article on it. There is no evidence that Forrest specifically ordered the Fort Pillow massacre. Knew about it and didn't stop it, perhaps, but that troops were following his orders in the massacre is just plain wrong, so far as known evidence goes. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to hear it. deisenbe (talk) 08:59, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

@Deisenbe: I was avoiding the issue, and don't see the relevance to the topic at hand. Who cares about Forrest's involvement in an article specifically on African Americans in the Civil War? The relevant thing is that the Ft. Pillow massacre happened, and Confederate soldiers did it. My version didn't say boo about Forrest, whether he ordered it, was accused of ordering it, was falsely accused of ordering it, or anything like that. Just said the Confederates did it, which is true.
Also, this is more minor, but "the rallying cry of the Negro soldier" is a bit magazine-y phrasing. I get what it means, but it's not literally true that every black soldier in the Union Army used this. SnowFire (talk) 15:31, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Relevant RM[edit]

Hi SnowFire, thanks for your recent comment on the RM at Talk:Les Échos (France). A similar RM is currently taking place at Talk:Les Échos (Mali), which might be of your interest. With best regards, Lordtobi () 14:46, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible BLP violation at Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL)[edit]

"Task and Purpose" does not appear to be a reliable source. [3]. There are well-reported problems with its editorial decision-making. I hope that this oversight was not the result of you trying to prove a point. Please remove the material, otherwise note that I intend to challenge it at WP:BLPN. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 21:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Sam Wang (neuroscientist)[edit]

Regarding your position with respect to using "Ph.D." just as one would use a full stop in "Dr." because the article is written in American English, how do you reconcile that with MOS:ABBR which specifically addresses the use of "PhD" and "Dr"/"Dr."? 142.160.131.220 (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why MOS:ABBR made such a strange and unusual choice in American English to only recommend "PhD", but I've switched that one over for now. "Dr.", however, does have a period in both the guideline as well as like 99% of American English usage. SnowFire (talk) 06:14, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I certainly don't dispute the appropriateness of "Dr." in articles using American English. 142.160.131.220 (talk) 06:40, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Voodoo Doughnut, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page East Broadway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 08:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'd fixed this, which you reverted, as "broke image" which I don't see. Someone else has now added back the wrong (red) link, again, in your wake. Portland and Eugene are two different cities in Oregon, and the reference is to a street in Eugene, not Portland.AHampton (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, @AHampton:: The image really was broken, as can be ascertained if you compare your version with the current version. Here's your version: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Voodoo_Doughnut&diff=prev&oldid=931767909#Doughnuts . Note that it includes, in raw wikitext, [[File:Cock and balls doughnut.jpg|thumb|In addition to the "Portland Cream" doughnut (a variant on the [[Boston cream doughnut]]), Voodoo Doughnuts also makes a "cock and balls doughnut" that has cream filled "balls"<ref>{{cite news|last1=Walker|first1=Tim|title=This Portland doughnut shop is #FeelingTheBern|url=https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections-this-portland-doughnut-shop-is-feeling-the-bern-a7033116.html|accessdate=29 June 2016|date=17 May 2016}}</ref>]] As a result of missing the "]]" at the end, that image and the next one (the captain crunch doughnut) didn't display. I reverted to a last-known-good state. I really don't know whether that street referred to was a Eugene one a Portland one, but I figured it was safer to just go to a disambig page rather than go to a wrong page. If you think it should point to Eugene, feel free to edit it yourself as long as the images aren't broken again (or argue with the other editor in the unlikely scenario they think you're wrong). SnowFire (talk) 06:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
I see now. No idea how the photo got messed up in the photo (unless it was one of those unconscious things, since I don't think that photo is suitable for an encyclopedia). Anyway, it's fixed now. (The article states Eugene, that link states Portland.) AHampton (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Some issues with current Wiki Quran articles[edit]

Subtitle: Quran presentation in a 2020 electronic NPOV encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Islam#Some_issues_with_the_current_Wikipedia_Quran_articles Koreangauteng (talk) 21:17, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Patent trolls and virii[edit]

Hi. Based on our back-and-forth changes, I've started a discussion at Talk:Irell & Manella#Representation of patent troll. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Mensch5.png The Barnstar of Integrity
Thanks for your recent edit to Irell & Manella, and for the civil talk page discussion. It's a pleasure collaborating with you. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:28, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of Jane Farver for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jane Farver 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/Jane Farver 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. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Sega FAC[edit]

Hi SnowFire. Since you were a commenter at the previous two FACs, I wanted to notify you of a third FAC. Your comments in the previous two FACs were addressed and quite helpful, and your comments one more time would be welcomed if you have the opportunity. Thank you for your time and consideration, Red Phoenix talk 11:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Callaghan MacCarty, 3rd Earl of Clancarty[edit]

Dear Snowfire. Thank you for recently (on 29 April) giving attention to the article Callaghan MacCarty, 3rd Earl of Clancarty, probably in the context of its run-up for a DYK nomination. Among others, you added a {{clear}} before the family tree, which, you say, goes left of the infobox (I understand what you talk about). I have added family trees to many biographies (almost 100) and usually in the same place as in the mentioned article. I wondered whether I should always insert {{clear}} in front of the family tree. However, in the mentioned article, the infobox does not go left of the family tree on my screen (a laptop) and the {{clear}} makes no difference. I do not have access to a bigger screen. I guess you used a much bigger screen. When is a {{clear}} be needed? Possibly between any two images or graphics aligned on the same side? - Another of your edits is that you removed the bolding of the name "Callaghan" in the list of siblings. You are right in terms of MOS:BOLD. The bolding served to make "Callaghan" stand out in that list. Until recently I added the ugly mention "the subject of this article" after the name of the subject in such lists. User JHunterJ chucked that out, but he left the bolding, so it was probably not needed under these conditions. Now that the bolding is gone ... what should I do? - With many thanks. Johannes Schade (talk) 07:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Johannes Schade: Hi! That was actually done on the same day as the DYK was on the front page, FWIW. A {{clear}} can help with the disclaimer that it shouldn't create a large gap in a place where it'd look weird - that's why I also moved the family tree down a bit, such that the clear would hardly ever matter. In general, ideally you want to stick a {{clear}} at the end of a section, but that would be problematic for a family tree in the first section (as this article has) because there is no previous section to stick it at the end of. (See Limes (Roman Empire) for an example - I added a bunch of clears there because in an earlier version of the article, the images all "stacked up" on the right side, and pushed the relevant image for a section way beneath there it was supposed to be.) I don't think that clear I added was too relevant as a result, so it's more "if you use a float-right setup, make sure it displays sufficiently beneath an infobox."
I don't think you need to do anything for the children - trust your readers! Just make the intro sentence to a "siblings list" clear. The old intro was a little meta and self-referential with "He appears below among his siblings as the fourth child:"; this is talking about the Wikipedia article itself. I prefer my version of "Callaghan was the fourth child among his siblings, listed from eldest to youngest:" - probably don't even need the word "listed". Callaghan having nothing written in his list entry, and the intro sentence saying "HEY NUMBER 4 IS THE GUY YOU ARE READING ABOUT NOW", is fine for getting the point across. Maybe if their parents had TWO kids named Callaghan than it'd be worth thinking about how to differentiate them explicitly, but not the case here.
It's a good article, keep it up at DYK! SnowFire (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear SnowFire. Thank you very much for your explanations, which I appreciate very much. I do not find the time in the moment, but I will experiment with {{clear}} and think further about the best presentation of the list of siblings. I think nevertheless that the list item representing the subject of the biography should be made stand out by some means. Johannes Schade (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Dear Snowfire. I am still thinking about you saying "trust your readers". I think our philosophy should be "make it easy for all the various readers" (you might find a better way how to say this). You cite Saint-Exupéry and the strive for perfection by removing the needless. He was, first of all, talking about himself and secondly about stories expected to be read from a to Z. It applies to the prose style we are writing which should be sober but not to the article as a whole. We are writing on the Web. Redundancy is often required, because our readers are very diverse. Few reader will read an article from A to Z. They will read here and there, look at a graphic. Click a link, come back click another. They might have difficulties to understand because they are unfamiliar with the language and the subject. They will look for more or for less detail. The web allows us to be quite flexible and to provide for such divergent needs. I feel Wikipedia is still too book-like and we should aim for more interaction with the user. I am astonished about people recommending to convert lists and tables to prose. We are not limited by the space on the paper or the book becoming to heavy. I am afraid that "trust your reader" might be taken for a pretext to be lazy and not make it easy enough for the reader. With thanks, Johannes Schade (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello again, User:Johannes Schade. Let me tell you a secret: Wikipedia is a soup. A glorious, inconsistent stone soup thrown together by strangers with wildly differing preferences, styles, and writing tics. You don't need to convince me or get my permission to make articles how you like, and even to change or revert things other well-meaning editors bring in. While I would prefer the shorter and more concise way of putting things, wanting to write it out more explicitly is perfectly valid too. There's no expectation every article on Wikipedia will be done in the same style. Now, I do think you should keep "meta" comments out unless absolutely necessary (i.e. talking about the structure of the article itself - don't draw readers attentions to this!), but things like lists vs. prose, or how much detail to include, or whether to be a little redundant for the sake of clarity? Totally a ton of valid styles that all coexist in different articles. Basically, you should always be willing to accept advice, but unless you run into a policy violation on content (i.e. original research, unreferenced info, etc.), it's fine to make the call that "no, actually, I like my way better." If there's an actual consensus against it, you'll know from the talk page or from repeated reverts. So take my comments as friendly advice, not stern admonitions, and I think you'll be fine. Happy Wikipedia editing! SnowFire (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks SnowFire! Greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Parentheses in gens articles[edit]

The use of parentheses is deprecated in gens articles since "gens" is not a disambiguator. See WP:ROMANS. I ask that you revert any changes you might have made on this regard. Aforst1 (talk) 14:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Nomination of List of alternative Dungeons & Dragons classes for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of alternative Dungeons & Dragons classes 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/List of alternative Dungeons & Dragons classes 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. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:26, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

South Texas Law Review, et al.[edit]

I noticed that you mentioned in an edit summary that South Texas Law Review is "student-edited". Actually, all law reviews, from the Harvard Law Review on down, are student-edited; that is the nature of a law review. However, the students doing the editing are the top tier of law students, working under the supervision of law faculty. Nevertheless, the vast majority of legal academic publishing appears in law reviews, and the articles are typically written by leading professors, judges, and longstanding experts in the field. BD2412 T 18:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

@BD2412: - If you say so, I suppose. I took a look at the first page of the referenced article before making that edit summary (all that was available without logging in) and it did not make a good impression, so I was wondering if it was closer to the equivalent of a student newspaper. (According to that article: The Federal Marriage Amendment would annul the 17th if passed? wut? even if some edge-case legal theory might have that be true, it certainly wouldn't have legitimacy to do this unless explicitly stated to do as such. Hey we stopped gay marriage, that means legislatures elect Senators again?) I've honestly been meaning to go back to the 17th Amendment article for a long time; it extensively and disproportionately quotes sources that think that the 17th Amendment is illegitimate and/or bad, when this is a fringe opinion to the best of my knowledge. But of course, it's generally only critics who pay attention to the amendment at all, which leads to a bit of the sourcing disparity. Nobody wants to write an article that says "The 17th Amendment is boring and non-controversial and no relevant law has been litigated on it since no state legislatures have attempted to go rogue and cancel direct election of Senators." SnowFire (talk) 19:07, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
You are probably right about the scholarship being tilted towards the presumptively more shocking opinion. Even so, the scholarship is what it is. BD2412 T 22:49, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

League of Legends[edit]

Hi! This might sound awkward for minor stuff. Don't you think "the rival game" kinda deserve its spot at 'See also'?

I mean, that 2 games was intended to be "LoL Mobile" before Wild Rift got announced. Axeth (talk) 16:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Other games in the genre are only relevant for a See also rarely, IMO. In fact, I'd be in favor of trimming the "See also" section even further. The main problem is - where does it end? Why not include Heroes of the Storm or any other random MOBA as well? And at least there's a fairly small amount of major MOBAs. It'd get even crazier for things like first-person shooters to list every vaguely-similar shooter in the See also. At least Wild Rift / Valorant / TFT have a firmer connection by the developer, although they're a bit shaky as well, especially since TFT is already discussed in the article a bit. SnowFire (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Kevin Deutsch[edit]

Hi, SnowFire. I saw your note at Talk:Kevin Deutsch and thought I should respond here. You seem to be making two allegations. First, you believe there is sockpuppetry going on, including some previously blocked editors. In that case you should file a report at WP:SPI. Figure out which is the oldest of the accounts you believe to be sockpuppets, and file a report under that name. List as possible socks the other users you suspect, along with evidence, i.e., diffs showing them making the same or similar edits. That is the appropriate way to deal with suspected socks.

Second and more worrisome, you talk as if you believe that one or more of the editors are Deutsch himself. That is not a good approach for you to take, and unless they have self-disclosed their identity you should drop that kind of talk. If you were to seriously pursue that angle, to try to PROVE that one or more of these editors is Deutsch, you could be get blocked for WP:OUTING. You should not even keep casually saying it - unless one of them has self-disclosed their identity as Deutsch.

Finally, use the talk page for discussing the article content, not for talking about other editors. Maybe start a new discussion about a point of contention, saying what you believe should be in the article or what should not be in the article, and why. Ping the others to come and respond. Be the good guy, the person who is acting according to Wikipedia policy, and use the talk page in an honest attempt to discuss. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@MelanieN: I did consider filing a SPI report. However, my understanding is that report process is mainly for checking IP addresses, and surely the IP address of the pro-Deutsch 2018 accounts has long since been rotated off. If that is incorrect and I should file a SPI investigation anyway, I'll do so, but my argument was more based off of WP:DUCK similarities - new accounts that are suspiciously pro-Deutsch, that edit on no other topic but him, that are familiar with his own obscure websites and all of his latest activities. (Also, I was not attempting an "outing", apologies for that - whether the accounts are Deutsch himself or pro-Deutsch partisans, it doesn't matter, they're all equally WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but rather to make Deutsch's Wikipedia article more flattering to him. So I'll avoid claims there in the future.)
I entirely agree with you that the talk page should be about discussing article content! However, I feel like I already put in my good-faith effort to negotiate, and this is just a tired recurrence of the same. Like I said in the talk page, I feel I've already gone overboard for allowing an article that is far more deferential to Deutsch than would be proper at a "normal" article in the hope that this would appease the pro-Deutsch side, but even that clearly isn't enough. For a separate example, I feel like I wasted time treating some suspicious editors at with good faith at Timothy Parker (puzzle designer) - I found out only recently that some of the mysterious edits there were from bone-fida paid editors who got banned, and the proper course of action in retrospect would be just to get them banned faster rather than "negotiate". (That was at least a case where Parker did in fact self-identify with an account earlier, but after he couldn't get his edits in, then IP addresses and paid normal editors stepped in.) That's why I brought the issue to COIN, in the hopes that administrator action could be implemented if warranted. I foresee a long, unproductive edit war otherwise, unfortunately - the pro-Deutsch accounts absolutely do not take no for an answer and won't stop based off previous experience. SnowFire (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I've spent the last hour or two looking into the article history. I think the sock charge against Harringhome is well founded and I'm preparing an SPI report myself. For your part, I discovered that the "no formal charges" sentence was added to both the lead and the text in August 2018, and as far as I can see it was never challenged until you removed it from the lead this month. That makes it longstanding content and I would advise you to let it stay. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I took the article off my watchlist because I didn't want to spend my Wikipedia career uselessly edit-warring rather than writing actually useful content, only ended up back at it due to coincidence. The "no formal charges" content was put there by the pro-Deutsch crew (and... strictly speaking, I'm not 100% against it, but I am against it in the way that the pro-Deutsch crew deploys it, which is as an exoneration in the lede, which is not accurate to the sources). The original accounts are probably either Ballastpointed or AlexVegaEsquire FWIW. SnowFire (talk) 15:56, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
That's what I concluded from the history. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexVegaEsquire. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 27[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tsubame gaeshi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sparrow.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Benedictus de Spinoza[edit]

Dear Snowfire,

Unfortunately you failed to prove by any signature, 17th century document or by recent literature, that Spinoza or his leading scholars prefer Baruch to his own chosen name Benedictus. Ngram and Google Scholar are not peer-reviewed quality sources. Spinoza did not yield to pressure, why speculate? On the contrary, he freely chose Benedictus as his international name. There is really no case for Baruch based on quality arguments. Why do you oppose common sense? Thank you Hansmuller (talk) 14:25, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hansmuller: They say no good deed goes unpunished... Hansmuller, I was attempting to be helpful and explain Wikipedia article naming policy before to you, not play the villain. Clearly I failed at that.
If you'd like to "fix" the issue and move the article: Your problem is not with me, but with Wikipedia's policies, since you clearly show you aren't engaging with what was written in the RM by the community (again: not just me). Please read WP:COMMONNAME, which suggests a 15:1 balance in ngrams is in fact worthy of consideration. If you've come to the conclusion that the common name in reliable sources does not count as a "quality argument", you can register your disapproval on the talk page (Wikipedia talk:Article titles) and ask for it to be deprecated / removed.
If you are just desperate to argue with me: I reject your argument that "leading scholars" use Benedictus, or that Google Scholar (!!!!) is not a useful link. Spinoza published under the name "Baruch". Deal with it. And fine, I'm gonna come out and say it: you're committing anti-Semitic erasure here. Many Jews have had to change their names to "hide" better, and are on Wikipedia under their new name / stage name due to the common name policy. Spinoza is an example of someone who, in English, was still known by their Hebrew name. Why do you insist on using a pen name used for international correspondence in an era where the world was deeply suspicious of Jews? SnowFire (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Incident involving you at WT:AN#Kevin Deutsch article editathon[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Kevin Deutsch article editathon. The discussion is about the topic Kevin Deutsch. Thank you. I can't figure out how to make the template point to AN instead of ANI, but the thread will take you to the thread in question.Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:23, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Another thread was started at WP:ANI#Talk:Kevin Deutsch. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

We are all ready to end this. Sorry for the trouble. Let’s put the Rolling stone correction language in and move on. WillieHowardCO67 (talk) 03:26, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks![edit]

Hi, just wanted to thank you for keeping an eye on the FAQ that Giraffer and I wrote about the kerfuffle at scowiki; it's much appreciated. Best, — Blablubbs (talkcontribs) 20:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks a lot! Giraffer (munch) 21:51, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

mail from The Signpost[edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, SnowFire. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallbones(smalltalk) 20:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Any progress? Please let me know. Smallbones(smalltalk) 13:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
@Smallbones: - Sure - thought you said the suggested deadline was tonight, but I was working in a Google Doc. I'll move my work over later today. SnowFire (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, no problem. I suppose I should have warned you that I get nervous over big stories! All the best. Smallbones(smalltalk) 15:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Outstanding - Thank you. Smallbones(smalltalk) 05:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, SnowFire and Smallbones,
I've read 6 or 7 articles about the situation on the Scots Wikipedia and in none of them was there speculating about the admin's "sexuality". I think including this in the Signpost article is shaming, especially for a teenage boy. There's a huge chance that he hasn't read all of the coverage of this situation on other websites so the Signpost article might be the only place where he sees this mentioned. There were plenty of other personality traits discussed in the coverage so could you substitute one of them for sexuality? Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 18:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Liz: I took this to be about Brony - a boy who likes the books on "My little pony". Maybe "gender" would be a better word, but I think almost all teenage boys would take that as an attack on their manhood. I think I saw that in half a dozen articles. Correct me if I'm wrong. Smallbones(smalltalk) 18:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
@Liz: / @Smallbones: : It was only in the more disreputable articles I didn't link. I'm fine with removing it though just to hide it. (For example, the original 4chan post was very much doing this sort of shaming - it said "they've all been created by a gay 13 year old furry from North Carolina who doesn't even speak Scots". Many of the comments chimed in on similar grounds.) SnowFire (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
Hello, SnowFire, just an FYI. I've made a reddit post on the Scotland subreddit linking your excellent article. https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/iji6kx/scots_wikipedia_almost_worthless/ Dutchy45 (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you![edit]

Dobos cake (Gerbeaud Confectionery Budapest Hungary).jpg 7&6=thirteen () has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen () 13:36, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Answer:New Campaignboxes[edit]

Hi, I don't created many campaignboxes (example) but I expanded and fixed a lot of them, the expansion is because I reseached in Campaignboxes from Wikipedia in another languages and added those that already exist in those languages.

Responding promptly about Revolt of the Comuneros campaignbox, I have plans to translate some of these articles into English (I am a native Spanish speaker). It should be noted that although it is preferable that the sources are in English, it is not necessary that all be, it happened when I translated this article from French (the discussion where that highlights) so it is not a problem. --2x2leax (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit warring over Double Space - Dispute Resolution[edit]

Information icon

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Dispute Resolution regarding your edit warring with Leitmotiv at Edition (Magic: The Gathering. Thank you. Leitmotiv (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alan Dean Foster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SFWA.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello! 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) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Swing States during 2020 United States presidental election[edit]

I would like to know which sources support the view on New Hampshire and Minnesota as swing states that were considered more likely to flip than Ohio and Iowa before the election results were accepted. The view of swing states is determined before the election terminates, not after the results are accepted (unless a state was flipped).

@Ryanco88: Hi. That particular section is purely mechanical with no need to consult pundits. It's a compilation of tipping point states in retrospect, and the five states more Democratic and five states more Republican than them based off (ideally) the final results. Wisconsin provided Biden's 270th electoral vote if the states are organized by margin of victory, so it's in the "center" of the chart, and NH & MN just happen to be the 4th and 5th next states ranked by margin of victory. This is true even for uncompetitive races that are not that swingy (e.g. 2012 Georgia, which wasn't remotely a swing state and was always understood to be more a sign of an Obama landslide if he won it... although it did presage Georgia having the potential to become swingier later.). SnowFire (talk) 14:35, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, there's a place to talk about projected swing states as well - that's the "Determining Swing States" section, or the polling sections on the election articles, or sourced discussion of candidate's strategies. That particular chart, however, is not about the projections, but rather past results. SnowFire (talk) 14:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
@SnowFire: Hi, in terms of the way you look at swing state definition, I may agree. But if I look on previous elections on the same table, such as the 2008 United States presidential election, I can see that all the 11 swing states are blue-colored, including states where The Democratic Party won over 10 points, although there were states where The Republican Party won over much less than 10 points, like Missouri, Montana and Georgia. I can't think of another reason rather than the fact that they were not considered as swing states in any part of the election process. If you think that swing states should be determined based on the final results, that's fine. But in this case, I'd ask you to apply this method on previous elections on the table too. I may not agree, but I'd like the swing state table to look consistant.
@Ryanco88: It is consistent. See the explanation of what the tipping point state is, as well as the methodology used. Or just read the swing state article in general. For this table specifically, "swing state" is not a synonym for "state where the election was close"; it is "state near where the winning coalition was assembled", which makes the concept more useful for elections like 1984 or 2008. SnowFire (talk) 04:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Now I understand how swing states are calculated. Thanks @SnowFire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanco88 (talkcontribs) 22:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Colombia[edit]

Hello SnowFire I've never engaged in undo redo back and forth before and I want to make sure we are team mates and not adversaries. I respect your efforts to keep wiki verifiable. Is the first footnote adequate to support my claim that Columbia and Lady Liberty are the same idea?Electricmic (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hello SnowFire, Do you know how to use this terrific color logo in place of the monochrome Columbia Pictures logo that I uploaded from Wikimedia? I think therir current logo is under copyright protection, or maybe you know how to use it as fair use in Wiki? ThanksElectricmic (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2020 (UTC) https://www.google.com/search?q=columbia+pictures&newwindow=1&rlz=1C1CHBD_enUS910US910&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=1zgglFAVJsiAcM%252C0xPVZQ4BWqtT3M%252C_&vet=1&usg=AI4_-kQSoa1zHs52Zm6vKoTVBAz4VCKNHg&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiTzLmB1dXsAhUSLa0KHQyFDloQ9QF6BAgKEFg&biw=1777&bih=841#imgrc=1zgglFAVJsiAcM

RETAIN[edit]

We probably need to get some clarify as to how RETAIN applies with respect to very old moves that go against it, I think I agree with you (and disagree with FOARP) that in general if an article is moved against RETAIN (or against a previous consensus) that we should revert back to the previous title even if the new title would be considered "stable" (which as far as I'm aware 2 or more years almost always is stable) but the thing I'm not so sure about is if the move was made so long ago and the content/circumstances have changed significantly that we would since such a move if stable for a long time would offend WP:TITLECHANGES. There was a similar discussion at Talk:Harris, Outer Hebrides#Requested move 17 March 2019 where I argued the title of the previous RM consensus should stand if it was closed as "no consensus" so not to reward the undiscussed move, there is also discussion on this at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves/Archive 31#When tech requests are challenged. Talk:Humour also concerns an article where there was an undiscussed move back in 2002. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: Hello. I'm not sure how much my opinion matters there; your side, after all, "won" at move review on Telephone, so clearly my stance doesn't necessarily have tons of weight. That said, yes, it's well-established that if someone makes an undiscussed move and a RM is opened afterward, "no consensus" should mean "revert to location before undiscussed move." How long that move has gone unnoticed tends to vary though - quite awhile for obscure articles, but for prominent articles like Humour, the side wanting to keep the current title will tend to have a stronger argument that there's a new de-facto consensus in favor of the existing title. Not sure if you want me to actually do anything, though - is there some ongoing community discussion in progress, or one that you're thinking of starting? SnowFire (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requested moves/Closing instructions#Determining consensus "For example, if an article is created at Soda can and stays there for years prior to being WP:BOLDly moved to pop can, and a move request is filed leading to a decision of "no consensus", the article must be moved back to its longstanding title. This is the case even if the original page was placed at pop can or fizzy drink can or orangutan-flavored soft drink can, as long as soda can took over through consensus and can be determined to be the actual long-standing title." since a reasonable justification was given to justify the change in variety I think WP:TITLECHANGES would otherwise apply since the page had been (relatively) stable for 14 years. I apologize that you're side "lost" but I think the MR close was correct. There isn't any discussion on this currently but I plan to start one soon and will notify you. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia:Stable version to revert to though maybe a RFC to deal with stability times in general as well as RETAIN is needed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Fires on the Plain (2014 film)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 13 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fires on the Plain (2014 film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2014 film Fires on the Plain, which includes madness, murder, and cannibalism, was intended to warn younger Japanese audiences of the horrors of war? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fires on the Plain (2014 film). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fires on the Plain (2014 film)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

Your DYK hook about Fires on the Plain and its tale of madness, murder, and cannibalism drew 5,514 page views (459 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

A question[edit]

Hi,

by our discussion it was missed/forgotten in the end, could you tell me which user started to write e-mail with my name in the title? Thank You, Cheers!(KIENGIR (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC))

Hello,
I don't know if you forgot about this, but your answer would be appreciated. Thank You.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2021 (UTC))
@KIENGIR: No, I'm not. I screwed up by misinterpreting the email to begin with. Just because I made a mistake doesn't mean you are suddenly a party to a private email. SnowFire (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Docker/Dockers[edit]

I'd note that Docker now also has no primary topic as a result of Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 April 4#Docker. Do you agree that its a reasonable compromise to have no primary topic for either singular or plural though the plural is probably more ambiguous due to the existance of the sports teams even though they may be PTMs. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:16, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 25[edit]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Roadshow theatrical release, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Blockbuster.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 25 April 2021 (UTC)