User talk:SnowFire

• User talk:SnowFire/Archive1 has 2006 - April 2008 talk page entries.
• User talk:SnowFire/Archive2 has April 2008 - December 2017 talk page entries

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

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.

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)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of 25 Water Street at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On June 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nico Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) 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.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during Paraguay's Revolt of the Comuneros the rebels were briefly excommunicated after raiding a Jesuit college and chapel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added 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.

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

	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)[reply]

The article Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay) you nominated as a good article has passed ; 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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

Alex Shih^Talk 00:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Want to add something like this?

Bus and rail connections

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

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)#[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Gonnym: Thanks for humoring me and using a different category name! SnowFire (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

Yeah, I still remember the complaints on WT:FAC about this tendency. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:51, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks SnowFire! Greetings, Johannes Schade (talk) 06:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

That's what I concluded from the history. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexVegaEsquire. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress? Please let me know. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Outstanding - Thank you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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))[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Not really an important message, just enjoyed it (:. Paragon Deku (talk) 01:35, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded :) LordHarris (talk) 14:59, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon Deku (talk) 00:31, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed you recently edited Talk:Domestic violence in the United Kingdom to add a new section for "Article of potential interest" but at the same time appear to have inadvertently removed the WikiProject Crime banner without an explanation in the edit summary. In the future, I would suggest using the "new section" tab to add a new section, rather than also deleting talk page banners within the same edit but not mentioning this in the edit summary. Please also be aware that British crime-related articles are also of interest to Crime WikiProject and that article membership of the WikiProject British crime does not confer membership to the overarching Crime WikiProject as the two projects are entirely independent. I have undone this portion of you edit, but if you feel I have made a mistake, please feel free to explain your edit and why you feel it necessary to remove the WikiProject Crime banner on the article talk page. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your recent addition to pseudepigrapha. I added disambiguation links to Daniel (biblical figure) and Saint Peter. When mentioning people with potentially confusing names, please try to disambiguate. Readers may have no idea who is the intended person. Dimadick (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, although note that I did link to Daniel later on, and a link to Peter would have been forthcoming if anyone clicked on 2 Peter. That said, if you prefer it better with more links, sure. It's a minor issue. SnowFire (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SnowFire. Just wanted to get your opinion on my recent changes to Super Mario and ask what you'd think about having subseries headings under each era heading to help direct the reader to subseries like the original SMB games, the NSMB games, etc. Please see the article's talk page for the reasoning behind the changes. Ozdarka (talk) 09:50, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SnowFire. On 6 October you amended one of the paragraphs in the lead of George Pell. See your diff. At the beginning of this paragraph, in hidden text visible in edit mode, is text saying “This paragraph has proved to be controversial. It is the subject of discussion on the Talk page. Please do not amend this paragraph without first joining the discussion on the Talk page.”

The discussion on the Talk page is at Talk:George Pell#Lede section phrasing started by you on 15 July 2021. This discussion provides every User with an ideal opportunity to present ideas and suggestions to other interested Users. Before making your most recent change you chose not to use this discussion thread to fully explain your view or quote from the referenced sources. That is a pity, especially when considering the request “Please do not amend this paragraph without first joining the discussion on the Talk page.” This request is intended to apply to all Users considering amending this paragraph. It is the Wikipedia way of avoiding edit warring and tendentious editing, both of which has occurred with the Pell article.

I encourage you to return to the Talk page and provide other interested Users with the benefit of your insight on this matter, rather than simply making the edit. Thanks. Dolphin (t) 12:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Initially you had a problem with the using of youtube as a Source. Now I have removed the YouTube source and added some other source. Here you are asking multiple sources. Singer K S Chithra was actually awarded with Melody Queen of Indian Cinema by the Mirchi Music Awards 2016. I don't know what is your problem. If you don't know anything about her then please stay away of her page. There video is clearly showing that she was receiving the award but still you people want some baseless proofs. Sick mentality of humans. All these baseless rules were created my human himself. Simha Gorji (talk) 02:10, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Simha Gorji: - I'm sure she was awarded that. But please read the documentation at Template:Infobox_person: "other names"/"alias" is for "Other notable names for the person, if different from name and birth_name." It is not for every single title or award granted, but rather major alternate names. See Cat Stevens a valid example, who released albums under the name "Yusuf" as well as "Steve Adams" and would later literally change his name. Unless she did something like actually release albums under the name "Melody Queen of Indian Cinema" (which I don't believe to be accurate), it's not appropriate. SnowFire (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For making a very good point about Project:Spoken Wikipedia. I never realized the issue of having it being an out of date version read by a human (who is imperfect) that might read at a different speed and accent than the blind person is able to understand until you had pointed it out. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 20:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on your revert of the image on the Motte and Bailey Fallacy, specifically of the addition of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Motte-and-bailey_fallacy&diff=1056134070&oldid=1044775138#/media/File:Motte_and_Bailey_Fallacy.jpg

Although it is not an artistic work, I disagree that it looks nothing like a Motte and Bailey castle. Seen here, https://www.dkfindout.com/us/history/castles/early-castles/ there is a fairly clear similarity between my work and the castle. Moreover, it is not the intention to accurately depict a Motte and Bailey Castle, nor is such depiction necessary in conveying the intended meaning of an easy to defend argument and a weaker and harder to defend argument. Unless you can suggest reasonable improvements to the image, I do not see it being inappropriate on the page Motte-and-bailey fallacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by SineofTan (talk • contribs) 01:59, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SineofTan: - I agree that strict accuracy isn't all that necessary, but I really feel that your picture isn't even that close to the image the article is trying to express, nor is it that helpful - the bailey doesn't look that much different than the motte, just shorter. I agree it looks close to a side view of the image you linked above, but I wouldn't think that particular shape is necessarily the most common, nor is a side view necessarily the best way to approach it. Sorry, I don't mean to be harsh or anything, just... I'm not sold it's an improvement. That said, this is a larger issue than the two of us - perhaps something to take up at Talk:Motte-and-bailey fallacy? Might be able to get a third opinion that way. SnowFire (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, re your recent edit to the Epistle of Jude article says "it is assumed to be a work of the early second century" then goes on to say, "Bart Ehrman suggests an even later date, in the second half of the first century, due to certain passages that suggest the apostles lived in the past and use of certain terminology in ways similar to the pastoral epistles that was uncommon in the first century." Seems inconsistent - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 00:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Epinoia: - Yep, just a typo, thanks for pointing it out. (As a side note, this may be one of the easier articles on Wikipedia to improve, what with a Featured Article and Google Translate working passably on Swedish and many of the cited references in the Swedish article being in English anyway... wonder if someone can get the article to GA some day.) SnowFire (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Snowfire. I just wanted to thank you for your contributions to Execution of Nathaniel Woods. Very constructive and important information. TheXuitts (talk) 22:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You deserve a thank you! I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

-- Wil540 art (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SnowFire,

You have been successfully nominated to receive a free t-shirt from the Wikimedia Foundation through our Merchandise Giveaway program. Congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Please email us at merchandisewikimedia.org and we will send you full details on how to accept your free shirt. Thanks!

On behalf of the Merchandise Giveaway program,

-- janbery (talk) 09:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Pilate cycle at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SL93 (talk) 23:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your improvements to the D.B. Cooper article. I was wondering if you could do improvements to the June 1962 Alcatraz escape attempt article, another famous mystery. It does seem the consensus has swung in favor of the idea that the men survived their escape gambit and went on to evade the authorities, however there still needs to be some definitive proof (preferably DNA-related), before the tone of the article can reflect this assumption. 213.107.2.115 (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion. I'm afraid I ended up editing the Cooper article not out of a general interest in unsolved crimes - it's not a personal area of expertise for me, but rather just that the article Wasn't That Bad but listed on WP:FAR for some fairly fixable quibbles IMO. Hence my updates. I appreciate that you think it's an improvement, though!

For the '62 Alcatraz escape, I'm even less of an expert. I did take the Alcatraz tour when I was in San Francisco ages ago and I seem to recall the consensus at the time was that the escapees Probably Drowned but who knows. But that would be solely citing to "something a random tour guide said in 2011" which is maybe not the most solid source. SnowFire (talk) 09:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Jean Webster (cook) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for playing ball on the Jean Webster nomination :) it's not always easy to be a good sport when a random person comes along with an objection, so i appreciate it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just wanted to let you know that I recently closed the CFD you listed ages ago about Semitic peoples, in case you wanted to continue cleaning up the categories post-merge. Thanks for your patience! bibliomaniac15 18:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful help! Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alondraburguete (talk • contribs) 15:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

	Thank you!
	Thank you for editing with the New York Botanical Garden and Wikimedia New York City at the Environment of the Bronx Edit-a-thon! Please enjoy this beautiful eastern skunk cabbage illustration from the NYBG collection. Your contributions are appreciated! Go SnowFire! -Wil540 art (talk) 12:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:10, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was supposed to be "fellow". However, "Inuit people" means "the people people". I'm going by Talk:Inuit#Inuit or the Inuit and referenced from the style guide Inuit, Inuk (Linguistic recommendation from the Translation Bureau) which says "Because Inuit means "the people," do not use the or people with Inuit". Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 13:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CambridgeBayWeather: I'll defer to you on that, then. I don't think the style guide there is necessarily controlling on Wikipedia so I'm a bit skeptical of using it to enforce a Wikipedia-wide stance (a quick Google check shows news articles in the past decade still using "Inuit people"), but it's not like I'm committed to the old wording either - it was that your original edit summary didn't really explain the issue + there was a typo, hence my revert. The new phrasing isn't how I'd write it but it's not a big deal, so sure. SnowFire (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Talk page for my reasons for undoing your edits. Wctrenchard (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If, as you freely admit, you have little interest in or knowledge of this topic then why are you so committed to expunging my edits? I don't go around reverting changes on topics I have no knowledge of. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCurrencyGuy: I'm not committed to expunging your edits, but your edit to Currencies of Asia was obviously incorrect (With the possible exception of the yuan edit - that could go either way), and I've reverted it again for the reasons described in my edit summary. I saw it come up while doing my occasional hate-browsing of WP:ANI where I saw you getting reported is all, which naturally brings scrutiny to your edits - you should be happy, scrutiny is good, better now than later. The fact that you respond to valid points about errors in your edits by edit warring is not a good sign for your long-term tenure here. As a tip, if you genuinely want to be a useful editor who doesn't find themselves at ANI again in 3 months, pick a few articles and expand them. Nobody will care about you using whatever your favored terminology is if you go rewrite and expand them after doing some research on the pound in British Malaya or whatever. If you go impose your own favored wording on a lot of articles you didn't write, expect pushback - this isn't fixing a typo, this is just style edit-warring. I guarantee you that you are not helping by doing any such "standardization", which is neither wanted nor needed. Well-meaning editors attempting to "fix" non-problems Wikipedia-wide is a wider issue than just currency, hence my at least partial interest. SnowFire (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you have therefore decided to pick a fight. Calling me "obviously incorrect" is clearly an incitement to WP:BATTLE. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TheCurrencyGuy: I called your edit incorrect. Which it is, we don't do repeat links in Navboxes without exceptionally good reason, which you added in the case of the centavo. Just to be consistent, I switched it over to always link to the current article title, so that both Renmibi and Pound sterling are on the same grounds - a link to the existing article title. If you think Pound sterling should be moved, great, propose a RM. If it moves, you can update the template to say "Sterling" no problem. SnowFire (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So I made a mistake with centavos, you could have been more diplomatic than doing this, which just so obviously feels like an attempt to start a flame war. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say I'm sorry. I overreacted. TheCurrencyGuy (talk) 05:06, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @TheCurrencyGuy: It's fine, apology accepted.
• I will say... not to bring up the issue again and re-ignite it... and maybe this advice should come from somebody other than me... but you misinterpreted my comments. I would humbly suggest that in the future, if you see another user acting in a way you can't make sense of, consider asking them first before reporting them to ANI over a single revert. If you had said to me "Hey SnowFire, I don't get it, you said you aren't interested in currency, yet you're reverting my edits. Are you targeting me specifically? What's going on here?" I'd have been happy to explain. When I said that "This isn't my area of expertise", that wasn't me saying "I don't care one way or the other and am just here to disagree with TheCurrencyGuy, someone I've never heard of before, solely out of spite." Nor was I saying I was a complete newbie on the topic. I was merely stating that there might be something I'm not familiar with - in other words, this was a self-deprecating comment of inviting people who are experts to clear things up if there was a gap in my knowledge. It was something that made it more likely that you could convince me. Rather, I was stating that my opposition was largely on procedural grounds. In the case of the moves, the default on Wikipedia is to assume that a long-standing title is correct, and that a move requires a rationale. In the case of the navbox, the default is to link to the name of the article, and use piping to do things to cover up disambiguators (i.e. [[Mercury (planet)|Mercury]]). Basically, it's an argument on Wikipedia norms and customs. That is all it meant - it did not mean that I had a personal grudge with you before even having the discussion. People can disagree and not do it for user-related reasons. SnowFire (talk) 21:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Just want to say I applaud your calm demeanor. So rare to see these days. Slywriter (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi: Is anyone monitoring the DB Cooper page? A lot of new info. KatDales (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Mass spamming of Cleanup bare URLs template Moxy- 16:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your efforts at fact checking the DB Cooper page, although I'll admit to being a bit flustered at some of your changes (the Heisson store break in was a HUGE revelation when that was released to the public). Let me try and explain to you the issue with the parachute in more detail so maybe you'll understand it better because it can be somewhat confusing. This whole "lack of D-rings" thing was news to everyone who follows the D.B. Cooper case once we started to receive the FBI files (we get about 500 documents a month from the FBI). In those days reserve chutes hooked to your main harness (your back chute harness) using D-ring metal hooks. In all of the subsequent debriefing interviews with the FBI that we now have access to, Earl Cossey, tells the FBI about the parachutes that he supplied. He talks about how one of the reserves was a dummy chute used for training purposes. But then he goes on to state that the harnesses he supplied weren't D-ring applicable (emergency parachutes don't ever have reserves attached to them), so he speculates that Cooper must have used the dummy chute bag as a money bag or something and tied it to himself. The way we know that one of the reserves was a Dummy Chute is solely through Earl Cossey's testimony. This is the exact same testimony that states, in literally the next sentence, that the harnesses lacked D-rings. Again, this isn't exactly controversial. Cooper jumped with NB-8 parachute. These were military parachutes used for bailing out of aircraft. These parachutes aren't equipped for reserve parachutes to be hooked up to them.

So for Cooper to be portrayed as an idiot for jumping without an operable reserve parachute for all these years is a myth that needs to be busted. He may very well have been an idiot who didn't know what the heck he was doing, but he didn't "jump" with a dummy chute because he literally couldn't have. You state that this needs a better source, so I guess I'll add an article from 1976 where Himmelsbach states: "If it had been usable he could not have attached it to his parachute harness, which had no D rings for use with a chest pack." Of course Ralph is just quoting the Cossey interview which is what I cited. SillyRyno (talk) 14:19, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Snow, I uploaded a copy of the National Weather Service's report supplied to the FBI for the hours of the Cooper hijacking just so you can see that I'm not some madman with an agenda. I'm just coming across this stuff and going "huh, I'll be danged....I thought it was a storm that night...but it wasn't." This is why it was added by me to the D.B. Cooper page. The weather conditions that night were very clearly exaggerated in the years following the hijacking. I think it's pretty important that this is pointed out. It makes a much sexier story if the dude jumped out in a raging thunderstorm as opposed to a typical Seattle drizzle. It also makes it sound sexier to say he jumped into a wilderness instead of pointing out the drop zone straddled two counties with a 1970 census population of 200,000 people! You should Google Earth the Drop Zone. It's a bit eye opening. Not at all what you expect. The farthest away he ever could have jumped from an interstate was less than 10 miles. Everywhere in the DZ was within 30 miles of Portland. He was as likely to land in a field or someone's back yard as he was in a tree. Because it was an active investigation for 45 years, the only information we ever received was from FBI agents and what they would occasionally leak to writers (like Geoffrey Gray). But now that we are able to look at their work product it's a bit....well....awkward. How could Himmelsbach go on TV programs that we all watched growing up and tell us that Cooper probably froze to death (and I believed him!) but then I look and see that the weather never even dropped below 40 degrees that night! Another thing I realized that Himmelsbach was doing that bugged me. I've seen him in numerous articles and TV shows talk about how it was -7 degrees at the altitude that Cooper jumped (10,000 feet). He always mentioned that. Of course you hear that and you go OMG! But what he failed to mention is that it was -7 CELSIUS, which is 20 Fahrenheit. That's a pretty deliberate attempt at presenting something inaccurately for effect isn't it? As I've said, I'm a former Federal prosecutor and state prosecutor and current defense attorney. I'm not some crazy loon. It's been quite eye opening reading through this documents and I can tell you have an interest in Cooper otherwise you wouldn't be an admin on the page. So I hope you can see my motives are pure and I hope you can join me in understanding what I'm trying to accomplish on that page. People have a mental image about the D.B. Cooper case in many ways that is totally flawed and it is a mental image that I had for many years. However, a National Weather Service document from November 24th, 1971 has no agenda...wouldn't you agree? Please help me out in my efforts. D.B. Cooper is too interesting of a story to let mythology and exaggerations prevail.

Oh, here's that image of the weather. Wind never goes above 10 knots and the rain is never listed as anything more than "light rain".

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:CooperHijackingWeather.png SillyRyno (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

		The Epic Barnstar
		Awarded for your continued efforts in improving a variety of articles relating to history. Awarded by Cdjp1 (talk) 23 August 2022

Cdjp1 (talk) 08:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's an Mfd I'd like you to check out. Consider this an attempt at a makeup for my behavior on the hoax list talk page. 100.7.36.213 (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vanamonde 00:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks sincerely for reverting my edit on Forrest J Ackerman; I guess I'm still learning. Would this post from File 770 be good enough of a source for the claim that she made that statement? It was also quoted in the end notes of a biography published by Fantagraphics, although the complete text isn't available in the Google Books preview. Would citing that book be appropriate evidence for the claim that Lucy Chase Williams made that statement? I truly want to learn what evidence is appropriate here. Thanks! Sylvar (talk) 18:54, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sylvar: No problem. To be clear, I actually do believe that the accusation is probably true in the sense that it was made (rather than someone pretending to be Lucy Chase Williams), but this kind of accusation has just about the strictest standard to be mentioned on Wikipedia (modified only by the fact that Ackermann is dead, so at least it's not a biography of living persons (BLP) issue). The kind of source that would be good enough would be one that actually investigated the accusation rather than merely quoting the accusation, in my opinion. User:Susmuffin looked into this a few months ago and found the same book reference. IMO, it's still not good enough, but it is borderline and closer to what is allowable. In general, even if the accusation is correct, it's a dangerous precedent to quote it on just the weight of a message board post IMO - it would be an invitation for shakier claims to also be included solely by message board post. But maybe Susmuffin has some further opinions? SnowFire (talk) 19:01, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found a number of blogs repeating the accusation or otherwise indicating that the bloggers—some of whom are notable—believe the accusation and associated allegations. However, the accusation is generally not mentioned in the mainstream discussions of Forrest J Ackerman in reliable sources. For example, his entry in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction does not mention it. File 770 and that book are the best sources that contain mentions of it. However, they are functionally recitations of the accusation itself, rather than detailed discussions thereof. This makes them a bit problematic as sources for sensitive material. Eventually, someone might write about the accusation in a citable way, but I am not aware of anything current in that regard. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 21:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks, y'all! Sylvar (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SnowFire, just a note that I have replied to you at Talk:Dirichlet conditions. I will re-iterate that I removed content that had been recently been rewritten based on a self-published source, and improved the sources based on the template requesting better sources. I do not feel that it would be appropriate to re-introduce the old, self-sourced, and incorrect material. If you feel that this content is worthy of discussion, please be more specific at the talk page. Ideally, you should support your contention with reliable sources. Thanks, 164.52.242.130 (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays and Happy New Year, SnowFire!

The other day, I was having a conversation with someone about holiday cards and social media. It occurred to me that, in the years since I left Facebook, the site I use most to communicate with people I like isn't actually a social media site at all. If you're receiving this, it's pretty likely I've talked with you more recently than I have my distant relatives and college friends on FB, at very least, and we may have even collaborated on something useful. So here's a holiday "card", Wikipedia friend. :) Hope the next couple weeks bring some fun and/or rest. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? You seem to know of Giga Wrecker, correct? Visokor (talk) 14:04, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Visokor: Yes, I created the article, as you can see in the history. I only know the Steam/PC version, though, not the Alt. version, and didn't actually finish it (hence the Ajeet / Ajith difference). I just don't want to include too many side details and keep things short and to the point, but you should feel free to expand the article as long as you don't include too much "WP:GAMECRUFT" (a term for super-tiny details). SnowFire (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If anything you should see this playthrough: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLY3-HdQWhWMUjO4GoDYdsy_L1fo9b7m3J The Alt. story even adresses something regarding the protagonist and the Ajith leader. Visokor (talk) 18:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SnowFire. Thank you for your work on Chapters of 2 Maccabees. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for writing the article! Hopefully you will write more articles. Have a good day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 05:55, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. Concerning birth/death subsections. I noticed you had deleted King Charles III from 1948 in Canada's birth subsection. I've re-added him, because there was inconsistencies among the monarchs being added in the 'birth' & 'death' subsections of several "Year in Canada" pages. I'm willing to have a discussion at the appropriate page, as to whether they should be included or not, as I'm 'neutral' on the topic. Only interested in consistency. GoodDay (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I've begun a discussion on that topic. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. Perhaps you should take it to FAC at some point. BorgQueen (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BorgQueen: Thanks for the compliment. I do plan to take it to GAN. FAC... maybe. Main whine about FAC is that some people there confuse "stylistic preferences" with "demands from on high" and dealing with that can be stressful. This particular article is a bit of a... different approach to how other similar articles do it. In my opinion, it's a *superior* approach (I prefer One Big Article with sections rather than 14-15 smaller articles), but I can see pushback both from "this should really be 14 separate articles" as well as "this should just be part of the main 2 Maccabees article" (although... length constraints and summary style hopefully make clear that wouldn't be wise). I'm still a bit salty about the last time I was at FAC featuring supports from editors who knew the content and agreed it was a good summary, but opposes on prose grounds. But I suppose if at first you don't succeed, wait 15 years then try again... SnowFire (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SnowFire. You added the reference "Grabbe 2020" to 1 Maccabees, but that work is undefined in the article. Could you add the required ncite to the Bibliography section, or let me know the which work this refers to? -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 13:10, 18 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ActivelyDisinterested: I fixed this - sorry about that! Had a doc with various draft-y changes and it didn't all port perfectly when I decided I might as well do some work directly on the article rather than waiting. SnowFire (talk) 01:28, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You were right to check: the article is about a potential lectionary, not the NABRE. Veverve (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for creating this, is it based on/partly translated from the German Wikipedia article? Mccapra (talk) 08:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mccapra: Sorry, yes, some of it was - normally I'm pretty good at mentioning it in the edit summary but slipped my mind on this one since most of it was from the public domain Jewish Encyclopedia. I added the translated page for attribution to the talk page. SnowFire (talk) 17:30, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There's another 'faculty' discussion at 2023 March 5#Academic staff in Canada, Central America and the Caribbean, Oceania and South America. — Oculi (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of "perhaps" wouldn't change the meaning of the sentence, from how I understood it to be written: "arguing that perhaps Paul's side of the correspondence might possibly be legitimate" was problematic (though perhaps "grammar" isn't the correct term; it was simply an easy button on the app and seemed grammatical) because using both "perhaps" and "might possibly" was tautological and therefore unnecessary. Only one of those would suffice to communicate that Ramelli wasn't sure, and I chose to remove "perhaps" because it was easier to do that than rewrite the sentence, which taking out "might possibly" would've required. I don't have a problem with the speculation, since the citation comes from a scholar and is not original research. But I don't agree that my edit changed the meaning of the entire sentence. I've re-read it several times and don't see how removing "perhaps" would change the meaning, as you suggested.

However, if you think my reasoning is inadequate and/or the "perhaps" is necessary alongside "might possibly", then that's sufficient for me. Wanted to explain why I made the editorial decision that I made.

Best,
Packer1028 (talk) 04:45, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Packer1028: Sorry, guess I was a little brusque there. Checking back, I see what you're saying that the sentence already says "might possibly" and thus already communicates that there's uncertainty. I'll admit I didn't look too closely at your edit because the "grammar" explanation was very suspicious to me which caused the quick revert. I guess, looking back on it, I'm not committed to "perhaps" appearing there; I can only assume I added it there because "Paul's side of the correspondence" sounds a little authoritative, as if saying it really was Paul's side of the correspondence in wiki-voice, so "perhaps" was thrown in there to soften it. Anyway, I don't want to commit a WP:OWN violation, so if you have a better suggestion, go for it! I don't read Italian so can't say for sure, but the impression I got from the cited source is that Ramelli is real hazy on the matter, and wanted to emphasize that haziness. I've reverted myself for now. SnowFire (talk) 05:06, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	Thank you!
	Hello User:SnowFire! Thank you for contributing to the discussion at the Environment of the Brooklyn Earth Day Edit-a-thon event hosted by Sure We Can and Wikimedia New York City! Please enjoy this image of a mug-shaped planter made from recycled tires via Wikimedia Commons. Your presence and knowledge is appreciated! - Wil540 art (talk) 21:57, 24 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paragon Deku (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should alter it at Interregnum (Transjordan). Selfstudier (talk) 14:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Balthier. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I don't seek to change anything related to your edit here. But just got curious about something. My impression of what qualifies as "defectors" here is anyone who is a Russian national. (This would include anyone within the ranks of Wagner group if they are participating in the rebellion/ mutiny/ whatever you want to call it.) Again, I'm not looking to make a change. I'm just interested in the definition most people are using. thanks, skakEL 18:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Skakkle: The word "Russian military" in front suggests that it was intended to mean specifically "defectors from the Russian military." Wagner members who followed Prigozhin's orders might have been traitors or rebels, but they wouldn't be defectors, since they're following the orders of their chain of command. Wagner defectors would be people who left Wagner to help the Ministry of Defence. SnowFire (talk) 19:12, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

gotcha, thanks skakEL 19:15, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Snowfire,

If you're going to propagate racial classification, please do so elsewhere. The world has enough problems without people validating false constructs. The fact that you went for DARVO tactics the moment someone refused to validate an identity built around race is telling. Immediate bad faith tactics. There's a reason why the scientific community doesn't use the term semite anymore, except for classifying language - it's because those classifications have no basis. They're taxonomic categories below subspecies. The problem is that the moment we validate someone's racial identity is the moment we link a real world referent to a taxonomic category whose existence we've just negated.

Since we were talking about the concept of etymology, which, of course, is the catalogue of a word's meaning across time, we can very clearly see that the coinage of the term goes back to Gottenberg school, who explicitly coined the term with racial connotations and conflated semites with Jewish people. As we both agree, there is no world where the definition of semite is independent of its etymology. Semites now, of course, refer to all the speakers of semitic languages, not a specific set within that set. So, if you're conflating anti-semitism and judeaphobia, then you're necessarily resorting back to a racial meaning. And if you're using racial terminology, then I'm afraid that you're classifying people by race.

Just out of curiosity, we DO both agree that race is a false construct, and that using racial classifications means that someone is classifying people by race, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:9880:3118:34:BD9B:6E7B:88ED:8977 (talk) 19:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond at Talk:Etymological fallacy, as this is a wider issue and not one related to me personally. SnowFire (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was directed to you personally because a) it was written here on your page with the opening "Hi Snowfire", and b) you unilaterally declared yourself to be the arbiter of something that you didn't fully understand before even conversing with another editor, not to mention immediate bad faith tactics and false accusations.

That said, we'll take your answer to be a no, and that you disagree with that presented last question. We expected the avoidance and the attempt to deviate the conversation elsewhere. That's enough to get a idea of your presuppositions. Racial classifications are racial classifications, Snowfire. If you're classifying people by race, and then you're classifying people by race. And if you're not, then you're not. Take a step back for a moment, and think about these last few interactions, though. If you know and understand that dividing people by taxonomic race has no basis in science AND that any racial terminology obviously necessitates a racial classification within the definition, then you also know that making said classification is a personal choice. A choice to classify people by race. A choice you continue to make, instead of acknowledging a simple and very fair statement that classifying people by race is racist.

Introspection time for you, Snowfire. 2607:9880:3118:34:6CD9:32AB:A274:9717 (talk) 16:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read my reply on Talk:Etymological fallacy? I'm guessing not, because you didn't respond to anything I brought up there. That's where I'll argue the merits of your changes to the article so that others can weigh in, because this is not a me vs. you matter. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. What you see as "declaring yourself to be the arbiter of something" is known on Wikipedia as "normal editing" (see WP:BRD). If you don't want to have to convince others of the merits of your change - which is totally understandable - I recommend writing a blog, unironically. Nobody is going to edit you there and you can say exactly what you'd like.

On your accusations of my personal beliefs, if you scroll up a little, you'll see that you're talking to somebody who actually filed a deletion request on categories that really were sorting people by discredited, bad notions of a "Semitic race." See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_19#Semitic_people_categories. Your claims that... following what reliable sources say on the matter of a word meaning... somehow endorses such classification as legitimate... is incomprehensible. Describing racists is not endorsing racists. SnowFire (talk) 17:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, your reply elsewhere is irrelevant because we're discussing here, regarding you and me specifically. No one else. You initiated this whole conflict with the DARVO tactics. I came here directly to you, regarding your rapey bully behaviour. Since I don't consent to a change of venue, there's no reason for me to go reply there. I've decided that we'll stay here. All discussions begin and end with your choice to propagate racism, as that is the only point we're discussing. Already, you've accepted these premises, and already you've thought up an obstructive reframing response instead of taking some personal responsibility for bad ideas. And already I've veto'd it because we've established that you're uncritically framing things through the lens of race.

The two words are not synonyms, as with Judeaphobia, there's an actual real world referent. No such referent with semite, unless used as a linguistic label. Hence why formal academia fully discourages using it in any other context but. Evidence that doesn't support your racist narrative, by the way. There's no real leeway for you here. If you accept the etymological definition (an etymological fallacy, fyi), then you've validated the existence of a racial class. If you reject the etymological definition, then what you're saying makes no sense unless you're literally talking about language.

There was no real "accusation" about your beliefs. You flatout acknowledged that you are using a racial definition, and then dug down when it was pointed out. You are exposed as a bigot. The core of racism is the classification of humans by race. And of course, as the evidence fully supports me in saying, there is no scientific justification for racism. Actually, there's literally no scenario where classifying people by race does not fall under racism. So, if your worldview necessitates the validation of racial identities, then that worldview can be invalidated and discarded. Racism is not a negotiation, Snowfire. Full stop. End of discussion. 2607:9880:3118:34:87F:C8B8:B905:6CA5 (talk) 12:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (de-indent) If you have reliable sources (see WP:RS for what that means here on Wikipedia) that directly present a different point of view than what's currently on the Etymological fallacy article, provide them at Talk:Etymological fallacy, and I'd be happy to attempt to workshop some consensus version that takes into account both the existing sources and your sources.
• I remain utterly baffled as to what you're getting at here - of course formal academia discourages this usage of "Semite". I completely, 100% agree with this. So why are you getting the impression that I think otherwise? I'm hoping that one of us is just deeply misinterpreting the other here, but I suspect you're the one who needs to slow down and make sure you're arguing with the right target.
• Finally, if you're just here to insult me for disagreeing with your edit, I don't think there's anything left to say. You aren't going to enjoy your time on Wikipedia if every time someone reverts or edits a change you made you accuse them of "rapey bully behavior" and being a racist for daring to do this. Articles are collaborative projects, meaning you need to learn to work with others. It's not that hard, the vast majority of editors have no problem doing this. Perhaps it's "introspection time" for you. SnowFire (talk) 17:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to do a GA review trade for reviewing Zarya (Overwatch)? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 21:47, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin: Sure, I can take a look at Zarya. I'll warn you that I don't have tons of GA reviews under my belt and the ones I have done haven't been for video game topics (and I managed to dig up a bizarre comment I made a decade ago claiming I did a GA review that I didn't... I can only assume I miswrote it.) That said, if you're okay with that, I can review the article. SnowFire (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, so long as you can identify good grammar and spelling, and make sure that the article is factually accurate, I think there shouldn't be any issue. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cukie Gherkin: It looks like Haleth just took the Zarya review, so feel free to suggest another article to review instead. Since I'd already read the Zarya article, I just put my more minor thoughts into direct copyedits instead. SnowFire (talk) 06:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No need, I can just review it. I only asked for Zarya since it's been sitting there for a while. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll still grab a VG GA review at some point in the future to pay it back, then. (Just maybe not right immediately.) SnowFire (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fire Emblem Engage you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 22:40, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Wikipedia:The rules of Wikipedia has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 8 § Wikipedia:The rules of Wikipedia until a consensus is reached. 192.76.8.66 (talk) 19:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chapters of 2 Maccabees you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chapters of 2 Maccabees you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Chapters of 2 Maccabees and Talk:Chapters of 2 Maccabees/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 12:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fire Emblem Engage you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fire Emblem Engage for comments about the article, and Talk:Fire Emblem Engage/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chapters of 2 Maccabees you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chapters of 2 Maccabees for comments about the article, and Talk:Chapters of 2 Maccabees/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SnowFire, I replied to someone with this name on Discord PM, if it was you, you've got messages :D If not, ignore. Feel free to follow up on that issue on my user talk as well. — xaosflux ^Talk 17:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar
		Your single reply on WP:MFD/WP:ISNS is really made Wikipedia be a better place. You're really inspired me, thank you for your work. EdhyRa (talk) 02:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you for your good work at Attalus I and for saving "my" FA ;-) Much of the hagiographical tone, which you rightly objected to, arose from my attempts to satisfy objections, at the article's 2004 FAC, about there not being enough on why Attalus was important. I was a newbie and I went along to get along, something I wouldn't do today. Paul August ☎ 15:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul August: Thanks, I appreciate it. I didn't actually notice you were the main author; I briefly looked at the original FAC but I guess it was a drive-by nom in retrospect, but assumed it was the nominator's work (who stopped editing in 2006). I probably would have tried to make the side comments a little friendlier if I'd realized it was you. ;-) But for what it's worth, it's clear that the article was one of the best in 2004, and it's still the same basic article now, so I'd definitely still credit the original work as standing the test of time. (I know I have some older pre-2010 articles that were IMO good for the era but might have some awkward parts to modern expectations.)

I will say that my interest was quite coincidental - Avilich moved the Kingdom of Pergamon article back in April, and then also immediately updated all the links to it, which I saw from my watchlist. I ended up moving it back, and there was a RM discussion that we both participated in at Talk:Kingdom of Pergamon. I just thought the article on Pergamon itself probably needed some updates after having to browse some sources to research the RM, hence why I was reading Hansen at all, and it was pure random chance of an occasional check of FARC that caused me to notice the Attalus discussion. SnowFire (talk) 05:43, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your kind words. Yes it was a drive-by nom by Sam Klein (user Sj, interesting user page), who later became a Wikimedia foundation board member, and who also, as it turned out, lived in the same town as me! Cambridge, MA. He was an organizer of the Boston-meetup, and he also organized the second (2006) Wikimania in Cambridge, and we did get to know each other somewhat as a result. Oh and he's continued to edit, so you must be thinking of some other editor who stopped editing in 2006. In any case, I was quite taken aback by his nomination of Attalus I, and was thrown head-first into the whole FA process. It is "my" one and probably only FA, since I have no intention of ever doing a self-nom. So thanks again. Paul August ☎ 13:22, 5 November 2023 (UTC) P.S. By the way I found your "side comments" perfectly friendly ;-)[reply]

Mea culpa regarding the removal of that merge tag. I appreciate you calling me out on that. Curbon7 (talk) 07:26, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SnowFire,

Why did you empty this category out of process? If you thought it should be deleted, you should nominate it for deletion at WP:CFD, not remove all of the contents. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Liz: I don't have a problem with the category, per se. The category is fine. My issue was with the articles within the category, all of which were made in the early days of Wikipedia and sourced to very sparse primary sources where the sources themselves each had, like, a paragraph on them (see link for example source). The topics are about as notable as individual Wikimedia Chapters, maybe less than even that. So the category emptying was merely a by-product. I did consider a pro-forma CFD, though, but that felt like pre-deciding the issue - if someone had reverted my redirects, I don't have an issue with the category. The one exception was International Auxiliary Language Association, which while probably still not notable, at least attempted to have secondary sourcing, but I felt like updating the categories there was still reasonable as a single article category doesn't make sense, and it's not quite the same as the other organizations anyway (it was more like a proto-Interlingua organization that folded after Interlingua became standardized). Happy to take guidance on what to do in future situations - like I said, going to CFD right away didn't feel proper as the category would be fine if the articles somehow ended up being kept. SnowFire (talk) 18:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Black lotus.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:00, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in case you haven't seen this, something you may like: the author of the book A City on Mars posted on their comic/blog a thanks to you (here):

Whoever made the A City on Mars wikipedia entry, bless you. Now when people argue against stuff that we didn't actually say, I'm just linking to the page.

I see that you created the page and wrote all its current content, so I thought you may like to see this. Cheers, Shreevatsa (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shreevatsa: Thanks for the ping. I do read SMBC but usually on a phone locked in portrait mode, which inexplicably hides the blog comments (it literally says "rotate phone to view") so I'd have missed that without you bringing it up. I did see a Tweet from Zach noting the Wikipedia article though, which was nice. SnowFire (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Kind regards. I wanted to thank you for your time to go through the last move discussion about the Guayana Esequiba and for explaining the decision to move. I wanted to express that I believe that the discussion was closer to a No consensus result, given the arguments from both sides, and ask if you could reconsider the outcome. I think that issues such as WP:NDESC can be solved by further expanding the article, as the Spanish version still has content to be translated, for instance. Best wishes and many thanks in advance. NoonIcarus (talk) 11:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus: Thanks for the note. I don't think NDESC worries about article content, really - it's a guideline on specifically on one type of article title and why it's done. So expanding the article isn't that important to the question of what name it has.

• To be clear, I don't think the claims of alleged neutrality are so overwhelmingly important as to decide the RM on the spot. However, there's something to be said that if there are multiple acceptable options, just go with the simple !vote-counting consensus when in doubt. In other words, even if it's considered that the opposers made their case that the old title didn't have neutrality problems, that may simply mean that the old title isn't "vetoed", and there needs to be an affirmative case made to overturn the proposed new title (or to have a majority in !votes, of course). RM discussions aren't closed by simple !vote counting, but when RM discussions are closed "against" the majority, there need to be extra-good reasons to do so in general. SnowFire (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you kindly for the note. Even if I don't share them, I understand the motives for the closure better and I respect them.

I wanted to let know if it would be alright if I started a move review on this regard. I'd come back and let know one the discussion is created. Kind regards, --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NoonIcarus did you ever open a move review? I have concerns about the close as well, considering 13-10 is definitely not a consensus. JM (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JM2023: To be clear, I didn't just shrug and count !votes either, hence the detailed close. I won't repeat what I wrote there, but please re-read it. A number of the oppose !votes were on matters along the lines of "this article is about the territory", but at the time of closure, it clearly wasn't. Rather, the article was mostly on the dispute. The supporters made a better case on that point that renaming it to be explicitly about the dispute matched the article content better. SnowFire (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@JM2023: Just did now, as shown below. I wanted to receive some more feedback from SnowFire first before starting. As a side not, I just translated the Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute#Territorial organization, which was one of the sections that I was referring to in the Spanish version that talks about the territory and not only about the dispute. Its category (in Spanish) stil has plenty of information, including flora and fauna, so I'm sure that further additions can be included. --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:43, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Guyana–Venezuela territorial dispute. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. NoonIcarus (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hiya, thanks for your edit to the Arts. You're probably right about trimming video games. When you trim, can you also move any of the removed references out of bibliography too please? e.g. to further reading or delete. Any help on getting it referenced up to b-class would be gratefully received! thank you Tom B (talk) 13:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,852 views (618.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of A City on Mars at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BuySomeApples (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Guto Puw, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL" error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit[4] is not the way to approach the issue of how to handle periodization. Peter ^Isotalo 19:46, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a more personal warning, since you've been around a while. When another editor removes unreferenced content you added and leaves an explanation, the solution is not to create text walls that suggest they are the number one threat to Wikipedia. Further, if you are concerned about biting the newcomers, it's probably not best for your next reply to say I've been on Wikipedia since 2006. Don't cite the deep magic at me. This kind of reaction to a policy-based reversion of one edit is harmful. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:55, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: I am absolutely boggling. You've completely and utterly misread the situation. All you had to do was say you disagreed with my edit, and I'd have been happy to discuss - hence the original comment. This is classic Bold, revert, Discuss. My "wall of text" was the discuss part attempting to defend a rather banal edit, and you refusing to engage or explain what your problem is other than citing WP:V at me. Understand that the "discuss" part goes for the reverter, too, not just the bold user. And at the end of the day, I'd have been willing to even concede the matter, it's one friggin' sentence and an image. If you had literally said "I hate the image and think your added statement is way overstated", it'd have been fine. Instead you've accused me of citation misconduct when I literally had just come back from the public library after pulling down scholarly journal articles to read along with a random 1928 book to see if there were cool images to scan in since they just hit the unequivocal public domain. (Yes, going to the library... for fun... after work... to get more citations for a scholarly topic (diffs if you're curious, cleaning up an article marked as unreferenced for a long time). This is the person you're accusing.) So I guess now we're arguing about the argument. And you're offering a user talk page warning for... a single edit that I haven't placed back in the article since I wanted your buy-in? You understand that even if this was some really incorrect edit for the purpose of argument, it's only actually a problem if an editor keeps putting it in the mainspace? Normally people get warned over violations of that kind that turn into edit wars or repeated cases of sloppy behavior, not warned for discussing the matter on the talk page!

For the above comment you've quoted, you've also completely and utterly misread me. That was not an attempt to exert some non-existent authority (it's Wikipedia), but rather to tell you that I might know a few things about how these policies work, and specifically in the 2006-2010 environment that was far less cited than 2024 Wikipedia (go check what articles looked like back then). Plenty of people made good-faith, useful contributions to articles without immediately adding in sources. (And in my case... I already said I got it from a book at the library, and had intended on going back with more!)

I won't repeat it here, but your statements on WP:V are deeply wrong. I hope that you've just misphrased them but you keep doubling down. Head over to Recent Changes patrol and start reverting every edit without a source and you'll see (actually, don't). You've already stated your disdain for "Wall of Text"s, but you've touched on an issue that multiple Wikipedia essays have been written about, and I took you as good-faith saying you believed that rather than cynically citing it. Which is why I wrote why that was not the reason to. I'm a long-term editor, I don't care, but if you pull that on newbies, you're going to create those angry users on Twitter who talk about how Wikipedians just revert them for no reason, even when they're improving the article.

Also, you accused me of WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior in the talk page. I didn't do a damn thing that was battlegroundy, I was just being friendly and trying to explain myself in that first response, and only kept the heat at the same level after. I'd have been happy to discuss the content and move on. You're the one who turned this into a battleground by accusing me. And I'm still happy to de-escalate and just discuss the situation like normal-ass people. If you want.

But maybe you need to hear all of this from someone other than me. SnowFire (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have repeatedly explained my content concerns, including in the original edit summary. You're an experienced editor who knows policy, so I had hoped you would provide a source if you wanted to keep the content you added. The warning is for your subsequent massive walls of text which contain unrelated arguments and thinly veiled personal attacks, such as the one above. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: I will keep this short. Have you noticed... that... I didn't re-add the material? And instead engaged on the talk page, which is what editors are supposed to do? That you're being a sore winner by harping on me for one mainspace edit of one harmless "how to phrase this caption" issue (which you could have just boldly fixed if you disliked the word "cathedrals") and one sentence that you've still failed to simply contest as inaccurate on content? That I already said on the talk page I was in the process of looking for more information on? That you've thus wildly escalated a totally boring, normal difference of opinion into baseless claims of personal attacks for a legitimate, serious attempt to engage with you on something you said? SnowFire (talk) 17:58, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

—Kusma (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 9,015 views (751.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been woefully behind on reading ACOUP and finally caught up. It was nice to see that someone implemented Dr. Devereaux's objections at the Sarisa article, and always nice to find a fellow fan. Cheers! Seltaeb Eht (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The SD on Seleucid era is too terse; can you improve it?

Anno Graecorum redirects here: would it be reasonable to apply "Calendar era used in ancient Greece" to that redirect article? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JMF: Hmm, I disagree. I'm very much a "short description should be short" person myself. It doesn't have to explain anything, just verify the "category" of thing. So I'm personally fine with just "Calendar era."

If we had to have more information, to be accurate, it should be reflected that Anno Graecorum was used in the whole Greek empires era (and for some years after they fell, e.g. by the Parthians / Jews), so a much wider range than just "Ancient Greece". (And its most notable user, the Seleucids, didn't control any territory in Greece!) So maybe "Calendar era used during Hellenistic period"? I think I personally still prefer just "Calendar era" but the second one is mostly accurate, at least. SnowFire (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you aren't familiar with {{annotated link}}? In a see also list, it reproduces the short description so that readers unfamiliar with a topic can get a clue as to what an article is about and why it might be relevant to their enquiries.

To take Anno Graecorum for example, "calendar era" tells me nothing that I can't infer from the "Anno aaaaaaa" notation.

Coming back to the original (and continuing) purpose of SDs – to facilitate searches – an ultra-terse SD like this one is a waste of space. It offers the searcher nothing. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:16, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm familiar with annotated link, but not really someone who adds it myself. I do agree that the very terse SDs aren't a great fit for annotated link, but I also don't think annotated link fits 100% of the time anyway. Anyway, no worries - I don't care THAT much about it, I usually just think of SDs as something the equivalent of mandatory parenthetical disambiguators so that obscure John Q. Does says "Olympic swimmer (1934-1998)" or the like so you know if it's the right person or not. It's pretty moot in this case since someone autocompleting with "Seleucid e..." is probably not going to be confused by any of the options anyway, of course. SnowFire (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is a "tension" between those who conceive of SDs as a search aid when you already know what you want v. those whose concept is a discovery tool to identify for you that there are related concepts awaiting your discovery – an amplified See also, given that some article titles seem coded for the cognoscenti. You may have guessed that I'm in the latter camp, get people out of their echo chambers. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 21:11, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which means that "Calendar era used during Hellenistic period" hits the spot perfectly, thank you. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 09:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See the example Sheriff's Star, where in changing from one acceptable number format to another you reintroduced substantive errors in grammar and punctuation. If changing fraction formats, please just change those formats. Chris the speller ^yack 04:00, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chris the speller: I am and have been checking each and every one as I go through, which is why I didn't mass revert everything earlier and quickly. I missed a single "a" in the diff, yes, and had I spotted it I would have kept it. There were several valid changes in the diff that made it hard to spot the single extra character. Thank you for catching that, but feel free to just fix that kind of thing - if there's a mass change made, then it has to get undone, then undoing it can be messy and a stray comma can get lost. It happens. SnowFire (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I originally sent this to Desertarun ‎but only realised that you were the one who made the new article.

I don't know if the entire "disappearance" article is going on the new article, but it could possibly be able to include the July 2 take off and messages; I have the book "Finding Amelia" by Ric Gillespie and ignoring whether TIGHAR's theory bears credibility, he offers a good through detail of the search and possible radio signals that may or may not have been coming from the plane. I have also included views of Earhart family members as to how they feel about some of the theories.

By the way, I think the main Earhart article could use some concision to simplify the length or descriptions of events. The description of the main image is superfluous, saying "Earhart beneath the nose of her Lockheed Model 10-E Electra, March 1937 in Oakland, California, before departing on her final round-the-world attempt prior to her disappearance"; the words "before departing on her final round-the-world attempt prior to her disappearance" could be omitted as it would be very clear when the photo was taken and doesn't necessary relate to the vanishing as that was months away. The words "It is generally presumed that she and Noonan died somewhere in the Pacific during the circumnavigation, just three weeks prior to her fortieth birthday" are an odd placement to me, as in the event any of the theories (crash and sink or Gardner island castaway) are ever confirmed, it could be misleading, particularly if for the sake of argument, it is the Gardner Island castaway theory that is confirmed, it would have been possible she would have lived to have seen her 40th birthday, if she had survived on Gardner for some time before perishing. Speaking of which, there is a possible article that could be used for the recent sonar discovery in which David Jourdan (himself a crash and sink theorist) cautions, "It is impossible to identify anything from a sonar image alone as sound can be tricky and the artifact could be damaged in unpredictable ways altering its shape. For that reason, you can never say that something is (or isn’t) from a sonar image alone, https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/30/travel/amelia-earhart-missing-plane-pacific-ocean-scn/index.html 80.43.251.32 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 80.43.251.32 (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC) 80.43.251.32 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A) I think this kind of material is better for the talk page. B) I did not create the new article - Desertarun spun it off, but with a reasonable consensus on the talk page first. I'm just not certain the title was correct, and possibly the scope as well.

I'd rather reply on the merits on the relevant talk page, as it's a wider scope issue for the community, not convincing me personally. I will say that I personally don't consider "Finding Amelia" a super-reliable source, unfortunately (but per above, the good news is that you don't necessarily have to convince me, just the wider talk page consensus). SnowFire (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real page has been renominated for deletion. You are being notified because of your participation in the previous MFD. Your comments to the discussion are welcome at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia/Ruda Real (2nd nomination). Thank you — CactusWriter ^(talk) 02:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to work on implementing the changes discussed in January at WT:GAN -- that is, the ability to re-attribute a review to a different reviewer. Can you give me an example of a review you would want re-attributed, so I can use it in the testing? Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Christie: Thanks for getting back to this. Talk:Pitfall!/GA1 was the relevant review most recently (possibly some old reviews too, but I can't be as sure they were misattributed), which was a page created by Indrian but reviewed by me. I also might hesitantly suggest that if your script is reassessing old reviews, it be "generous" to avoid complaints of missing credits (i.e. don't take away perceived incorrect credits - I doubt Indrian would complain in this particular case, but there might be old reviews formatted weirdly or genuine dual-reviews or the like.). SnowFire (talk) 16:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is done. I'll post at WT:GAN explaining how to add a correction. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Carlos Frey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NewsHour.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]