It looks like you are trying to help maintain the integrity of the page. Thank you thank you thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.171.17.150 (talk) 04:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My reasoning for the term "yellow fever" being derogatory is that it specifically contains the term "yellow", which is a racist term used to describe East Asian people since they are perceived to have "yellow skin".

Furthermore, the term "fever" implies a disease. Hence, the term "yellow fever" implies that the person who possesses/expresses yellow fever is diseased or deranged.

A term which contains an explicitly racist term within it, whilst also alluding to an illness, is inherently derogatory. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compare the term "yellow fever" to this --> "nigger addiction". I have just made up this term now to describe any non-Black person who has a sexual preference for Black people. The term follows the exact same etymological formula as "yellow fever". Do you accept this term, or do you object to it because it contains a racist term within it? In the same way, the term "yellow fever" is unacceptable and should be considered "derogatory" rather than just "slang". Jargo Nautilus (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You've made a bizarre and inaccurate assumption in thinking that I don't consider this phrase derogatory, which my edit summary did not imply at all. I reverted your change because 1) it added inaccurate details about the term and 2) it was not at all aligned with correct style for disambiguation entries. I have now modified the entry to include this word that is of the utmost importance to you, while still following MOS:DABENTRY. And in future you should not try to command other editors to "not challenge" your edits. Discussion is a constant and necessary part of Wikipedia. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The word "yellow" when used to describe Asian people is already widely considered to be racist on a level paralleling the words "nigger" or "wog", etc. Due to Asians living in the West (especially the United States) frequently referring to themselves as "yellow", the term's derogatory meaning has somewhat subsided. The same phenomenon has occurred with the words "nigger" and "wog"; many Black Americans refer to their friends as "my nigger" (usually spelt "nigga") and the term "wog" seems to be tolerated by certain Greek Australians; for example, there is a famous Greek Australian YouTube channel called "Superwog" which makes fun of this term.

The term "yellow fever" makes a direct reference to the concept of Asians having yellow skin. This is similar to terms like "Banana", "Egg", "Twinkie", etc. All of these terms are inherently racist, even if only mildly so. The term "Banana" is both equally used with pride and with hatred; Asian Americans who identify more as (White) American tend to embrace the term, whereas Asian Americans who identify more as Asian American tend to use it as a pejorative term for these "assimilated" Asian Americans. Meanwhile, the term "yellow fever" is almost exclusively used as a pejorative. It is very rarely presented as a source of pride.

The term "yellow fever" is not only racist but also sexist. It specifically describes White men who are attracted to Asian women. The frequency of the term being used to describe White women who are attracted to Asian men is extremely low. In fact, the sorts of people who are opposed to the former, known colloquially as "WMAF", are usually completely fine with the latter, known colloquially as "AMWF"; in fact, they even often encourage the latter, since most of the people using this term are, themselves, Asian males. As evidence of this, if you look through the article "Asian fetish", there is absolutely no mention of White women with a preference for Asian men. There is a comment about this in the Talk section of the article, with someone mentioning K-Pop male pop stars, but there is no reference about this in the article. The article talks almost exclusively about White men who sexually predate on Asian women due to their perceived "submissiveness" and them being "petite". There is no mention of the same phenomenon occurring between the opposite genders.

Furthermore, as if the term couldn't have another layer of offensiveness to it, the term "yellow fever" is also offensive to people who actually have the disease "yellow fever". Just like how calling a healthy person a "downy" is offensive to people who actually have down syndrome, saying that a White man who likes Asian women has "yellow fever" is offensive to people who might actually be suffering from the very real disease which is also called "yellow fever" (and I do not think this a coincidence that these two terms share their names). And it's also insulting anyway to insinuate that someone's personal sexual preferences should render them diseased.

The term "yellow fever" has entered the common Asian American (and Australian, as far as I know) lexicon. I believe that most people understand exactly how offensive this term is, but they use it anyway because they have been desensitized to the offensiveness of the term. It's just like how you see young people frequently using the term "Nibba" because they don't have the "N-word pass" which would allow them to say "Nigga" or "Nigger".

I have come up with this term "nigger addiction" to demonstrate the ludicrousness and hypocrisy that this term "yellow fever" should be so widely used and accepted despite being so incredibly offensive.

And when I was saying "don't challenge my edits", that's because the original description was a load of horsesh*t. The term is almost exclusively used to refer to White men who sexually predate on Asian women. It doesn't have anything to do with any other combinations of races or genders. And it's more than just slang; it's vulgar, derogatory, and offensive. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 18:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're extremely confused. I've just explained that I wasn't debating the "derogatory" part of your description, and in fact left that word in the entry, so why have you just delivered a diatribe about how offensive you find the term, as though I've done the opposite? Maybe you're confused about why I've shortened the description so much, in which case I would point you (again) to MOS:DABENTRY. Descriptions on these pages should only contain as much detail as is helpful for disambiguating between topics, and what I've left there is more than enough to distinguish it from the other topics. Disambiguation pages need not convey the full weight of a term; that's what the article is for. And regardless of what you thought of the description, when you write "don't challenge my edits", the message that sends is "my opinion is absolute and unquestionable", which will get you nowhere constructive. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The term doesn't have its own specific article. In that case, this entry should be removed entirely from the Disambiguation article since there is nowhere to redirect to. The article "Asian fetish" is a separate but related article. There are many problems with the Asian fetish article. I have proposed that it be split into two articles. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen your proposal and it seems like a decent idea to me, although I'd be surprised if there isn't content on Wiki already for fetishism of Asian culture. Can't say I know where it is though. That said, the article as it stands has quite a bit of information on the concept referred to by the "yellow fever" phrase, so the entry has plenty of merit. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The phrase "Yellow fever" is only relevant to the Asian sexual fetish frame of the article, rather than the cultural frame. I'll leave the current version of the disambiguation page as is. If the article does end up being split in half, then I'll relink to the relevant half. By the way, I'm pretty sure there are pages for obsessions with specific countries, such as Japan, China, and France. However, there isn't really an article already in existence which specifically discusses Asian obsession (aka fetishism) as a whole. This is the article, but it mostly talks about sexual fetishism rather than a more innocent obsession with culture. I personally believe that the two concepts of cultural fascination and racist sexual fantasies should not be conflated. Prior to my edits of the Asian fetish article, it seemed to imply that sexual fetishization and cultural fetishization go hand-in-hand, which is simply not the case. For example, if I'm interested in the French language, does that mean I'm also interested in French women? Probably, but not undoubtedly. There are many people who can be interested in or obsessed with foreign cultures without becoming sexual predators. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And even if I was interested in French women, that still wouldn't necessarily make me a sexual predator. There is no direct correlation between being sexually interested in a particular race (ethnic group) and being a sexual predator. However, the article Asian fetish implies that all White men who are obsessed with Asian women are sexual predators. Furthermore, the article primarily talks about White men fetishizing various Asian ethnic groups. There is no mention of, say, Black men fetishizing Asian women, or White women fetishizing Asian men. I think there might be some mention of White men fetishizing Asian men, though. Jargo Nautilus (talk) 20:25, 19 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please forgive ignorance -- digesting the entire WP knowledge base takes time -- but I don't understand what you mean by "If you manage to get this to stick on the Roblox article". What's wrong with the Roblox article, or what do you mean by "stick on" it ? Could perhaps have more concisely referenced just the Memes piece -- reference included in the Roblox piece, but this way it includes far more useful pointers. Took some time to untangle the "Oof" usages of many others; this was an attempt to archive some of that knowledge in a useful way in response to finding nothing relevant on WP. With many thanks for editorial consideration. --Mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by WordSurd (talk • contribs) 17:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for coming here to talk, and I appreciate that it takes a long while to get used to the various policies and guidelines on Wikipedia. There's almost no end to them. And in this case, there's an entirely different set of guidelines because Oof is a disambiguation page, not a regular article. You can read all about them at WP:DISAMBIGUATION, but the purpose of such a page is just to help readers quickly find the correct article when they searched for a term that has more than one meaning. So, we do not add content or sources to disambiguation pages; we only add entries with a single link to a wiki article that has the information they want. In this case, that would be the Roblox article. The problem is that currently this meme doesn't appear on that article. You would have to add it to the article, and see if other editors agree that it belongs, since not every meme is notable enough to be worth including on Wikipedia. That's what I mean by the "sticking" part. Just seeing if it doesn't get removed. Let me know if you need more information. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I just noticed you removed my disambiguation entry for acronym "Out of Facility" which pointed to the article "Out of Office". The disambiguation entry contained the information tying "OOO" with "OOF" and did have the reference, just not to something with initials "OOF". These two acronyms are used interchangeably in the tech industry (especially any region with Microsoft employees). I get that you removed OOF because it doesn't have a "out of facility" article all of its own. Could the OOF disambiguation entry be restored if an "out of facility" redirection to the "out of office" article is created? "OOF mail" is a subculture thing that nonetheless gets poked and ridiculed in tech workplaces with ex-Microsofties, but perhaps it's not so well known that it should have its own full article. I have added a list item for OOF to List_of_business_and_finance_abbreviations#O. Frazierjason (talk) 19:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While it's certainly better if a topic has its own article, the actual minimum requirement according to the disambiguation project is that some mention of the term appear in an article. Now that it's been added to the abbreviations list, that technically counts. Personally, I feel like only encyclopedic topics that could possibly have their own article one day should appear on disambiguation pages, but that's not the consensus. I can add an entry for "out of facility". -- Fyrael (talk) 19:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like I'm not the only advocate of adding an "Oof" sound/meme entry here. I have not gotten back to this because the Roblox page is locked, and I have not yet figured out how to propose adding an Oof sound/meme note there (further unlikely accepted if there have been problems with page alteration); I believe that was your requirement for allowing the Oof disambiguation entry, rejecting the references I proposed ^[1] and ^[2] which *did* make the connections. There must be a better way than leaving the whole situation wedged by a lock on a different page. -- WordSurd (talk) 19:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To clarify a few things:

• I did not "reject" any references. References of any quality simply don't belong on disambiguation pages, as is stated on the overview: WP:DABYESNO. Although I would reject the second one, as fan wikis very much do not qualify as reliable sources.
• It is not "my" requirement that the term be mentioned in the linked article. It's a guideline that is very directly stated at MOS:DABRELATED.
• I did not know the Roblox article was locked. I can see how that made my suggestion seem a bit unreasonable, although it's not difficult to request an edit. The official method is detailed at Wikipedia:Edit requests, but even if you make a casual request on the talk page it will get a response.

And yes, multiple people have tried to add this Roblox entry to the disambiguation page, with varying levels of quality. To be frank, the Roblox user base seems to skew quite young and so inappropriate edits to related pages are rather expected (that's why the Roblox page is protected), especially when you combine that topic with a meme. I honestly feel like nobody will care about this "oof" thing in like 3 years, but I'm not super familiar with the game or the meme so I'll leave it up to editors on that page to decide. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My apologies; no personal blame intended (grateful for assistance realizing what I'm radiating without thinking); just slow learning how to do things, unfairly blaming the messenger, and short on time to devote. Persistence is because I've been surprised how quickly [so] many people recognize this sound -- which I had neither heard, nor heard-of before -- and how much invested affection has been devoted to a brief burst of audio. While "that was my childhood" has been sad to hear often repeated, it's a fragment of culture that may be around for a while to come. It's also my first vignette of intellectual property law applied to an isolated sound, which will be interesting to watch. Thanks for all your help. -- WordSurd (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Fyrael,

Thank you for creating Eat Your Heart Out (band).

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

The subject meets WP:BAND criterion #5, but it's not clear that it meets WP:GNG despite that.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with ((Re|Rosguill)). And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

_signed, Rosguill ^talk 00:54, 12 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the implicit explanation with a policy reference.

While happy to defer to greater experience, I find your explanation -- especially drawing from the text of MOS:DABPIPE -- somewhat contradictory to the changes you made.

As you expanded to me above (under Oof), Disambiguation pages are handled differently, and I have not read everything there yet, so please forgive subjectiveness and clumsiness, where the policy probably is clear, but it seems unusually verbose (adding information, duplicating fluff now stored in multiple places) to spell out in so many words that one "community" also extends into the adjacent state, and that the other "community" is in a particular county, where the entries are locations, not the communities, but I will digest more how-to, recognizing that I am probably wrong.

I noticed only AFTER posting that there is also a Ceres *Township* in NY, already on the list, which turns out to enclose the Ceres hamlet, though nothing on the page reflects that, so there is probably a better way to include the NY/PA split, and township name, though the hamlet is not the township, and I don't know what township or equivalent is inhabited in PA, and it's not clear that county names help anything -- it's just that one connection goes to a county page; perhaps Ceres, NY (with no entry of its own) should reference Ceres Township, NY, which does have an entry, though it probably also needs expanding.

As for not hiding sources, MOS:DABPIPE seems to specifically say use #REFERENCE(s), rather than pipe(s), when that is the objective, but that is not what you did. The Ceres, NY entry actually goes to Genesee, NY which would by that reasoning seem to call for a reference. The bar seemed succinct, but I will read up on the policy. I followed the example of many other pages in using a pipe to link to the page with the information, while showing what is relevant locally... as Oof is not Roblox, just a topic partially found there... no obfuscation intended... but I have not looked at that page in a while and may remember inaccurately... and maybe common pipe usage is in error. Ceres, OK -- as a small unincorporated place, with only a one-word entry under Noble County (also perhaps deserving of #REFERENCE treatment to not hide that ?) seems unlikely to get its own entry any time soon, though now there is a dangling link that will probably never gain a destination.

Grateful for your articulation; mostly spelling out confusion that I will clarify with reading.

Also trying out signing, so ignore if wrong.

WordSurd (talk) 18:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The IP is removing sourced content from a featured article, and has been reverted by others. If you believe content should be removed, it needs to be discussed on the talk page. Эlcobbola _talk 22:02, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you read my edit summary before reverting? The link in the source doesn't lead to anywhere that has information. It is essentially unsourced. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And also the edit that I restored didn't remove any content. It changed the wording slightly. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you read WP:DEADLINK? You're removing content from a featured article, and that removal is disputed. That content has been there over ten years. Эlcobbola _talk 22:08, 5 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Characters of Diablo 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/Characters of Diablo 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. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:31, 12 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This does not make Wikipedia look good. In fact, it only endorses the widely held viewpoint that the "free" encyclopedia is controlled by a relatively small cabal of users with a clique-ish sense of "right"

I made this point incredibly clear. In any other Wikipedia page, if something is irrelevant or unsourced, it is removed with prejudice. This however apparently has to do with progressive values and thus cannot be questioned.

An article regarding the MP 40, a firearm largely revolving around the second world war - operated by, exclusively, men in military uniform or (much more rarely) combat partisans, 98%+ of whom, again, male.

Why would the article have 3 "action" photos, with soldiers in the field, a German medallion recipient, and... an unknown female partisan holding one for a staged photo.

Unless she was culturally significant ("MP 40 Maggie") or otherwise had some overarching value to add to the article, there is no reason for her to be pictured. Not only that, but it creates an inaccurate representation of the users and operators of this weapon.

Absolute cowardice to avoid acknowledging this fact or even making the slightest attempt at rebuttal, but instead silencing somebody who was quite literally "asking for relevance and sources"

You do absolutely no credit to Wikipedia by your actions. As if this place couldn't get damaged enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.208.5 (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you are incredibly bitter about your perception of Wikipedia, but refuse to actually listen to its other editors. Zero people have told you that your input is not wanted. They simply disagree with you and have told you to go to the talk page so that maybe a consensus can be reached instead of repeatedly swapping the page back and forth. This is a completely reasonable request, which is why that's the behavior strongly encouraged by WP:BRD, as you have already been told. It's not bureaucracy to discuss things; it is in fact the only way to have a project like Wikipedia where users attempt to collaborate on content. I have already opened the discussion on the appropriate page, so I won't waste time by duplicating it here. Baseless name-calling like this section title will not get you anywhere, nor will claims of political bias. Just argue the facts in the correct place. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:45, 25 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Fyrael, can you please follow up on Ibraheem Samirah's anti-semitism and his promotion of white-washing it through probable sock puppetry if you've got time. I've noticed you've been involved with re-establishing some of his potential edits. Thank you for your anti-vandalism efforts, Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for reverting the article (Sabai) back to its previous content. This anonymous user keep messing up this article with provocative edition 3 times this week. I'm just new to Wikipedia and quite busy. Hope there will be somebody safeguarding the article. I don't know how to request the administrator to protect the article! If you can please help! Appreciate it! <3 Maine Ferrick (talk) 14:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! The anonymous user keep dismantling the sourced text. Everything is messing up again! Please help protect the article! My gratitude! Maine Ferrick (talk) 14:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Page now protected from editing by anonymous users for a month [1]. Thank you both for your efforts! ~ mazca ^talk 14:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a complex story is that proposition, for recent Tir na nOg undone additions - reverted to past form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.134.255 (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm sorry to have undone some additions you've made, but I truly cannot understand what that content is supposed to mean. Could you let me know what your source material is, so maybe I can see what it says and we can get it onto the page with better English? I understand how hard it can be on here if you're not a native speaker, so I'd like to help. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Druid Path, Marah Ellis Ryan, 1917. It's a collection of short stories with the Title story included being the rather formatted Tir na nOg rendition. An in depth description of its content can be difficult to organize but my intent wasn't vandalism - as just a start of a discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.134.255 (talk) 20:57, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, another user reverted your message here because they thought it was related to other vandalism on my page. Thank you very much for the source! I'm trying to parse through it now. -- Fyrael (talk)

I sourced it as through the Celtic Revival, as I did those other additions to that sentence with those IP addresses, in that article. She seemed to have achieved some acclaim and to me the story seems relevant/original etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.134.255 (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Like I pointed out, I think she had talent. My involvement into her led me along the lines of getting this far/here etc. I think she took herself seriously and would enjoy an elevation in her Revival ability but I don't want to spend much time on it like this as waiting for you understanding of a read through/parsing might not mean much anyway as Wikipedia's standards for a reliable source cited could be what it should be about for us here at this juncture, I'd guess (for a short cut out of this with better things to be doing now etc.)?

Don't tell me you're a fan? Ha ha

Either way, let's go now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.185.100 (talk) 19:09, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[2] : I would agree that unit of action is not a proper name - it slipped through my scrutinization. But, and let this please sink in, having mere names on top of a list that also contains the concept physical unit deep down below is just plain ridiculous. And so then is the alphabetical ordering of the headlines starting with "arts". How often did you wish to look up a "1997 album by the Australian band Regurgitator" when you were wondering about "units"? Please. Don't make me loose my trust in WPns -- Kku (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If any disagreement at all from other editors is going to make you lose faith in them, then it's simply going to happen. Conflict and discussion are unavoidable in a collaborative project. Anyway, if you want to promote popular entries there are a few options such as creating a common uses bit as outlined in MOS:DABCOMMON or just reordering the categories. We do not have to be slaves to alphabetical order for the categories (and actually they're already not in full alphabetical). Adding a pointless "proper name" hat to the Arts category simply wasn't the way to do it. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd also like to point out that when deciding what to promote we need to focus on the topics that we think users are most likely seeking, possibly using page views as our best metric, rather than what any individual believes is most important/educational/intellectual. I'm very pro-science myself and understand the desire to put those ahead of the more frivolous entertainment stuff, but I think it's important to respect the purpose of disambiguation pages. And I'm not saying the Arts entries on Unit are the most sought after, as I haven't looked at any stats yet. Just trying to prevent future conflict. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Hi
	Hi Fyrael, Thank you for the kind guidance as though i have the knowledge for my subject im new to the wiki. Is this the right way to send a message to you? or is there another way? Please let me know. Appreciate - RORA RORAGEMS (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that certainly works, although you can also use plain text like this. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would this be better? I think this enhances the chances of people actually figuring out what that link refers to (not everyone knows Shroud's year of birth):

• Shroud (video game player), Michael Grzesieka, streamer and former Counter-Strike: Global Offensive professional player

Let me know what think, thanks for the tips! Tschis (talk) 20:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nobody would need to know the year of birth to find him. He's the only video game player and in fact the only person in the entire list. If someone arrived there looking for a player or streamer, how would they not recognize the current entry as clearly the one they're looking for? We're meant to use only as much detail as is useful to differentiate between the topics listed and I don't see how the extra details you've added set this entry apart from the others more than simply "video game player" already does. If you're thinking that the year of birth is not very helpful, I totally agree. It's useful for pages like James Carey where all the entries are people and you might only know some historical event they were part of, so editors end up including the year on lots of disambiguation entries out of habit or something. If you removed the year, I wouldn't complain. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry that my tone might've been more critical than I intended, but I'm afraid I do genuinely think this is one of those times that the guidance "in many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary" applies. I'm open to hearing your ideas though, if you believe we need to take further steps to differentiate from the other entries. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don't worry, I understand your point of view. I'd personally prefer it to be more intuitive than "just enough to differentiate", but that's in the realm of personal taste. I took long to reply because I did not get notifications about the response, sorry! All is good, will just leave it as it is. Thanks! Tschis (talk) 16:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

You reverted my edit stating (Reverted 1 edit by Galendalia (talk): Some weird vandalism? (TW)) on the article Afterlife_(disambiguation). It actually was not, I was going through and delinking where things had more than one link and I meant to hit skip on that page not save, so that is my fault. I apologize for that. Thank you for fixing it. Please be careful in using the term 'vandalism' though. I almost always start with AGF when I am patrolling :) Galendalia Talk to me ^{CVU Graduate} 17:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do assume good faith while editing and agree I shouldn't have jumped to that term before looking into the user, but I become highly suspicious when an editor's edit summary claims typo fixing but the actual edit is not similar to typo fixing. Vandals frequently use that type of summary in the hopes that nobody will bother to look at their edit and I dare say the vast majority of cases where a summary is completely mismatched to the edit are instances of malicious editing. I would suggest you not use that edit summary when trying to clean up extra links, since that's not typo fixing. And if it's a script or tool inserting that summary, then you should look into the settings of that tool because it's not being helpful. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is very relevant to the MW3 timeline, play the game first ABruhRandomUser (talk) 16:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pretty sure I have played that game, though I certainly don't need to have in order to make a call here. Just because it's "relevant to the timeline" of one game or series doesn't mean it belongs on a disambiguation page. Those guidelines exist for a reason. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:45, 31 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The cycle is WP:BRD. You here bold, I reverted, went to the talk page, and you still refuse to engage. Your behaviour needs to improve here. And you need to use the talk page. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not refuse to engage, you simply did give me the opportunity. You are also not correct. You very obviously performed the bold edit here, which I reverted. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Headbomb, I'm guessing you think that I'm the bold editor here because you stated in a summary that the entry was up for a year and then I removed it, but that's also quite wrong. You added it a year ago and it was immediately removed by another editor. Then last month yet another editor added it again, which I reverted. Its inclusion was not the status quo. -- Fyrael (talk) 22:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, it is me Kuro. I appreciate you fixing some edits I made on disambiguation pages. I do not know how to edit because I was new to the Wiki. Could you tell me how to edit correctly? Kuro the black dog (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You reverted my "good faith edit", justified by the Behave project not being popular enough yet. Interesting. More than 2,000 stars on GitHub defines a "not yet popular enough" project? By which standards?

--Bittner (talk) 23:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry that I did not link the guideline that applies to this. It is MOS:DABMENTION. Basically, the bare minimum that's required for an entry on a disambiguation page is that the topic is described on a wikipedia article that we can link to. So, if you believe this project is worth noting on a page like Behavior-driven development, then please add it there first with a reliable source. Then it would become appropriate for the disambiguation page. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 1C. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 24#1C until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 17:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ty 2601:246:5800:9250:1C4D:9EAD:48CF:4361 (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what did you do to my article on POV (band) and why? RocksAreAlive (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you click on the link that says "diff" in the edit history, you can see exactly what I did. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should probably also check out WP:OWNER. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Fyrael! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Do categories for people by century go by birth year?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing ((bots|deny=Muninnbot)) here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Spanish companies established in 2020 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

30000 inches of 36.37.154.99 (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello Fyrael, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, RAJIVVASUDEV (talk) 03:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Last day, you left a message on my talk page saying that I had "changed one or more words or styles from one national variety of English to another" but you didn't specify which edit were you referring to. Can you please mention the edit so that I don't make this mistake again? Thanks, Churot (talk) 10:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Churot, it looks like you've done it at least a couple of places, but I was referring to this edit. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, will surely try not to make these silly errors again. Churot (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Fyrael, Sorry, that was my first disambiguation edit. It is apparent I misread the red link instructions in the manual. I now understand red links better and will revise the contribution, by removing the red link, I will add a citation to Saga Transactions to provide context there. Please feel free to review my changes. DJSoundDog (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Fyrael, I noticed that you reverted my edit on the Mumbo Jumbo disambiguation page, which added the section "people" and included Oli Brotherhood, the Minecraft Youtuber known as Mumbo Jumbo, or simply Mumbo.

I'm not fully sure as to why you reverted my edit as I believe he is popular enough (7 million subscribers) to warrent mention here. If you could get back to me with an eplanation, I would appreciate it.

Thanks,

MandatoryMist77 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandatorymist77 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MandatoryMist77, I apologize for not including an explanation this time, but if you look through the history of that page you'll see repeated explanations on the many other occasions that someone has added this person. Per WP:DABYESNO and MOS:DABMENTION, we must at the very least be able to link to an article that describes them in order to have a valid entry. Disambiguation pages are meant to guide readers to a page that holds information on the topic they were seeking, not just to list every possible meaning, regardless of the popularity of that meaning. I hope this helps, and thank you for reaching out to discuss instead of immediately reverting back. -- Fyrael (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And furthermore, if you believe this or any other topic to be notable, then you can take a crack at writing a new article for it. Just find some sources and see how it goes with the article wizard. -- Fyrael (talk) 01:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	-
	hi RenataHanynets (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have you considered using WP:TW or WP:REDWARN (best in combination) for reports to AIV or other menial tasks? This makes everything faster and simpler. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Specifically regarding the whole Take Me To Church debacle - if for any reason you'd prefer not to be mentioned in the discussion, please let me know. Thank you for your contributions :)--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Walmart Soundcheck, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Cheetah Girls and Calle 13. 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) 05:58, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I'm not quite sure what you meant by "it's not a separate topic, just a list related to one already-listed topic)". I listed it under both medicine and chemistry because people looking it up may look in either section per MOS:LONGDAB: "Choose subject areas that don't overlap. If overlap can't be avoided (e.g., record labels that fit under both "Music" and "Businesses"): For one or two items that fit in multiple sections: duplicate these entries in all appropriate sections."

(Undid revision 1029096609 by Facts707 (talk) this really shouldn't have been duplicated before; it's not a separate topic, just a list related to one already-listed topic)

Cheers, Facts707 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I removed it because we should generally only have one entry covering each topic that's ambiguous with "Nitro", which in this case is Nitroglycerin. We should not be tacking on additional entries for articles that are just related to a topic that's already listed. In my opinion, this would be equivalent to having an entry for Nitro (a rapper I just made up) and then directly below it an entry for Nitro discography. That second entry is outside of what should be covered on a DAB page. -- Fyrael (talk) 02:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dynasty Warriors (film), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, I hope you're well :) I just wanted to let you know that the storylines section do not need to sourced for soap operas, per the guidelines :) I hope you have an amazing day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 13:37, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: instead of saying "the guidelines" could you link me to this guideline? Wikipedia has quite a few. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:34, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's WP:Soaps under the storylines section. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 20:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to add the authors name into the citation but it didn’t work. Can I please have help with just that one thing? CallOfDutyFan101 (talk) 20:47, 25 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You informed me that one of my edits did not have a proper edit summary or that my edits appeared unintentional. The edits were intentional and I will provide a better summary this time.

Thank you for your message and advice. I will surely check it. --00None00 (talk) 04:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see that you reverted many edits here for good reasons, but is there a reason why you did not warn User:Historian9724 for their poor edits? I will apply the warnings to their talk page. Warnings inform other users and recent changes patrollers if a user has previously vandalized articles. In the case of User:Historian9724, no one would know unless they looked at their contribution history. Not sure if you use Twinkle or Huggle, but if not, here is the warnings template page. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 21:46, 8 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Fyrael,

Thank you for your message about [[3]]'s Page

About references : I can't link to articles, as there weren't any But I have a copy of all the judgment decision whose dates are cited in the update. Do you need them as a proof ? how can we do ?

Thank you for your Help Akaouette (talk) 07:52, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Akaouette. If I'm understanding right, you mean that you have physical copies of the court documents? In that case we could use this template: Template:Cite court. You just need to supply some of the information the template expects, such as litigants, name of the court, date, etc. Also, do the documents give some kind of official case number? And also just out of curiosity, can I ask why you're in possession of those documents? Are you a journalist or similar? -- Fyrael (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Fyrael, Can you reach out to me directly on my email? DaVarryl Williamson. I need help edited my personal page. DaVarryl Williamson. I am happy to talk with you on the phone if you email me first. I will send you my phone number. Thank you. davarryl.williamson@gmail.com. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DaVarryl wililamson (talk • contribs) 21:43, 17 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added to the Lido Pimienta page myself because she in concert identified as pansexual. Last night. I would have taken footage had I known I'd needed it. I believed that specifying her sexuality would be empowering not only for other pansexuals but especially pansexuals of color, who are not often represented in media. But if you want to take that visibility away, it's really your loss. 2601:441:4580:9850:5810:87E5:4010:CA81 (talk) 01:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You got me. My primary goal on Wikipedia is to further marginalize as many minority groups as I can. My hands would probably be tied though if you bothered to find a published source like our policies require. Personally, I'm totally on board with you that we should just take editor claims of personal experience as fact. Actually just last night I went to a Trump rally where he also revealed he was pansexual. Nobody should question me adding that to his article, right? -- Fyrael (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A tag has been placed on Simon Tam (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi FRYRAEL, MANY THANKD FOR YOUR RESPONSE. WILL DO SO SOON. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anaushka&Bharat (talk • contribs) 15:59, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Greetings,

Came across your well studied response @ Talk:SEPTA regarding October 13 incident. During some other talk page discussions I came across similar questions about article Vs. relevance of crime to the given article. One user positioned problem statement as ""Which objective criteria to establish relevance can be devised?" I came up with some encyclopedic tools (Since one of the discussion still under way I can't give ref to that discussion to avoid charge of forum shopping) But I have copy pasted my opinion in my user sandbox and looking for and requesting inputs.

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:03, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi

When you reverted my edits, you said: "Reverting good faith edits. I don't see how an English speaker is going to be looking for this term from this page" Which edit in particular? I appreciate the simplicity of the version before my edits but because they are no nuansed they are inaccurate.

Happt to take this to the talk page but this is the summary

(1) I changed

Rome, the capital city of Italy

to

 Rome, the inhabitants of a geographical location in Italy 

My reason: is because Roman can mean geography so I made it more aligned with that

(2) I changed

Ancient Rome, Roman civilization from 8th century BC to 5th century AD

to

Ancient Rome, a historical time span during classical antiquity that covers the Roman Kingdom, Roman Republic and the Principate

My reason: Ancient Rome has specific references to the Kingdom, the Republic and the principate stated by Augustus that historians aknowledge as the first real phase of the empire. It questionable to include the period after the crisis of the third century and the Diocletion reforms as Rome only had symbolic value and was no longer where the Empire operated from. The reference to the 5th century alludes to the western roman empire but this is not different to the eastern roman empire but adding that takes us into the medieval age so better left out. Being more specific on what we refer to the periods rather than a date range is more useful as well.

(3) I changed

Roman people, the people of ancient Rome

to

Roman people, an identity associated with subjects of the classical and medieval empire

My reason: Roman became a politicial term after 212 AD with huge implications of identity of people and goes beyond just ancient rome. Simply linking to the roman empire and the byzantine empire (which is reaally one of the same and hence why I alias iut as medieval empire) correctly refers to this without getting into the debates.

(4) I added

Romanitas, a collection of political and cultural concepts and practices by which the citizens of the Roman Republic defined themselves that continued on in the time of the Roman Empire
Walhazl, a reconstructed Proto-Germanic word meaning "Roman" which is where Wales gets its name from and what French and Italian speakers in Switzerland are called

My reason: Romanitas, as we call it now, was a huge deal during the days of ancient Rome. Not including it here I thought was extremely lacking. The US was heavily impacted by this for example. Walhaz I I can understand why that edit should be left out but to me it's an extention of the Roman identity.

(5) I moved

Epistle to the Romans, shortened to Romans, a letter in the New Testament of the Christian Bible

My reason: It's shorterned to a reference of people that we now called roman people during ancient rome which are both what we already list as most commonly referred to

Elias (talk) 22:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, thank you for informing me about removing my edits on "Brown people (racial classification)" page.

I am new to Wikapedia editing, as you may have suspected, so I did not know much about editing. I saw that the page did not have enough information on it so I wanted to add more. I would like to know what you mean by adding sources? Could you help me with this?

Thank you The word of ju (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, The word of ju. If you're asking about sources in general, that just means the source of the information you're adding, such as the book or newspaper article that you read. If you're just asking how you add the source when you're editing, then you can read Help:Referencing for beginners. Let me know if you have more questions. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know if the recent modifications on Low tech by CorneliaSupera are "written in an enyclopedic tone" and maybe "speak from one very specific point of view". Anyway I added back the removed images, at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BP-Aegirsson (talk • contribs) 14:48, 23 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In regards to your removal of my addition, is [1] sufficiently reliable source to show that the station is mostly government-owned? I wish I could find a reliable source with an official count of Russian radio stations accessible by the opposition. I would appreciate your advice on ways of proving that prominent opposition figures are frequently given opportunity to talk at "Echo of Moscow". Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonK7 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@AntonK7: I'm a bit confused about your first question because the source that I think you're trying to point to, here, says that the station is mostly owned by a company called Gazprom, not the government. That's also what our article says. For the second one, I'd like to stress that it's not a matter of "proving" anything. Even if you found a list of all the people who have spoken on the station and counted the ones you believed were opposition figures, that would be you doing your own research and coming to your own conclusions and we don't want to put that on Wikipedia, per our extremely important no original research policy. What you would need to find is a reliable, published source that explicitly says this station is one of the few that allows opposition figures to speak. I'm afraid I have no advice on how to do that. It's almost always difficult to start with something you've observed yourself and then try to find sources afterward. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:31, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fyrael: Actually, the New Yorker article referred to in the very "Further reading" section at the end of the page paints a picture of the hardships faced by the station in the modern-day Russia when giving a chance to speak to multiple opposition and anti-war activists.

I'll leave out discussion of Gazprom, as I don't want to steer away from Echo of Moscow. It is a no-brainer for people who are current in European politics.

Thank you for letting me know about potential COI. I am new to editing Wikipedia and can see why these rules are in place. I don't believe I changed anything significant that isn't externally verifiable on the Rogue_(esports) page, and I noted my COI in my Edit Summary. I can do more if needed. RGriffin0 (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2022 (UTC)RGriffin0Reply[reply]

@RGriffin0: thanks for being understanding about the policies. I agree that your changes were just small, factual updates, which are usually considered fine for editors with a COI. I would say in future anywhere that you can insert a citation to a published source would be great. Otherwise, just welcome to Wikipedia! -- Fyrael (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

cubic ice points to ice Ic, which is cubic crystalline ice. Shouldn't that be pointed on the disambiguation page? It is cubic ice -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, sorry I read too fast, and combined with the previous revert I thought this was not a valid entry. I've self-reverted. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, thanks -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw you started editing the CMMC page. I got it unlocked a few months ago but did not have time to update. I am going to schedule a edit-a-thon to update the page and and articles it links to or should link to. Reach out to me if you want to get involved. Need more people on the page Jgmac1106 (talk) 14:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was just removing a couple external links. I'm afraid I don't know anything about that topic. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I reverted it back to my entry, but I linked it with the group's official website. That should be more than enough, I hope. 13Sundin (talk) 05:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@13Sundin: I don't mean to be rude, but did you actually read the shortened guideline that I linked in my last edit summary? It's WP:DDD. As you can see on there we don't have entries without a link to a Wikipedia article and we don't include refs. As I said last time, we could possibly do an interlanguage wikilink to the band's page on the Polish wiki, but only if the band is known as Vox in English. Do you believe that's the case? If so, it would look like this:

• Vox (band) [pl], a Polish band

-- Fyrael (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! I saw that you undid my edits on the Jake the Dog page. I appreciate you working to better the page, but as I said on the page's talk page, I'm making a lot of edits right now, and it is a work in progress that should be finishing up shortly. I understand that I unintentionally removed some of the links on the personality part of the page, but I have since added those back in. Additionally, the information I added to the personality section was not unfounded information that I wrote, but information that was moved from one part of the article to this section where it made more sense. I would appreciate some communication before undoing my edits in the future, as I would be happy to work with you. Best, JaneAshton99 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:26, 20 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is not accurate. You added 3 or 4 entire paragraphs of new content that has no cited source and I'm guessing is your own opinion. And I think you should know that the general principle followed on Wikipedia is WP:BRD. You make a change, if someone else thinks it isn't constructive then they have the right to revert it, and then you discuss on the talk page. I didn't put further discussion on Talk because my rationale was quite clear from my edit summary: you added unsourced content and also removed sources. That is not a good change. I have removed your new stuff again and put a (rather unnecessary in my opinion) message on the talk page. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:03, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I'm coming off a bit rude here. I'm glad you're trying to improve the page and I see now that you're a student trying to work on an assignment, but as was mentioned on your talk page (by I assume your instructor), fancruft is a pretty significant issue on Wikipedia, with editors adding large amounts of trivial information without any secondary sources. It's an easy trap to fall into when you're a fan of something and I've been guilty of it myself. So, when I see that kind of thing happening I try to nip it in the bud before anyone gets too attached to their additions. I'm certainly open to discussing more or answering questions. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to become involved in the discussion on the Speciesism talk page, and are willing to put in the work by reading the references given and finding new ones to support the minority position, then I welcome your cooperation in advance.

However, if you have no intention of doing so, then I think you need to get your priorities in order, look a little more deeply at what is going on, and prioritize the quality and accuracy of the content, over protecting the status quo.

Specifically, to start with, checking to see whether the content actually matches what is being said in the references, and whether there are any references to support the contentious revision.

If you are not up to speed on it all, I am happy to help you to do so.

If you are not willing to do so, perhaps you can explain to me how I can "discuss" when others are not willing to read the references and discuss them?

Thank you. --Made private later (talk) 18:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Made private later:There is a discussion taking place, as you can clearly see, and there are even editors indicating that they agree with at least parts of your concerns about the content. Everything is going pretty well except for you continually trying to ram your change through while the discussion is still happening. You need to summon a bit of patience and just wait until you've come to agreement with the other editors involved. I'm sorry that you don't like the established process of maintaining the stable version during discussion, but it is a good practice that generally helps protect the project. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, but if you are not going to engage in the conversation, please stop interfering and provoking the conflict further when you clearly haven't even read the given references.

Perhaps you might revise Wikipedia:Stable version which starts with, "restoring the stable version is not required or encouraged by any policy or guideline" and goes on to say, "stable version is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute. Maintaining a stable version is, by itself, not a valid reason to revert or dispute edits, and should never be used as a justification to edit war."

If you have read the given references, please explain how they support the revisionist view you have reverted back to. It really is about the content, not the procedure. --Made private later (talk) 20:50, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you read WP:BRD it is quite clear that the stable version should remain while discussion takes place. I of course agree with your quote above that a version being stable before should not be someone's whole argument for keeping it in the long term. The content is definitely more important, but the procedure is not irrelevant. If you had followed BRD from the start then there would be a whole lot less friction involved in this whole thing. That's the point of BRD. You're only insistent on ignoring it because you believe your version is better (as does literally everyone who edit wars, or boldly edits at all), but it's quite clear that at least some other editors don't agree, so just leave it be while you discuss. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not a question of belief, Fyrael, it's a perfectly objective matter. The references simply don't support what is being said and the opponents of change cannot provide any references to support their position, so they are employing provocative total reversion, and policy twaddle, in an effort to obstruct any changes. No one's willing to discuss the content.

What is "off the scale" outstanding is that they are claiming that such a semantic shift has happened within a few decades that the originator's definition is now a "minority position", without being able to sustain that with any supporting evidence whatsoever.

That just doesn't happen in philosophy. If such a semantic shift had happened, then the discussion would be well documented, especially given that the originators are still alive to defend their ideas. Do you understand that? It's like someone claiming Jesus's version of Christianity was a minority position, in his own life time, without any evidence to support it. How much credibility to such a claim would you give?

So what happens if they do not, or refuse to admit that they cannot, provide any references? How long to I have to wait? Or is the system designed so that a refuse to discussion wins? --82.132.247.160 (talk) 04:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm so sorry you were blocked. Clearly you are very good at interacting with other people. -- Fyrael (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey Buddy, we appreciate you always updating our page. We would love Still working 9 to 5 press to be on our main page. It’s getting tons of press, mentioning Gary Lane and Larry in every write up. We also have a 90% on rotten tomatoes. Great reviews. Thank you so much. Gary 2600:1700:8CA0:8810:1DE6:6199:18F2:EB95 (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If there's anything encyclopedic in that press that would be relevant for the article, feel free to make a request on the Talk:Lane twins page. I'm sure someone would be happy to include it. -- Fyrael (talk) 13:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Matthew Dellavedova
	Why are you paying this much attention to such a random ex-NBA player after not having edited for 6+ months? BoingBongBing1 (talk) 21:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huh? I've edited thousands of times in the last 6 months. Why are you trying to introduce misinformation to an article? -- Fyrael (talk) 21:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's not misinformation if you know any of the context. BoingBongBing1 (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Son, take a break from the PC and go touch some grass. You clearly do not understand NBA culture. Matthew Dellavedova has long been proverbially known as “the rat”. FyraelsMom (talk) 21:24, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(edit conflict)If you're implying that knowing that context would make it funny, that doesn't mean it's not misinformation. If I'm wrong and that's an actual nickname for him then just cite a reliable source and I will shut right up. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh man, this is getting sad now. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know right, imagine paying attention to the "Matthew Dellavedova" Wiki page. BIG sad. BoingBongBing1 (talk) 21:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not that there would be anything wrong with watching an ex-NBA player's page, but I actually don't have that on my watchlist. Your edit was so obviously not constructive that a bot identified it as such and put it in a list of likely vandalism. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was not implying that it would be funny. He is colloquially known as a "rat". BoingBongBing1 (talk) 21:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed on a recent antivandal edit of yours that the comment history indicates you're using WP:RW. I've been using Wikipedia:Twinkle for some time but some things recently broke for me and the talk page was unable to help me.

I'm thinking of giving RW a try and was curious how you like it (I'd be using it mostly for antivandal edits). If you have a minute to let me know I'd appreciate it. Thanks!

--KNHaw ^(talk) 02:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@KNHaw: sorry I forgot to respond to this. I'd say it's a great tool for antivandal activities and a decent tool for reverting good faith edits. It does occasionally get me into trouble when I'm trying to revert just one edit from a user and I forget that the tool will automatically revert a whole series of edits from the same editor. I'm sure you've already made up your mind in the last month, but there it is. Good luck vandal hunting! -- Fyrael (talk) 21:49, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for replying! I'll give it a try. --KNHaw ^(talk) 02:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for adding the timestamp. I sat through the video to see where it was talking about and it does support the content but I didn't even think about going back and adding the timestamp so that others could easily find and verify it too. - Aoidh (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I was kind of annoyed sitting through it myself, so I bothered to figure out some way to add it. I've never even seen that ((cite AV media)) template before today. I can't say I'm super happy with the "event occurred at" wording, but whatever. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A bit surprised that you don't know they say "Never use headings to attack other users". It's on the same page was WP:SHOWN. Doug Weller talk 07:34, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not sure I'd fully agree that the header was a personal attack, but regardless it looks like you were correct in your edit. I had never seen SHOWN and (I think reasonably) assumed that headers would be treated like the rest of an editor's talk page content. Even after a decade of editing, nary a month goes by that I don't learn something new about Wiki guidelines. Cheers. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A month? I think that after 16 years it’s Atkinson a week. Then there are the changes in policy and guidelines I miss. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why did u edit the disambiguation page for that word with a redwarn? It is a slur 78.149.121.207 (talk) 04:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That seems to be a matter of opinion. It is for sure a name. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:04, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It is not a matter of opinion and this is even stated as such in the article about Romani people. It is factually a slur used against Romani people all the time. I mean this as constructive criticism and I know you're editing in good faith but you don't know enough about the subject you reverted 78.149.121.207 (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@78.149.121.207 Actually the article does not state that. It says that it's considered by some to be pejorative and was historically used as a slur. If you feel that's inaccurate, you may start a discussion on that article's talk page. -- Fyrael (talk) 05:25, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is literally saying that the article says that 78.149.121.207 (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Fyrael, the German article was started in 2006, and there is no reference given for the money in euro. When i have time - and when it is not so hot as now - i'll try to find a reference for this. Kind regards, Naomi Hennig (talk) 20:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Batman Returns (video game) into Batman Returns (SNES video game). While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted ((copied)) template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yep, I forgot to indicate in the edit summary that it was part of a splitting effort. -- Fyrael (talk) 16:51, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was interrupted before I finished, but thanks for the fix anyway. Cheers · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, totally understandable. I meant it to be a friendly reminder, rather than a reprimand or something. It's hard to convey tone with text. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If it doesn't look poorly researched, why take it away?

I was reading through a source on early modern cloth manufacture, and found this written in there

The edit you made which I'm referring to should be found [4].

The source for adding this to the list is the final paragraph of page 10 [5]

Please get back to me, the sources are freely available. Acetoe (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To answer your question, there shouldn't be any research required for entries on disambiguation pages. They are meant to just be quick navigation guides to get readers to an article that has the topic they were seeking. All the researched information should appear in the actual articles. The guideline for instances like this is MOS:DABMENTION MOS:DABSYN. As for what happens now, it seems like we should get this information into the Linsey-woolsey article. I'm happy to let you add it, but if you don't feel comfortable then I can take a crack at it. Once it's in the article then nobody will question including it on the DAB page. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:06, 10 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

hiya, it's been a while now, and the edits are still up on the Linsey-Woolsey page. Is this a good time to revert your reversion, and if so how do I do that? Acetoe (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Acetoe: I've restored the entry to the page. -- Fyrael (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tnx for reverting, but I did know it was a disambig link. I put it up in hopes somebody would pick up the challenge to create such a page as a subset of baseball statistics terminology. (I'm not qualified and don't have the time to research such.) I suppose I should propose such on the baseball scoring talk page . . . Irv (Casey 56) Casey (talk) 23:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Logo for Sintex Plastics Technology.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have removed some totally unhelpful stuff posted in December 2020 to Talk:Toxic (disambiguation) by a block-evading sockpuppet of a highly disruptive blocked editor. You had posted a reply on the page, and that reply got removed along with the sockpuppet post. It seems highly unlikely that you will object to the removal, but if by any chance you do then please feel free to revert my edit. JBW (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would L'Amazone masquée, a 1912 French film by Henri Fescourt still qualify in the list on its being a partial title match? -Mardus /talk 14:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Partial title matches are specifically not to be included on disambiguation pages. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok. -Mardus /talk 16:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Fyrael Have you ever been uploaded Gods and Heroes: Mythology Around the World by Korwin Briggs to Internet Archive webpage (archive.org)? Yuliadhi (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I don't think I've ever uploaded any books to the Internet Archive, although I do support their site. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:08, 3 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a 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 (bot)&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Fyrael, your edit at the disambiguation page Waves was summarised Reverting edit(s) by Pbsouthwood (talk) to rev. 1152038018 by Novo Tape: we already have a disambiguation page for "wave" and this should not become a duplication of it (RW 16.1). Since the additions to Waves that you deleted are not on the page Wave (disambiguation), there was no duplication, so the edit summary does not make sense. Did you actually check? Perhaps you could explain your reasoning more clearly. Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 16:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pbsouthwood: No, I did not check the other disambiguation page and apologize for any confusion there. I should have perhaps said the Wave article, which is where we have a listing of numerous types of waves. The Waves disambiguation page is for articles specifically titled in the plural, not for topics called "wave" that can also be in the plural. An exception is made (and often is on similar plural disambiguation pages) for the primary topic of the singular, Wave, because of just how many readers might be looking for that article. It's definitely unusual that Wind wave is also listed; I would guess that some editor(s) consider it some kind of alternate primary topic. I certainly wouldn't balk if that entry were removed. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:03, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That makes more sense. Agree that wind waves should go, and there should be a note somewhere explaining this. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 03:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I mean there's a hatnote pointing to Wave (disambiguation). I'm not sure what other kind of note you would mean. -- Fyrael (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair enough. It is adequately explained at Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts which had partially slipped my memory - I probably don't do enough work on disambiguation to keep it fresh. I have edited Waves to make it comply more completely with Wikipedia:Disambiguation dos and don'ts, using the definition of a wave from Wave, and removed the link to Wind wave which caused the confusion in the first place. If you think this needs further discussion, it should probably be at Talk:Waves. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 04:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear editor, as a previous contributor to the Metromare article, I thought you might be interested in a move discussion on the talk page of Trolleybuses in Rimini. The proposal seeks to distinguish Metromare from the route 11 trolleybus, which is the current focus of the article. Cordially, IgnatiusofLondon (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no a separate article about the base camp, but the first sentence in the disambiguation page explains what the mountaineering base camp is. I will revert your change. Regards Szelma W (talk) 09:15, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, Szelma W. Disambiguation pages are landing pages for when a user has typed in something that could refer to multiple different articles, to help direct them to the appropriate article. You should not be linking to it. The target of the redirect page base camp has the most thorough explanation of that term. I will restore my corrections. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:38, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The base camp (disambiguation) page explains meannig of 'Base camp' in one sentence. If a Wikipedia user wants to know more he/she can click the base camp link. Your edit redirects a Wikipedia user instantly to a paragraph about 'shelter' (what is confusing) with hundreds of words and difficult to understand. I will leave your edit alone. I am not going to start an edit war, but I do not agree with your argumentation. Regards Szelma W (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Szelma W:I'm sorry that you don't agree with it, but I did not just make this up, nor is it my personal opinion. This is the accepted practice on Wikipedia and it makes the most sense. If a user is reading about food and clicks a link to Apple, they should be directed to the article about the fruit, not to a page that has one sentence about the fruit and the rest of it is about unrelated topics. The context of your link is about mountaineering, so they would absolutely expect that link to go to an article about mountaineering, and specifically the section about base camps. You say that it has "hundreds of words" as though that's a bad thing, but that's exactly what readers are looking for when they choose to follow a wikilink. -- Fyrael (talk) 01:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't catch that vandalism when I reverted the *other* vandalism on the Powfu page haha. Good looking out. Kooky (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Fyrael you have been invited to help out on some articles. All the details are in Lango people's talk If you can help that will be highly appreciated. Thanks Ngunalik (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,

could I trouble you to weigh in on Wikipedia:Teahouse#Order by first or last name? - I noticed the same thing at Unplugged just now, looked at the history, and traced the change from the original last-name to the current first-name order to an edit of yours, [6]. The summary mentions "cleanup using Dabfix", which makes me suspect that that may not have been intentional. If so, is it worth bothering to re-order now, or is that just going to get undone the next time someone uses such a tool? "Dabfix" itself seems to be gone, though...

- 2A02:560:5821:6C00:6C34:7F80:767:BA83 (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I can't honestly say that I remember whether I chose to resort or it was the tool, but you're right that the tool is probably dead. I certainly haven't used it in some time. As for the rest, I replied in the Teahouse thread. Thanks for reaching out. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:44, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]