governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues
gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them
genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed
the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups
post-1978 Iranian politics
the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed
the region of South Asia (India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and Nepal), broadly construed, including but not limited to history, politics, ethnicity, and social groups
the results of any national or sub-national election
Hi Firefangledfeathers,
I disagree with your latest edit of this article. Bouvet provides important context as to how he thinks racism is conceived from a sociological point of view. This provides an additional perspective compared to the other ones in this section, i.e. Taguieff and Sabbagh's definitions of what constitutes racism, as well as Sawrikar and Katz's criticism of the "racism = prejudice + power" concept. It also links well with the South African and US sections where local anti-white sentiments are discussed in more detail. Besides, the truncated quote currently gives the impression that Bouvet is only criticizing anti-racist activists, which is not the full intention of his remarks. Bernard Lee (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that the removal was done by one of two users currently engaged in an edit war. I therefore believe it is better to keep the text in its original form until consensus can be found on the Talk page. Bernard Lee (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Bernard Lee. If you copy this over to the talk page, I'll respond there soon and other interested editors can be part of the discussion. As for the procedural question: since this content is quite new (February), I think the best approach is for proponents of the content to build consensus for inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your quick answer. I raised the issue directly on the Talk page, as suggested. For the proposed approach, I would actually see it the other way round. Since the deletion of sourced content is mainly pushed by one user who has been edit warring, it would make more sense for them to build consensus for removal. But I am looking forward to see what everyone has to say. Bernard Lee (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Firefangledfeathers
I'm sorry this isn't really related to editing but gosh do I love your username in a way I can't really describe. It's just kind of so poetic (which, to be fair, makes sense lol). And you could not have found a better name for your alt than Waterwangledweathers. I swear, I was laughing for like a good 10 seconds when I saw that. Anyway, cheers and thanks for your contributions! GoldRomean (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FWS and wiki editors such as Firefangledfeathers shows evidence of an unconscious group dynamic called basic assumption oneness. Please research Group Analysis and reflect. Sajah Sajah Suaeed (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the reason the alt-right categories were used was because there is no equivalent for far-right figures. All we have is alt-right which is basically: far-right, in America, in the second and third decades of the 21st century but not always, especially when dealing with the third decade of the 21st century during which time the term fell out of favor. The absence of the equivalent far-right categories is a bit of a problem although I do agree that your category removal was technically correct. Basically all this raises the question for me of why we have alt-right categories but not equivalent far-right ones.Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. User Göycen got their extended confirmed status taken away, then faced blocks and a topic ban [1], [2], [3]. I caught a glimpse of their edits in Pastirma, and it looks like since April 28, 2025, they’ve been engaging in these "ethnic food wars" and more (Qajar tribe) [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. In one of the summaries, they claim it's a "potentially previously banned user" [12], but I couldn't verify this as the IP isn't under a ban.
There is also the issue of canvassing others to do extended confirmed edits on his behalf, as Göycen has no EC [13]: "As far as I can see, the title has become extended confirmed. Could you please undo your edit or add the role of kete in Turkish culture to the title you directed?" (machine translated)
Göycen has hardly edited since last year, and most of the edits they made seem to be tban violations. And to top it all off, a canvassing comment to evade their lack of extended confirmed. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a stupid question, but how meaningful/impactful is a censure in the USA? I looked at Rashida Tlaib, specifically the last sentence of the lead, and I thought "hm, of course, political opponents disagree with them, that is not very noteworthy/important, and it almost uses the same amount of space as what I assume is a lifetime of activism".
I am not American and not really into American politics. Is this DUE for inclusion in the lead? I kinda thought a censure is just that they formally say that (they think that) someone sucks. But they appear to be pretty rare. Polygnotus (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! No hurry. Over here we have something similar and it has completely lost all meaning (if it ever had any), has no political consequences and is just used as an insult. Polygnotus (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your patience, Polygnotus. I was sure there had been some prior discussion about Tlaib, and indeed there was. I was in favor of a short mention of the censure in the lead. The main person pushing for a lengthier mention turns out to have been a sockpuppet, so maybe we should start a discussion about whether any mention is necessary.
It was based on the first edit. I don't think they explicitly indicate a violation, but I guess you probably mean that they couldn't have been unaware of the condition violation, since they were reverting an edit that mentioned it explicitly. Bad stuff either way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers you see this particular user @Orangemike mentioned me in conflict interests. I just asked him for the improvement for the page. But his way of conduct was harsh plus this. Its not fair. I talked to him nicely though. Is the way to behave with other editiors. Gooshh (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Gooshh, collaborative encyclopedia creation only works if we have an atmosphere of constructive criticism. Orangemike was right to question the suitability of your edits, and even if he were wrong, it's not a conduct issue. If you continue editing here, you are likely to have many disagreements about the quality of your edits or others'. I highly recommend withdrawing your post at WP:AN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But that doesn't mean he should say that I am spreading false chunks and mentioned me on conflict interest list. This shows their experience. You tell me should I left? Because I am disturbed a lot. Gooshh (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not telling you that you should leave. If you don't have any conflict of interest, say so at the COIN discussion. The best way to avoid suspicion in the future is to take the criticism about puffery and unreliable sources seriously. This is a chance for you to improve your editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jayson Harsin
Posting here because I believe this will distract from the report on AE. I saw your response here, and I would like to request you to reconsider you stance about the 2nd source. It is written by Jayson Harsin who is a scholar, and the book was published by scholarly publisher Taylor & Francis. Thanks. Orientls (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first scholarly source you linked is the Harsin piece, and the second one is Price of Modi, by Aakar Patel, published by a division of Penguin Random House. I was referring to the second one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefangledfeathers: I understand that this ANI report was extravagant for our sight thus I'll note that more experience would require. But a topic ban may not be given as a boomerang, my contributions in this topic area were always good. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rightmostdoor6. I'm happy to have a side conversation here with you about many things, but if it's evidence or argument about your case, it needs to be at AE. You're free to request a word limit extension if you need one (I haven't checked). If you do end up getting a TBAN, I'd be happy to give you some advice about best next steps. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. This is regarding the topic ban notice you left on my talk page earlier. I have responded to it on my talk page itself
Why would you remove somebody's friendly and supportive message? Just to prevent someone from saying something nice to someone else? Levivich (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't just nice. How would you feel about an exclusively critical comment? How would you feel about 50/50 criticism/encouragement comments, but there are a hundred more of them? Why expect subjective evaluation of the comments rather than adhere to the general rule, especially since the commenter is free to post encouragement at bbb's user talk page? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:41, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Somebody posted a nice message of encouragement to somebody else on the internet ... why would anyone remove it? Even if, for some reason I can't imagine, you thought that adding to a {hab} was something to be prevented, on a website with no firm rules where people post to closed discussions all the time, and in a discussion that was closed in less than a day, there were all sorts of other options like moving it below the {hab} or to the talk page, why choose to erase it? Why choose to interfere or prevent people being nice to each other? Seems to me like it's being mean for no good reason. Levivich (talk) 14:38, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't consider moving it to the talk page. It's a good suggestion in the general case of helpful post-close comments. I'm neutral on this comment in particular, and I do prefer to preserve content when I'm neutral. Pasted over. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:09, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh, EOD :). Things aren't getting easier at home, and I'm not yet in the worst of it. Time is precious. As I indicated days ago I've got to decide whether to unwatch -- my interest is maintaining FAs, and keeping up with CITEVAR and other niggling issues, when no one else does it, isn't fun. AleatotoryPonderings and Olivaw-Daneel are gone. Vanamonde93 and Victoriaearle haven't indicated they can fully re-engage. ImaginesTigers pointed to a way to do the work -- which is doable under a FAR (a la Wtfiv's body of bios) -- but seems unwilling to engage further. The whole article needs to be re-structured, incorporating newer sources, and it seems most of the editors now involved are less interested in the entire article, more focused on what is now one section. That is, I'm not seeing a Wtfiv to take the lead. So ... Are you thinking to be an active participant in re-developing to newer sources? Absent enough FA-experienced people-power to get the job done, unwatching will be best for me. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:28, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am deeply conflicted. It's so hard to engage at that page, and so easy to get frustrated with the nonsense on all sides. I think I'm unlikely to be a heavy lifter.
I hope, of course, to see you at least minimally engaged, but I hope even more that you do whatever is best for your family and sanity. I don't do much praying, but my thoughts are certainly with you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:32, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the thoughts ... the Universe will hear you and I appreciate it ... what I am doing is way way way harder, and more heartbreaking, than my wildest imagination :( The "nonsense" of, for example, just trying to keep discussions together for RFCBEFORE purposes, and keeping citations clean, takes time away from researching and writing content. I liked working at FAR because of the camaraderie, and shared knowledge and goals. Maintaining an FA means all of it, even the little stuff. I had also watchlisted James Joyce after its 2006 FAR; I unwatched when really unpleasant infobox nonsense started a few years ago, and haven't looked back. I was sorta hoping ImaginesTigers' feedback would inspire something or someone to re-engage ala Wtfiv, but if it's not gonna happen, I need to do something more pleasurable while I'm staring at the walls at home. Thanks again for keeping us in your thoughts, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi dear,
I have searched a lot to find a valid content which proves the Persian Gulf has another name, but I was unsuccessful!
I need help. How can we correct the Page of Persian Gulf? Because there is no valid resource which proves this sentence:
The Persian Gulf,[a] sometimes called the Arabian Gulf,[b]...
I have talked with the user @Skitash, who persist on the name arabian gulf with no any resource!
This is an official historical theme, if you confirm, I kindly ask you to change it back to what it since 1000 years (at least) has been.
PayamAvarwand has posted either this message or another one with similar content to seven different user talk pages. I have warned them that if they don't stop they will be blocked from editing. JBW (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As someone new to editing in this language version, I may not be fully aware of the correct procedures for submitting a draft for review or making it publicly visible. I would be truly grateful if you could take a look at the article and let me know what the next steps should be — or if possible, help make the article live.
I sincerely hope you might be able to help me find a solution. Your guidance and support would mean a lot to me.
Thank you very much in advance for your time and kind assistance.
Hi Gauszildi. We generally move drafts to the "Draft space" before requesting review. You can read more about making the move here. When you feel it's ready, you can request review from the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process.
Your username has some overlap with the topic of the article. If Gausz is someone you were close to, you may have a conflict of interest, in which case you'll want to read and abide by WP:COI.
Thank you so much for your kind help. I’ve submitted the draft for review, just as you suggested, and I’m really looking forward to having my first article reviewed by a kind volunteer and hopefully made public. I wrote the biography of my father, which is why I’m so enthusiastic. :-) Gauszildi (talk) 05:01, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes Issue 69, May–June 2025
In this issue we highlight a new partnership, Citation Watchlist and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.
Thank your for turning your attention to Orca31415.
I am hectic today and only had time to handle the most recent few of his violations... but it looks like earlier contributions also carried the problem. If you might want to tackle them or find someone who would be up for it. that would be good. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Firefangledfeathers, do you mind telling me what the infringing source was for the previous revdel? I wasn't able to find it since the original RD1 request template was also revdelled. — Tenshi! (Talk page) 19:59, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Request for review: Kocaeli Health and Technology University
Subject:* University article review
Description:* This article covers a newly established university with an infobox, logo, and cited sources. Requesting a quality assessment and suggestions for improvement.
I see you have a spring clean at User talk:Roads4117. Any thoughts on having a really good spring clean by getting rid of *all* of the unedited draft articles, not just the six month old ones? Given that he/she hasn't edited in a while - since they warned in fact - so it's likely they've been abandoned. As it stands that bad behaviour has just been let slide in my opinion, Thanks. 10mmsocket (talk) 15:50, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been so long since they were active that we can conclude the drafts are abandoned. This is an exceptional case, one that might require ANI if conduct continues unchanged, but it's not so exceptional that we need to stray much from common practice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:13, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that the filing editor and one other editor were unqualified, and was starting to write a closing statement, but didn't have time to finish the statement and close the case until I had an appointment and came back from it. I was not surprised by your comment. Please review my closing statement to let me know whether I have described the rules correctly. I think that the filing editor was acting in good faith and was not attempting to do an end run around the restriction.
Hi Anaman12321. You can create a page in template space, just as you'd create any other page. You'll navigate to it by using the Wikipedia search bar and entering "Template:YOURTEMPLATENAME". Assuming that there isn't already a template by that name, you can then create the page. Do you already have an idea for what you'd like the template to do? If not, you might want to draft a bit in your sandbox. There's more information about templates at Help:A quick guide to templates, and that guide has links to other useful pages. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:24, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Anaman12321. It seems like you might be interested in having a userbox. I'm assuming you're aware of the generally negative connotation that "WikiMule" has? If so, I don't mind working on a userbox for you. Do you have color/image preferences? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:08, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi!
No, I thought a WikiMule was someone who does the thankless work nobody wants to but somebody has to do?
Hello. It's been a month since you blocked User:Bluishebrye. Aside from that, several IP users have been editing their sandboxes, as if the same person is behind the main account. Now, I’ve encountered another IP user editing User:Bluishebrye sandbox. Kindly check. - Arcrev1 (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I hope you're having a good day. I have a question if you don't mind: is this a violation of Göycen's topic ban or not? I've read their latest block appeal at AE, though at the time I didn't feel the need to comment myself. Since the block got lifted. Göycen has been following/hounding users who he suspects may be sock of Əzərbəyəniləri, even though the admin comments in AE explicitly mentioned not to do this. In their latest edit-war here, Göycen is openly asking for someone to "please check if Grasshalm a sockpuppet of Əzərbəyəniləri", in an attempt to avoid doing a check himself (which would be a tban violation), thus WP:GAMING the system. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 18:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Khundzorutogh,
I haven't done anything that violates my topic ban. I only discussed the user's behavior concerning the articles on filo and galaktoboureko. I am not following or targeting any users. Turkish cuisine pages outside of the AA topic area are already on my watchlist, and I do my best to prevent disruptive edits. My involvement with this specific topic arose after a question was posted on the talk page. Moreover, I have not edited any pages that fall within the scope of my topic ban. The page in question isn't related to an edit war either. The reverts I made were each related to separate issues, all of which were discussed on the user's talk page. Therefore, this doesn't meet the definition of an edit war, and I've been careful to avoid engaging in one intentionally. Although someone might perceive this as canvassing, I explicitly addressed only the user's edits within that specific topic area. Göycen (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also like to add that I've previously reported this same user as a suspected sockpuppet during my topic ban and again you have asked the same question. Since above mentioned edits are outside the AA topic area, I believe I have every right to raise such concerns Göycen (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These pages show my cautiousness clearly:
Kuymak page doesn't actually fall under the AA topic area, and there's a confirmed disruptive edit still remaining there. However, just because it has a tag Azerbaijani cuisine without a mention inside the text, I deliberately chose not to fix it.
Another example is Savory spinach pie: although this page doesn't genuinely relate to Armenian cuisine, I again refrained from correcting another disruptive edit simply because there's a little mention about a similar Armenian dish.
Göycen, I don't think you've violated your TBAN, and I'm grateful that you appear to be taking it very seriously. If you think you can file an actionable SPI without any AA-related evidence, you are welcome to do so. You shouldn't make sockpuppetry accusations in edit summaries: either file the SPI or handle the edits based on their merits. I'm mostly concerned here about your view that "this doesn't meet the definition of an edit war". You did definitely edit war at Galaktoboureko, and the edit warring was worsened by the use of reverts with no edit summaries and the lack of talk page discussion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:15, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the clarification. I will avoid using such edit summaries in the future. Instead will be taking action, if it is in my reach.
I’ve just gone through the edit warring page, and now realize that I should have raised the issue on the article’s talk page rather than a user’s talk page, as that would have been easier for others to follow. I also missed the part of the three-revert rule that says reverts count "whether involving the same or different material." I had previously assumed that different reverts didn’t count toward the limit. Additionally, since I suspect that the other IP addresses may be sockpuppets, I understand that the 3revert rule applies to individuals, not just accounts. So even in that case, it would still qualify as edit warring. Göycen (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi :) I came into Wikipedia to clean up the Comedy Bang! Bang! page. My edits were immediately undone by a bot for suspected vandalism. I understand why, because I'm a new account and it was a big change, but is there a reliable way to make sure that doesn't happen usually?
If you get the chance to look at my revisions for that page and let me know if there's anything that is wrong, that'd also be a huge help. But no worries if you don't have time! --Highenergypellet (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Highenergypellet. I'm a fan of CB!B!, so thanks for working on that article. Sorry you got caught up in a false positive from the bot (which I love, but bots gonna bot). As you continue to make productive edits here, the bot will be less likely to revert you. You're welcome to restore your change, but I do have some recommendations:
I would generally recommend breaking an edit of that size into 4 or 5 smaller edits. It helps both humans and bots review the changes.
The bot is particularly on the lookout for removal of content. It helps when you're trimming to give a bit more of a reason.
For example, you removed some review and award info. If you believe that the removal improves the page, please explain why briefly in your edit summary.
I see you reported the false positive. Thanks, and if Cluebot reverts you again (hopefully not), please continue reporting.
Hello there, thank you for taking the time to guide me in editing my piece. Could you please let me know how I should go about my piece? What do I need to look for and refine to make it authentic? Thanks in advance. Ben --Ben Imbun (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Easy to point out, but where does it sayings in your guidelines, that such is NOT allowed, for goverance's sake. You just can't impromptuly draw lines here and there as one feels like. Please explain! Ben Imbun (talk) 01:56, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know who else to ask, but the page Commonwealth of Independent States is seeing repeated WP:POV-edits related to the Russo-Ukrainian War, essentially that the parts of Ukraine that are occupied by Russia are described as 'disputed', which is not consistent with how other Wikipedia articles describe these occupied territories.
Hi Lklundin. From a user conduct perspective, I'm not immediately seeing anything there for an admin to do. I don't have an opinion on the content, and I can't really do anything about Commons or Spanish Wikipedia. I'll say in general that less-trafficked articles can be havens of subtle POV-pushing. Good luck with the editing, and feel free to ping again if there's pushback that seems at odds with our purpose here. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:46, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
