User talk:Firefangledfeathers/Archive 1

Nope, nothing wrong with that. Congratulations on your first AIV report! --Ches (talk) (contribs) 18:43, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The testimony is cluttering the page, unformatted and way too biased in favour of the state.

I am in the process of making a new section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:ce10:d900:a886:1ffc:4211:4bd (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quite thorough third opinion. I thought it worth noting that given this edit was clearly an attempt to ping, that I did not receive any ping. Not sure why myself, mind. CMD (talk) 12:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me! I posted a message on Nomad's talk page just in case. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:02, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

3 users try to Persianise and Islamise the names of Georgian Kings. They WERE NOT Persians and Muslims, they were Georgians and Christians. One of them is the saint of Georgian Orthodox Church. All academic society knows them with their Georgian names. I have provided plenty of sources and can provide more if it is needed. BTW Can you imagine Christianisation of the names of Muslim kings in Wikipedia, will it be right? What is your logic when you reverted my edition?Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 22:50, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Giorgi Mechurchle! I don't have any opinion on the content of that page yet. I need to do more research. I reverted your edit because you broke an important Wikipedia rule, the three revert rule. You just broke it again by reverting my edit. I highly encourage you to self-revert your own recent edit to avoid being blocked. I think you are making good points, but that you need to take time to persuade others and stop edit warring. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But what can I do, those 3 users reverted my edition everytime, they have 0 argument and no logic at all! Can anyone explain why the names of Christian, Georgian kings (as I mentioned one of them is a saint of GOC and both of them were fighting against Safavids during their lifetime) should be written in Persianised and Islamised form in English Wikipedia? What a cynicism is this?

P.S. I do not want to break any rule, but hope somehow it will be possible to give the article more academic form.Giorgi Mechurchle (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgi Mechurchle, first, do you understand the WP:3RR rule? I am happy to answer any questions you have about it.

I have a limited amount of knowledge about Georgia's history, so I am trying to learn more before commenting on this content dispute. I do think it's likely that at least some of the kings should be mentioned in the article primarily by their Georgian names. I want to encourage you to pick one—the one for which you have the strongest argument— and make a clear, short case for the change on the talk page. Then be patient as other editors process your point. I am worried that if you even give off a hint of edit-warring that you will be banned from this topic area. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is already dealing with a vandal, there no need for you to as well, at the very same time. Too many cooks in the kitchen and all that... - wolf 06:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfchild, I take your point and will keep an eye out for opportunities to be better in the future. In this case, though, all I did was see the Canadia change in Recent Changes, revert it, and post a vandalism warning. At the time, this user didn't appear to have any other warnings. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:10, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

With vandals, it's good to take a quick look at their contribs, that'll show you if they just made the one edit, or if they're on an active spree. You can also see if edits have been reverted, or are current. That one look can tell you a lot. Also, especially with registered accounts, the first thing (that I always do at least) is add a 'welcome' template to the top of their page. It shows we're not biting a possibly confused, or very young, newcomer, but it also eliminates the excuse "I didn't know" after any further vandalism. You'll note the welcome template, your revert and notice, and my reverts and notices are all within minutes of each other. (just an fyi). - wolf 06:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thewolfchild, Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your frustration; in general, our articles about shows and movies (especially those with younger audiences) seem to endure a steady onslaught unsourced additions and other pointless fiddling. For those cases, it seems more effective to target the disruptive editors (and their IP ranges) versus trying to protect all of those articles. I did block one range in Poland that had been warned numerous times for unsourced edits. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:12, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your experience and advice; that approach makes sense. Would you like to be pinged into discussion at Talk:Tarzan (1999 film)? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's OK, but you can ping me if there seems to be an IP or range who continues to make unsourced edits after being warned. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hi u messaged me saying " edit concerning content related to a living (or recently deceased) person, but you didn't support your changes with a citation to a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now." which article was that? Im positive i can source my edit though i think i might have overlooked something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.47.200.65 (talk) 16:00, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! That was in reference to this edit at Shooting of Walter Scott and this one at Shooting of Rekia Boyd. I encourage you to read our verifiability policy and our policy on biographies of living persons (which applies to the police that shot and killed them). Also, when participating on talk pages, you should "sign" your posts by putting 4 tildes at the end of your comment (~~~~). Hope that helps! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your help with this article - much appreciated. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:13, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing up the "deleting comments" fiasco, and resolving the images problem. Voraciousdolphin (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you just reverted my addition to Voter suppression in the United States in which I quoted an 1824 South Carolina bill asserting the importance, over all other laws, constitutions, and treaties, for the government to "control and regulate" political causes; your edit comment said that this was "not needed" in the article, which currently does not have any material on pre-Civil-War voter suppression.

This certainly wasn't meant to be thorough coverage of pre-Civil-War voter suppression in the United States, just a start. But an official government declaration about control of political activities and related subordination of "their" colored population seems pertinent and reliably-sourced, as the WP:P&G jargon goes.

I'm not terribly thrilled at the idea of throwing the work away but maybe you could give me an idea of what sort of pre-Civil-War coverage of the topic is needed, that it might be combined with? --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 19:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, amending my above comment, I'm noticing that I missed the "1838 Gallatin County Election Day Battle" subsection. The South Carolina thing seemed like a better contrast to voting rights being granted post-Civil-War, but would you prefer it be added next to the existing pre-Civil-War content about Mormons? --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 19:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Struthious Bandersnatch, I was impressed by the quality of your writing and very much on the fence about reverting. I am not 100% sure that my viewpoint is correct. Probably the best place for this discussion is at the talk page. Could you copy your message there? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You said I need a verifiable source. Seeing as the subject is soul in the bible and my comment had 2 sources of it, would not finding verses that have soul in the bible count as reliable information. If I were to read any book, and talk about it, I would reference the book as evidence to what the book says. I would assume soul in the Bible has to do with the word soul in the Bible? Or does the reference of the parts in the Bible need different formatting? Anyone can verify that it is what was written there with extreme ease. Was this a formatting problem? I don't see how the references mentioned in the sentence cannot be verified? If it is over semantics, there are plenty of people who would think that naphesh meant soul in some of the occasions it is mentioned. Tim Mackie has a PhD in Semitic Languages and Biblical Studies. Here is him talking about the word nephesh with another person. ^[1] Here is a list of the ESV translators, just a modern English translation of the Bible. ^[2] A list of over 100 PhDs. Not all of them would have worked specifically on the word soul in the Bible obviously and some served as advisors, but still came to the conclusion the Hebrew word should be translated soul in some cases. The 72 translators of the Septuagint all thought that sometimes the Hebrew word meant soul as well^[3][4]? I am a noob at using Wikipedia, however I don't see how what I said is not verifiable in the Bible? Or do I just need to provide a link to a secondary website to an online Bible? Or is it due to some people questioning whether Nephesh meant soul in some instances? Of which, I think I provided some reasons in my talk, however if directions to secondary sources is necessary, I can add those. I kinda figured when I mention Psalms, anyone can figure out what that is? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traviscove (talk • contribs) 03:13, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Traviscove, first, sorry about your comment getting hidden in another section. That was caused by my using a template incorrectly higher up in the page. In fixing it, I deleted your duplicate section. I hope that's okay!

I am glad that you are here to improve Wikipedia, and I wish you all the best! You will find that your edits go over much better if you carefully read WP:V and WP:OR. I am happy to answer any questions you have about either of those. In this specific case, it's not about doubting what's written in the Bible, it's about how to interpret what is written there. You made the case that those Psalms contradict other statements; that case should really be made by a reliable, secondary source (see WP:RS). You also phrased your edit in a way that makes one part of the article argue against another part, and I hope you'd agree that isn't an appropriate style for an encyclopedia. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope this reply doesn't mess up any formatting. So if I just reference things that would support the interpretation of nephesh as soul, that would be okay? And I have read several Wikipedia articles that have points from both sides.^[5] If in this one, someone is allowed to refute and show fallacies in Dawkins statement, referencing others, I would think that in a topic Headlined; "Soul in the Bible" I would be allowed to show where in the Bible soul is mentioned, and show how that word means soul, and to mean the other things would not make much sense. I have no problem showing sources of people who agree with that statement. and explaining the logic. I have tried to give some as mentioned above. Also, in my talk I did elaborate my reasons? I don't know if that's where to have the argument? --Traviscove (talk) 04:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting is fine! Yes, it would be fine to include info about nephesh in Psalms if it is cited to a good source. Yes, the talk page there is the best place to make the case for your edits. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor you reverted this morning for unsourced BLP subsequently added a reference (diff). I determined that even with a reference the contribution was newsworthy, but not encyclopaedic WP:NOTNEWS. I would appreciate you view if you don't mind at Talk:Greater_Manchester_Police#News_not_worth_of_inclusion 10mmsocket (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I shall accept that this is the way in which Wikipedia wants to do things. I only wanted to spend about five minutes on the whole thing, indeed I fully expected that someone else would add a reference or two. I saw the section marked controversy, and really didn't think anyone would say it was out of place there. It seemed odd that nobody else had written it up, indeed I fully expected to find an entry already there when I went to look for the first time. After-all, why would the first entry on the neo-Nazi connections be allowed? Someone might say that there could be neo-Nazis in any police force and so what is the point of having an entry here for this one? Perhaps it would be better not to have any sections anywhere to do with any sort of controversy if they are inevitably deemed to be unencyclopedic? 81.101.239.132 (talk) 15:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you it is. Indeed, I would not consider using a shared ip address. That is what I pay for. I trust that this is satisfactory to you, so please don't feel offended when I remove it. I fully understand your concern. Thank you, Nicky. 81.101.239.132 (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Hello, I just want to notify you that I will most likely be reading that youtube video on the McNeil Island Wikipedia page. @Rdp060707: and I have had talked a little. He said that others found the youtube video "not notable" which is absurd considering it has 800k views, while the other 3 facts which are from unknown movie interviews and podcasts are allowed on the page. Please tell me any concerns or issues you may have. ----EDITORBEHEREY 18:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EDITORBEHEREY, I am going to respond at the article's talk page. The short version is, please don't make that change, as you have not convinced any other editors. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:50, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: Would it be more appropriate for me to consult the other editors first? ---EDITORBEHEREY 18:52, 14 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Firefangledfeathers! Just pinging you to let you know that I have formalized the process and included each subject in its own section under the talk page, that would make it much easier to discuss and hopefully reach consensus. Cheers! — ♾️ Contemporary Nomad ^{(💬 Talk)} 06:42, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. This is a courtesy notification given mention of your edits within the report. CMD (talk) 01:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello esteemed wiki editor, I just wanted to quickly ask what I should have added to the edit that I made in the Boom Boom Boom Boom wiki page under popular culture that you reverted. I'm very new and inexperienced at editing wikis, so any advice you could offer would be helpful. To quote, you mentioned, "not covered by a reliable, secondary source". What sort of other sources could I add other than the actual video of the incidence itself? AbsolutePunt (talk) 05:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! To start, I want to say that I'm happy to talk to you here. If we end up mainly discussing topics related to Boom, we may want to move the conversation to the article's talk page. The short version of my answer is: our reliable source policy requires secondary sources in most cases. In this case, that would something like a reliable new source covering the video channel and saying, "They frequently discuss or use the song...". It's not a question of proof; we both know that the video mentions the song. It's really about proof that the mention is important and relevant. We use reliable, secondary sources to show us what information is worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia article. Besides the earlier linked policy, you may also want to read our external links policy and an interesting essay about links to YouTube. I really appreciate you reaching out to ask, and I'd be happy to help you with any questions. You might also like to visit the Teahouse. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for taking the time to answer my question and for answering it so courteously! So I'm assuming - since there aren't really any secondary sources I can think of - that it would be best not to include it on the page, as it isn't of that substantial importance. If you have any suggestions on how I can add it to the page, while adhering to all the necessary policies, then please do share them with me. If not, then thank you for your time, anyways. AbsolutePunt (talk) 05:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's probably best not to include it on the page. I'm sorry, I do not have any great suggestions on how to include it while following the guidelines and policies. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help, anyways. AbsolutePunt (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was trying to fix that thanks!

Thank you! Never would have caught it without you. You should stick around and register an account! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:42, 20 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That "ULTRASTRONG" didn't quite convey what I suspected you meant, and you could revert me if it did.

Glad to see I managed to get it right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:15, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nailed it Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:18, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I noticed you removed this sentence from sex. I was thinking about reverting your edit but I thought it would be a better idea to ask you why you removed it?CycoMa (talk) 04:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CycoMa, would you mind if I copy your question over to Talk:Sex and respond there? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure why not.CycoMa (talk) 04:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I only just now saw your P.S. about pings. Looked back and saw that I'd done it once or twice subsequently. Sorry 'bout that. And please note that I never expect much less demand replies to my posts, including this one. Cheers for your interest and contributions regarding sex. --Kent Dominic·(talk) 01:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal! I know I'm whispering into the wind a bit with those notes. Back atcha about sex. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding discussions at sex or Outline of LGBT topics I hope you and other editors don’t assume I’m doing this all in bad faith or trying to push an agenda. I’m merely just trying to make views from mainstream scholars be represented fairly on various articles.CycoMa (talk) 03:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CycoMa, I don't think you're doing anything out of bad faith. You and I have disagreed on a few things, but I am confident that everything you're doing is an earnest attempt to improve Wikipedia. I hope you believe the same about me.

While we're talking, I want to request that you at least slightly change your style of talk page edits. It would help me, and other editors, if you could take a bit more time before posting your initial responses so that you don't have to follow them up with multiple additional edits. Sometimes, you end up with 5 or 6 comments in a row when you might have slowed down and posted them all at once. I know Equivamp brought up a similar point recently. It's not going to kill me if you're set on your ways, but I'd appreciate it if you consider the request. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:09, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You warned me (lvl 4) 14 days after level 3. Do not add higher levels more than 7 days apart, because IPs may be shared. Instead use lvl 1. 79.67.17.238 (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! I'm glad to hear from you. Could you explain your edits at iPhone 12? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

79.67.16.0/20 edited iPhone 12. 79.67.17.238 (talk) 15:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was 79.67.17.238 actually. If that wasn't you, the person commenting right now, take note of the text under the warning, which says

If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits referred to above, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so that you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually gone back to insert the link to MOS:LISTGAP to my post, when I saw that you had already beaten me to even the original punch. I get wordy sometimes... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making behind the scenes accessibility fixes! I wish WP editing tools were geared toward making talk page threading easier and more automatically screen-reader-friendly. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

While I was somewhat disgusted, and pretty much still am, with the way Wikipedia has changed over the past few years, I did make my way back to this area after being blocked. You posted this on my talk page:

"Please, please, please read and re-read WP:3RR. You have been referred to that policy repeatedly, including by an admin as part of a declined unblock request."

This seems to be a case of talking past each other, and doing so in a substance versus process way. I think beyond question the individual who kept reverting my edits related to a minor reference to the Arizona audit of their 2020 election results, is quite an avid, and arrogant, Wikipedia user (and whatever else, with hundreds of thousands of edits to his name). Unfortunately he is also quite biased in a way that does a deep disservice to Wikipedia, and lends credibility to its critics. That page had been pretty much ignored, with nothing on its talk page and few edits of the material, until I made what I thought to be a small edit that corrected a small bias in a description. It was met with a rather furious response by whoever this person is, and my corrective, mild as it was, and was replaced with an even more biased text.

The editing "war", if that's what it was, that ensued was just me on one side, but had a rather more complicated other side. This page is so minor and so utterly unimportant -- relating to some obscure individual no one has ever heard of -- I have no doubt that the interruptions in the "three reversion rule" that fell between the sequence of edits were manipulated by this other editor. While I am utterly unwilling (and likely unable) to bring anyone else into such a silly contretemps, he was not. Here, I think I was completely correct on the substance, and that in regard to the procedure, he was guilty of bad faith by manipulating the system by generating the interruption in the reversions since I assume this was not a simple coincidence, that others editors suddenly became interested in J. Pulitzer as a subject (I think that's his name) and felt it necessary at that point in time to descend on the talk page and this one minor section of a longer biographic article.

I was absolutely convinced that such a clear abuse of the spirit of the rules while observing the letter would be seen through and that my good faith attempt at substantive objectivity would be appreciated rather than vilified.

I was wrong.

If this is common practice, and I suspect it is, that a small number of high volume editors can collude and override small (tiny really) volume editors, like myself, no matter the substance of the matter involved, then process has won out -- without regard to the quality of articles and with little concern for the long term consequences to the reputation of Wikipedia.

The fact that you did respond shows that you do care about what happens to Wiki, though I'm afraid it did not address any of the concerns that I raised in my rather lengthy post ("The Blocking of ..."). Even though directing me, again after numerous times already, to read something I had already read and re-read, was not a step forward, I still appreciate the response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sychonic (talk • contribs) 01:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sychonic, I don't have a comment on the dispute at that page. If you are convinced that your edits were correct, the best approach is to make the case at the article's talk page. There are other dispute resolution options available (detailed at WP:DR). I am glad to hear you've re-read WP:3RR. It is—unfortunately for you—a rule that is all letter and almost no spirit. You'll see exceptions in that policy, but "good faith ... substantive objectivity" isn't one of them. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To: Firefangledfeathers. It is actually not that unfortunate for me, it is far more unfortunate for Wiki itself. For me? It only affects my opinion of Wikipedia, which has gone down pretty far already so not much has changed -- I do now understand better why the terms "Insipedia" and "Wacko-pedia" and the like are thrown around so often. It is a truism of history that a small number of highly motivated folks, with time on their hands and a common goal on their minds, can produce an outsized effect that contradicts the more modestly equipped majority of people without strong views, but who generally don't agree. Lenin had his vanguard, W.E.B. had his conceptual talented tenth, Mussolini had his squadristi. It appears that this dynamic has been happening at Wikipedia for some time now, and that those who care most about the project care least about the fact that it's happening. This seems to be a small example, an inconsequential one on an inconsequential page, that has very consequential implications.

It's interesting how bureaucracy can be found everywhere, with the lady behind the plexiglass saying "I don't make the rules, I only know what they are, and the computer screen tells me ..." That's pretty much "all letter and almost no spirit" in a nutshell. I've always found the dystopia of Brazil to be even scarier than 1984 or Brave New World.

I suspect those who control the levers of this world are much like any other bureaucracy: entrenched, cumbersome, torpid, self-satisfied, apolitically conservative insofar as being adamantly resistant to action or reform, and hidebound by the regulations in place. The Titanic may be sinking, but as long as the luggage protocols are being observed, all is well.

Regards,

Sych (talk) 11:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks first for your compromise suggestion regarding the date of the sixth flight of the Mars helicopter. Would you mind if I add "time zone conversion" to Wp:calc?

Second question: Wp:Veri request the the entries need to be verifiable. So if a routine calulation is done, should it be explained to the reader, in the article? Or is the explanation in the edit comment sufficient? --Schrauber5 (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Schrauber5, for changes to WP:CALC, you should probably bring a conversation first to that policy's talk page. I think on-earth time zone conversions are unambiguously already included, but others might agree with you that it's worth mentioning. I would appreciate a ping if you do start that discussion.

No, I don't believe routine calculations need to be explained to readers. My view is that non-explanation is a good test of whether the calculation is routine or not.

If you feel any of this is relevant to improvements to the helicopter page, we may want to move the discussion to that article's talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:51, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I made an entry at the talk page. Regarding the helicopter page: Space.com published a wrong date for the 7th flight but corrected it after I informed them. So we do not have 2 false dates in it. https://www.space.com/mars-helicopter-ingenuity-aces-seventh-flight. Schrauber5 (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that I misquoted/misunderstood you. I explained that at the talk page Schrauber5 (talk) 14:36, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was a reasonable misunderstanding. Thanks for the apology. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer at first. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Back to Mars time: would you consider it to be helpful to create a Mars2020 to UTC conversion template? The helicopter will only fly another two month but the rover may continue for years. On the other hand it's actions may not be reported with time information. With another reference point the template could be also apapted for other Mars missions. Schrauber5 (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure! I would advocate for letting the CALC conversation come to consensus. If it ends up supporting Mars time conversions, a template might be helpful, albeit niche. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:00, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My idea was that a template could support the simplicity of the operation. I was expecting that the discussion will have more participants and that concensus will realize as a majority opionion. But with only 4 participants I'm afraid that will not happen. Schrauber5 (talk) 05:29, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Give it some time! You could also potentially solicit some input from related WikiProjects. I also don't want to discourage you from working on a template. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

template is done, see User:Schrauber5/testMarstime2 Schrauber5 (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! I'll respond at the template's talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just read here about the WP:3RR. That was violated by DonFB first and then by me at the helicopter page. Since I was switching to talk page and third opinion and not editing any more at the question of date of the sixth flight I was not willing to back down again regarding the time of the seventh flight. Participating in the edit war was wrong. I should have used WP:3RR after the 3rd revert of DonFB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schrauber5 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't even notice! That's an important one to keep an eye on. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that was my fault back there, it was a little original research to write that sentence in that way.CycoMa (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted! I think we landed on a better version than either of us were proposing alone. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As some one researches a lot on that kind of topic it’s very obvious which group is more in favor of the sexual spectrum argument.

But as a Wikipedian it’s not my job to analyze what sources say or combine them.CycoMa (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Ilhan Omar. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. I’d love to hear how the Minneapolis Star-Tribune and the Times of Israel aren’t reliable sources. Toa Nidhiki05 11:49, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Toa Nidhiki05, it looks like conversation about including that content is ongoing at the article talk page. I would love to discuss here our conduct. It seems you are convinced that my stated reasoning for removing information, "...Content isn't DUE or reliable sourced" was misleading and that I was instead just removing content that I find offensive. If that isn't a true statement of your view, then you may want to strike the template.

If true, I would ask you to assume good faith. In that edit I removed political content sourced to Fox News, which I see you have now also removed, thus my RS concern. Regarding DUE, did you find it so impossible that I have good-faith DUE concerns that you have to assume I was just censoring? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Toa Nidhiki05: second and last ping, in case you want to talk through our conduct dispute. I'll take silence to mean you would rather not discuss it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your revert on the Stresa - Mottarone cable car accident: Firstly I mentioned suggestion and secondly, more important: the contributors in this technical part of the forum are often professionals and I rank their value higher than of many newspapers or on-line media. Please reconsider.--Martin Borsje (talk) 17:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at this talk page section. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:48, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Seddon ^talk 23:55, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings to you! As you requested, I am keeping you in the loop that the clarification request we discussed in now live. You can find it here! [1] Looking forward to discussing it with you. Benevolent human (talk) 16:06, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Normchou. Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 00:16, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The clarification request you are a party to regarding the case Palestine-Israel articles 4 has been closed and archived. You may view a permalink of the clarification request here. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 15:30, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I followed your link and didn't found anything I could follow as guidelines. Could you please send me a direct link? --Cautious (talk) 19:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines about discretionary sanctions are available at: Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Discretionary_sanctions#Guidance_for_editors Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me? I have a problem with POV editions in LGBT_rights_in_Poland. He just removed my source and he is not honest in discussion. How to start a resolution of this dispute? --Cautious (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This person User:Buidhe simply goes and reverts all my contributions. He even restored version of LGBT-free_zone, which claims that there exist such a zones in Poland, which is clear nonsense. How to start dispute and remove false content? --Cautious (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources disagree with Cautious' claim, the relevant areas in Poland are generally termed LGBT free zones for example[2][3][4] If you look at the talk page there is consensus to keep it at the present location. Unfortunately Cautious has been editing without citing reliable sources that support the changes, which is a good way to get reverted. (t · c) buidhe 21:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded at the article talk page, and would prefer to keep discussion there. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I put the discussion on the second topic here Talk:LGBT-free_zone#LGBT_free_zone_is_a_metaphore --Cautious (talk) 21:25, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Added also the requested sources for LGBT Rights in Poland. Please take a look again. --Cautious (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User:tgeorgescu is blackmailing me. Where to report this behaviour?

@Cautious: I advise you to drop the WP:STICK. Admins do not take homophobia lightly. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 22 June 2021 (UTC) --Cautious (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

At WP:ANI, after you have read WP:BOOMERANG. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please help me. There is witch hunt ongoing, User:tgeorgescu repeatedly tries to offend me, uses personal arguments, no merit discussion. I need certainly help, a lawyer that knows procedures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cautious (talk • contribs) 12:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's likely that I can help you. It's probably that you stop posting comments like these, as you have been warned about canvassing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m honestly very sorry for how I have been acting at intersex. Honestly I guess I get way too invested in that topic and research too much on it. I’m sorry if I came off as wasting people’s time it’s just reliable sources on topics like that tend to heavily contradict each other and at times it’s obvious sources have partisanship in mind. Which is unfortunate because that makes our jobs harder.CycoMa (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don’t have to respond to this post, I’m just commenting this down to say sorry for all that.CycoMa (talk) 07:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You left a message on my talk page. I have some concerns about the way that editing discussions are handled on the War in Donbass and War in Ukraine talk pages. Certainly there are higher authorities on Wikipedia who oversee such problems. Might that be you? Thanks, Kenmore (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Kenmore: I am not! Two ways to check are by

• clicking on "View user groups" in the Tools section of the left sidebar when you are on a user page, or
• enabling the "Navigation popups" gadget in your preferences, which allows you to hover over a user link in a signature and see what groups they belong to.

Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reporting you to an admin because you keep removing factual information that is on credible website that provide a balanced and accurate view - Tspooky (talk) 21:06, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to hear that. I hope to continue to help you make your proposed changes to the article while sticking within the bounds of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. There's a very challenging information asymmetry here:

• You know a lot about yourself, and I know very little about you.
• I know a decent amount about how to appropriately edit Wikipedia, and you have relatively little experience in the are.

I am optimistic that we can combine our strengths and, with other editor involvement, effect some improvements to the article. If you continue to feel that my conduct here requires admin attention, the best place to report me is probably Wikipedia:ANI; I am obviously biased, but I don't recommend it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to ping you. Tspooky Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to delete links to current information - and blatantly leave opinion and unsourced information Tspooky (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am - again - going to post accurate veritable information and links - you have deleted at least twice this Congressional document regarding retirement - leaving false information in it's place Tspooky (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tspooky, can I request that you please make your changes one by one, perhaps starting with the most verifiable? Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake. Really, I am asking that you use Template:Edit request to request your edits one by one at Talk:Anthony Shaffer (intelligence officer). If you insist on editing the article despite your COI, it would be preferable to do so in a piecemeal fashion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the information - WITH links:

Feel free to add in the way you believe is best:

Anthony Shaffer is a retired Department of Defense Senior Intelligence Operations Officer who service in DIA, Army Intelligence and Air Force Intelligence and retired from the Army Reserve in September of 2012 after 30 and a half years of service as a Senior Intelligence Officer by Congressman Walter Jones with his career being read into the Congressional Record: https://fas.org/irp/congress/2011_cr/shaffer.html

While deployed as an undercover field operative and Operations Officer of CJTF 180's HUMINT Operations Support Detachment in Afghanistan, Shaffer met with members of the 9/11 commission and disclosed information regarding Operation ABLE DANGER and the operation's identification of Mohammed Atta and other 9/11 hijackers a full year before the 9/11 attacks as a member of the Able Danger team. https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780312606916 In 2005 to 2006 DIA engaged in a campaign to smear and undermine Shaffer's credibility by a series of investigations. Shaffer made a number of protected disclosures to the 9/11 Investigation Commission and members of US Congress that the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) failed to properly pass on intelligence on 9/11 hijacker Mohamed Atta. Shaffer's allegations subsequently became known as the Able Danger controversy. The core issues of DoD's retaliation against Shaffer revolve around a political decision to deny any potential responsibility for the 9/11 failures as documented by investigative reporter Peter Lance. http://peterlance.com/wordpress/?p=103

Former FBI Director Louis Freeh also concluded in a Wall Street Journal editorial that the Able Danger information was crucial and believed that he and the FBI could have prevented the 9/11 attacks had they received the project's information in time. https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB113219243999699729

The government ruled in Shaffer's favor in his 1st Amendment Lawsuit in 2017. The federal judge ruled that DIA's retaliation and censorship was improper and won the right to publish a nearly redaction free edition. The summary of issues of the retaliation was captured by Government Accountability Project (GAP) in 2018:

https://whistleblower.org/uncategorized/operation-dark-heart-a-case-study-for-needed-whistleblower-protections/ 

John Crane, the lead investigator of the DoD IG investigation into ABLE DANGER later public disclosed that the 2006 investigation of Shaffer's allegations would not be investigated fairly and the DoD IG said they would "not find for LtCol Shaffer" https://books.google.com/books?id=HE-FDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA511&lpg=PA511&dq=shaffer+able+danger+john+crane+set+up&source=bl&ots=7WGfUKC1uB&sig=ACfU3U2glQlO_AcCJ8sHZdSqy39QXP31RQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwigifPWnrPxAhWPFVkFHSOBC7wQ6AEwEHoECBYQAw#v=onepage&q=shaffer%20able%20danger%20john%20crane%20set%20up&f=false

Because of John Crane’s admissions a lawsuit to recover damages from Shaffer’s previous attorney, Mark Zaid, was launched as it was revealed that the DoD Inspector general "manipulated data and methodology" to discredit Shaffer : https://justthenews.com/accountability/whistleblowers/lawsuit-reveals-dod-official-alleging-official

Shaffer was the Alumnus of the year for the Wright State Political Science Department. He was also a member of the 1986 Wright State University Mock Trial Championship Team that defeated Northwestern University in front of the Iowa Supreme court: https://webapp2.wright.edu/web1/newsroom/2011/04/21/secret-agent-man/

Shaffer was a producer of National Geographic Chain of Command – a series focused on the Pentagon’s efforts to defeat ISIS in 2017-2018: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm9614274/

I'll be happy to help you or do this myself if you cannot.

@Tspooky: I'll respond at the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:54, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting that glitch. You've got quite a job on your hands trying to help that editor, who seems confident they know better than others in many areas but reluctant to learn. Good luck. PamD 05:35, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:37, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You could start by encouraging them to learn how to format references, rather than adding ugly bare URL refs to an article which has a fine array of properly formatted references, as in this edit (quite apart from the pugnacioius approach to changing descriptions of places from town to village etc, as in this example where the longstanding article on the town/village has used "town" consistently since it was created in 2004 but this editor disagrees}. PamD 13:50, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quote marks around reference names are optional, as long as the ref name hasn't got a space. But thanks, anyway. PamD 22:57, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank, I didn't know that. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:00, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see from Rochester, Kent that they are still unwilling or unable (not sure which is more of a problem) to learn how to format references. PamD 06:42, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And still can't or won't. Disruptive editing or CIR issue? PamD 23:19, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: I posted another note at their user talk. I have less of an overall view of their editing behavior than you, so grain of salt etc. A CIR issue based on using bare references is, I think, a stretch. WP: Bare URLs emphasizes that there's nothing wrong with acting the way this user is, though I think we agree it's a cultural taboo for experienced editors.

I offered to help the user and answer their questions, but I don't see myself as their mentor; we have roughly equivalent levels of editing experience. If it is helpful to you, I am happy to continue taking a look at issues you raise and responding to them in my own way. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Firefangledfeathers, thanks for your help at Criticism of Sikhism lately with the IP causing trouble there. As you've observed, the IP has been edit warring since last year, though this just seems to be the latest episode in a years-long campaign. You've also seen their behavior and yourself reverted a few of their particularly egregious personal attacks on talk, so I think it's clear that they are not here to engage in any meaningful discussion and build consensus, but for sectarian axe-grinding. As even with the level of protection with the article (which I requested last year) their disruptions are often still let through by unsuspecting editors, would you have any idea on how best to proceed with this in terms of course of action? I would think that neither of us would want to keep responding to their edit-warring in perpetuity. Thanks, Sapedder (talk) 00:26, 6 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sapedder, thanks for reaching out. I did reach out to the anonymous user at their most recent IP user talk page with a warning against personal attacks, and they did give a brief apology. The worst that I've been around for is:

• slow-mo edit warring (visible in the article history, though it would be good to pull a few example diffs)
• referring to other editors' "thin-skinned Sikh heart"s
• referring other editors as "a gang of thin-skinned Sikhs"
• generally, assuming that everyone's reasons for opposing their view are religion/nationality, e.g. "sikh vigilantes"

You may know of earlier conduct issues. I am hopeful the apology is indicative of their intention to take a new approach. If not, WP:ANEW and WP:ANI are options. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 18 June 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Sweet Flypaper of Life, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Roy DeCarava's photos of Black Harlem life later included in The Sweet Flypaper of Life were rejected by at least two major publishers before Langston Hughes wrote the book's accompanying text? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Sweet Flypaper of Life. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Sweet Flypaper of Life), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—valereee (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I happened to wander back to the this RfC I opened some time ago about the opening to the article about Jessica Yaniv. It seems to have been reopened and reclosed in a different direction since I last visited. I'm finding it a little hard to track the history. You mentioned an AN disucssion in your edit summary at the time but it actually links to a sub-section that's since been archived that seems to be about Israel-Palestine. Do you happen to have a link to the actual discussion that resulted in this being readjudicated? › Mortee _talk 01:33, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mortee, here's a link to it in the archives. The original issue raised was the closers work on some Israel-Palestine articles, but it expanded to be about their closes overall, including Yaniv. As for the history: an admin reopened the Yaniv RfC as a result of the AN discussion, a few more people added comments, I posted a request for closure at WP:Closure requests, and we got the close we have now. Hope that helps! Firefangledfeathers (talk) 06:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It does, thanks very much for the link. › Mortee _talk 12:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your participation in the talk section for "Limitations for Women" on the Juneteenth page.

Three things:

1) I have a gazillion RS to connect Juneteenth to coverture and I will be adding that edit soon. It will be interesting to see whether the edit receives any specious pushback. Then we will know this is not about "sourcing" but about censoring. It's actually quite shocking that the page has existed this long with none of the editors adding that intersectional content on their own. A real implicit bias on the part of the page editors. But I am certainly not the first person to point that out. There's ample research on the subject of sex bias in Wikipedia editing. Which is understandable, we're all learning to purge our implicit bias. What is unacceptable is abusing the messenger, which happened to me (see more below).

2) I still believe intersectional bias in articles is something that should be addressed as a matter of form and that in some articles it is and in others it isn't. And that there is a bias in including race intersectionality but not sex intersectionality. Not all content in wikipedia has to be sourced. Some of it is considered self-evident relevant facts. The differing experience of different demographics should be a basic component of any article topic.

3) I would like you to consider that you "corrected" me a number of times on the talk page for what you believed were my violations of editing standards, but you took no public action against Alanscottwalker for their violations of talk page standards. Specifically, "assume good faith," (they overtly accused me of bad faith) and "no personal attacks" (they libeled my character). Their last response to me was all over the place, rather unhinged and disconnected to anything I was saying. Unless there is something I am missing here, correcting me and not them is a glaring double standard. If no bystanders take steps to provide a safe space for people to discuss intersectional issues for women, free of talk page violations, it's not surprising that Wikipedia articles are lacking in sex intersectionality. If you want to be kind and helpful to other editors, may I suggest that you provide a safe space for them to speak by calling out abusive editors? Silence is complicity.

No one should have to be abused in order to make an article more accurate, ethical, complete and humane in good faith, which is what I am doing and which is what intersectionality accomplishes. As I said before, if this Wiki article and discussion is typical, the scholars of women's history are way ahead of the scholars of African-American history with regard to their transparency, awareness and accountability for intersectional nuance. And that disparity needs to be addressed.

AmorLucis (talk) 09:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AmorLucis, I am excited about 1, and I have no objection to well-sourced content covering the issue.

For 2, there are at least three causes of intersection bias in Wikipedia articles:

1. Structural bias in Wikipedia
2. the individual bias of Wikipedia editors
3. bias present in the body of reliable sources that Wikipedia uses to generate its content

So far, c seems to be the biggest obstacle to including content on the status of Black women in the article. When you include your reliable sources, we'll both likely learn more about a and b. As for your points about comparisons between Black/women's history or race/sex intersectional bias, I don't have a well-informed opinion, but I suspect you're right.

I sincerely appreciate 3, your feedback on my conduct at that talk page. My instinct is to respond with a defense, but I am instead choosing to take some time to consider. If you want to pursue conduct dispute resolution further in the meantime, you might follow the steps outlined at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have just posted the new edit and commentary about it on the Talk page. Once it's clear that the edit will stay, I will be reporting Alanscottwalker for violating talk standards and also for the false equivalency of gaslighting my boundaries against his abuse as "abuse." I am aware of the mechanism to do so, but thank for offering information on that, and for all of your supportive, civil and respectful dialogue with me.

I also appreciate your acknowledgement of implicit bias in Wikipedia and the need to consider intersectional inconsistencies that only go one way. Alanscottwalker recently posted yet more abusive personal attacks and false equivalencies on the talk page. Of course, you are under no obligation to do so, but if it is on your radar to be a good ally in creating a safer, more respectful world, you might post a comment on that thread acknowledging that my arguments about implicit bias did have merit, that you are considering them and that all people deserve to be heard free from accusations of bad faith. He overtly called my words "unjust devising" and accused me of pursuing a "political agenda" and then attributed to me several opinions I did not state or imply which he then labeled "callous" and "racist." After manufacturing these sins for me, he then labeled me as "abusive" for pointing out his fallacies and violations of talk page standards.

All because I spoke my reasonable truth, supported with logic and evidence and set a boundary against his repeated violations of standards and unethical straw arguments to make me appear illogical and unreasonable so HE could create a false equivalency that I was the perpetrator.

That is EXACTLY what racists do to people trying to make a cogent, nuanced point about the need for intersectional history of race to be the norm. If we don't want that type of communication to continue to be normalized, we all need to take a public stand against it. It also sheds light on why there is implicit male supremacist bias on Wikipedia. If people who point it out are attacked and no one offers that person public support and bystander intervention, those people leave. No one wants to be disrespected or spend their entire lives reporting people. We all have to choose our battles. It would be easier if we all helped each other a bit. :)

AmorLucis (talk) 20:32, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

AmorLucis (talk) 07:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing this to you, because I think you, more than anyone else in this discussion, have the patience, open-mindedness and ethics to hear this. I know my posts are long, but addressing deeply held systemic blind spots takes time and I think that's what's happening here. And I do appreciate your time.

Please imagine a Wiki article on Veteran's Day that framed war as a fun party for soldiers. And you thought that was an implicit bias because it's not the experience of all soldiers. So you found a RS saying "Our celebration of Veteran's Day this year is honoring all the people who fought for the humanity of soldiers" and then the person went on to list a number of people active in the Veteran PTSD healing movement by name. That source connects Veteran's Day celebrations to PTSD. So you quoted that source and then gave basic context on what PTSD is and then quoted some of the very same people mentioned in the RS on the subject of PTSD.

Now imagine that 95% of Wikipedia editors were not familiar with PTSD, let alone with the PTSD healing movement or its leaders. And they took a quick look at your source, only read "humanity of soldiers" and determined, "I'm not seeing the connection here between Veteran's Day celebrations and PTSD." So the edit was removed as an "off topic" "coatrack" issue.

That would result in a very biased Wikipedia article and would also be incredibly disrespectful to veterans.

Then imagine that the person making this change was labeled "callous" and "illogical" and "politically motivated" and wanting to "Right Great Wrongs" and multiple unreasonable straw arguments were attributed to them to discredit them. And when the same person suggested that maybe there was a lack of subtext on the part of editors about PTSD to correctly assess the citation's relevance, they were labeled as the one being "abusive" and "questioning motive" and "wasting everyone's time."

Which, again, is ironic on a Juneteenth page, because racist White people do all that to Black people when Black people try to educate them on what they don't know they don't know.

The plain and simple fact is that the Juneteenth article is biased as is.

This article literally uses the word "Freedmen" three times. That word was specifically used at that time because the legal status of Black men was different than the legal status of Black women. Which is a fact of history. Black men went from chattel slavery to the status of "Freedman." Black girls and married women went from chattel slavery to coverture slavery. When Sojourner Truth said, “You have been having our rights so long, that you think, like a slave-holder, that you own us,” she was not speaking metaphorically, she was speaking literally.

The question remains the same. Are articles written with an implicit bias (like this one is) a lack of neutrality for which Wikipedia has a responsibility to correct with attributable historical facts? Or is it the responsibility of outside sources to correct that implicit bias?

Further, if editors are not aware of the implicit bias in an article or willing to acknowledge it, are they qualified to make editing decisions on whether and/or how to correct it?

There is so much research on how Wikipedia has an implicit male bias. So saying that "all the editors" are disagreeing with me doesn't really say much, if "all the editors" do not have a basic understanding of the subject of the edit or can even see the implicit bias clearly already present in the article. In other words:

In an insane world, the sane are insane.

What I have learned here is that Wikipedia cloaks itself in a mantle of objective rationalism, but that if you poke beneath the surface, you get the same old systemic bias and abuse that people who point out implicit bias experience everywhere else in the cyber world. It's incredibly toxic.

You are just about the only person here who appears to be both objective and humane and also willing to look inward, (everyone else is too busy focusing on me and defending their first assessment) so I'm writing all this to you.

I'm really good at setting healthy boundaries and I know when it's time to leave a toxic environment. And that's not because people disagreed with me, it's because they don't know what they don't know and, as a result, abused the messenger.

I hope you will use my words to make Wikipedia a more safe and respectful place that what I experienced.

AmorLucis (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

AmorLucis, I just want to let you know that I have seen this and that I plan to read it and respond in a few hours. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:20, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I can articulate more clearly than I and others have already that what you are describing is original research. There are some minor points in your comment that I disagree with, but I doubt you're looking to get into the details when bigger issues are at stake. The Veterans Day example you list would also be original research. Incidentally, our Veterans Day article doesn't mention PTSD at all, despite there being some sources that connect the two that are available via Google search. Good catch!

I urge you to accept that such original research is not acceptable here, that editors pointing this out to you are (mostly) doing so in good faith, and that the best way to include information about Black women and Juneteenth is to find reliable sources that include that information and to summarize them in the article.

We should absolutely combat male bias in Wikipedia wherever we can. As I pick my battles, I like to select ones where the reliable sources are behind me. Trying to combat bias in a way that runs us headfirst into one of Wikipedia's core content policies is inadvisable. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:54, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's thoughtful of you to let me know.

On the neutrality forum, I was told that if I could make the Juneteenth/coverture connection then the edit could be within Wiki guidelines (you had also told me that) I maintain that I did and that editors here and there are missing that. I also realized that you have to do some digging in my source to understand how it's connected to coverture. Allow me to explain how.

(I was really surprised when you said you didn't see the connection, but then I realized that's probably because I have a more informed knowledge base about coverture).

Here are direct quotes from my source describing their Juneteenth commemoration:

"Black suffragists, including Sojourner Truth, Frances Harper, Ida B. Wells and countless others continued to agitate.."

"those suffragists who more than 100 years ago fought for African American women to not only to be recognized as humans, but also as women and citizens."

When I read that I thought, "There it is! A clear connection between Juneteenth and coverture!" It did not occur to me that anyone could read it otherwise, but...

Editors concluded that my RS of a Juneteenth celebration honoring the struggles of Black suffragists to be recognized as "humans," "women" and "citizens" does not suggest coverture. But it most certainly does. For two reasons.

1) "Women" and "citizens" refers to two distinctly different legal states (if they didn't the speaker would not have to use two different words) and

2) The list of Black suffragists she is referring to by name gives additional context that what the person is talking about is coverture, because those women clearly spoke out against coverture specifically, and they also, in their speeches and writings, were clear about the nuances of those different legal states. Our understanding of women's history is so poor, that's not just common knowledge, unfortunately.

In another source, a Juneteenth celebration screened a Pauli Murray documentary that talked about her advocacy in the 20th century against the remnants of coverture, which is how I brought her in in the second paragraph.

I'll concede that the last quote in the second paragraph about marital rape laws in California might be removed. I was trying to show that the struggle against coverture that is being commemorated in Juneteenth celebrations is ongoing, to add more necessary context that coverture is not just in the past, it's in the present.

Believe me, I understand the need for sources. I get the impression that (some) people are now uncomforbale about the way the article is written but are saying to me "we can't just change it because we don't like it, you have to source it".

But...I did.

AmorLucis (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest. At this point, I've seen the same pattern on three different talk pages and in my interactions with an admin. on my talk page.

1) Intersectional inconsistency is a systemic problem across Wikipedia--in articles, talk pages and the community of editors

2) Editors don't even get what intersectional inconsistency means, let alone have the ability to detect it

3) People pointing out intersectional inconsistency are gaslit as disrespectful trolls and blocked, creating an echo chamber even less likely to correct this bias in Wikipedia

Rinse. Repeat.

There's bad apples and there's rotten barrels. When you see a pattern across the board like this, it's a rotten barrel.

Staying in a community that dysfunctional forces you to normalize and internalize dysfunction. And that's not for me.

I tried to help, but Wikipedia just isn't ready.

I'll stick around long enough to read your response to these messages, though.

I predict that in the future months or years, you will think about what happened here in the last couple of days. I have faith that Wikipedia with be ready one day to understand the concept of intersectional consistency and then my words will make sense.

It's a simple A to B...

Juneteenth is about Black people. Which means Juneteenth is about Black women, too.

Coverture is about women. Which means coverture is about Black women, too.

The Juneteenth article talks about how people commemorate Juneteenth.

I found a source that says Juneteenth commemorations honor Black women who fought against coverture.

I made an edit about that.

That's exactly the same as people including race perspectives on Wiki pages about women's history, using sources that connect the two. Which happens all the time. And therein lies the inconsistency.

Look at how much DRAMA and DIVERSIONS were created every step of the way around my simple path from A to B.

Wikipedia doth protest too much, methinks.

AmorLucis (talk) 02:48, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Juneteenth is about Black people and therefore very much about Black women. I suspect there aren't enough sources analyzing that connection, and I encourage you again to be a part of finding and creating such sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"I suspect there aren't enough sources analyzing that connection."

All you have to do is Google, "Juneteenth" plus the name of any great Black female leader of history to find many Juneteenth commemorations honoring the legacy of Black women leaders that take place all over the United States. Sojourner Truth, Frances Harper, Hattie Purvis, Ida B. Wells, Pauli Murray are just a few. My original edit sourced several of them with RS.

Nearly every single major Black female leader in America spoke out against the different legal status of Black women vs. Black men, past and present. Juneteenth celebrations absolutely honor that history, repeatedly.

Also, the Juneteenth article mentions "Miss Juneteenth" celebrations, which are "female-centric" celebrations. I'm not sure why female-only pageants celebrating Juneteenth are not considered "female-centric" content, but commemorations (by people of all races and sexes) of Black female leaders and their legacy are considered "female-centric." Can you explain the difference?

The Juneteenth article itself notes that "In many places, Juneteenth has become a multicultural holiday." There is precedent in the article itself to include multiple perspectives as relevant.

These are the well known quotes of Sojourner Truth on this subject dating from 1867 (that I sourced in the edit), the same era as the original Juneteenth, speaking directly to and about Black men having rights to women’s wages and their persons under coverture. Countless Juneteenth celebrations honor Sojourner Truth's life and advocacy:

“[Black women’s] men go about idle, strutting up and down; and when the women come home, they ask for their money and take it all, and then scold you because there is no food.”

"When we get our rights we shall not have to come to you for money, for then we shall have money enough in our pockets; and may be you will ask us for money.”

“You have been having our rights so long, that you think, like a slave-holder, that you own us.”

“There is a great stir about colored men getting their rights, but not a word about the colored women; and if colored men get their rights, and not colored women theirs, you see the colored men will be masters over the women, and it will be just as bad as it was before.”

Here is the RS on these quotes from my original edit:

https://www.lehigh.edu/~dek7/SSAWW/writTruthAddress.htm

Juneteenth honors the Black women of history. Those Black women spoke out against white supremacy AND male supremacy.

Juneteenth honors Black history. Half of Black history is the history of Black women.

Can you please tell me, specifically, what I am missing here about the connection? Or how I might change the edit to have it included?

AmorLucis (talk) 14:39, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A connection between Truth and Juneteenth is not enough to then include any source that discusses Truth's views. All sources used need to be explicitly about Juneteenth, or Jubilee Day, etc. I think the may be the part you are missing about connection. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:11, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.

Two things: Can you explain why the edit was removed even after the definition of "coverture" and the quotes from the women were removed? The editors objected to even including the common practice of Juneteenth celebrations honoring women leaders who fought for Black women's rights.

And

I had two sources about Juneteenth celebrations that screened documentaries on Truth and Murray. If those documentaries contain information on those women's views, does that establish the necessary connection between Juneteenth commemorations and those women's views to be included in the article?

AmorLucis (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Also, I included several Juneteenth "recommended reading lists" that contain books on Sojourner Truth. Those books quote the views I cited. Is that not a direct connection, as well? If not, why not, please?

AmorLucis (talk) 16:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm attempting to respond to your two recent messages above. I don't have an explanation for why the women leaders content was removed. You might want to ask the reverting editor. I don't feel motivated to restore the content without further review of the sources. At least some of them do not seem reliable (Wordpress) and many of them do not appear to be the best sources available. When a topic is well covered by reliable sources, our articles often settle into a summary of the best available sources. The fact that places have screened documentaries and recommended books by prominent Black women as part of Juneteenth celebrations is not enough of a connection to then discuss works by those women that aren't explicitly about Juneteenth. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 01:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. That's helpful. I am continuing the search for better sources, as you suggested.

Point of clarification: What if the documentaries screened and the books recommended as part of Juneteenth celebrations explicitly quote the works by these women? For example, could I cite an actual quote from the Pauli Murray documentary that was screened as part of a Juneteenth event? Can these women of history ONLY be quoted on the subject of Juneteenth, or can you use any quote of theirs that was PART of a Juneteenth celebration?

For comparison, the WP MLK Day page includes a Bible quote from a Navy Chaplain's address given as part of an MLK Day observance that is not explicitly about MLK. It's about "dreams."

Similar to a book quote or film quote from a Juneteenth observance that is not explicitly about Juneteenth, but is about "freedom."

AmorLucis (talk) 02:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to hear you're on the hunt for better sources! I've been doing some research on "What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?" in the context of the Independence Day page. I was going to bring up that speech as an exemplar of what would be perfect for Juneteenth if there were an analogous version for Black women and the Nineteenth of June. I am shocked (not surprised) to see discussion of Douglass's speech absent from the Independence Day article.

To your question about explicit quotes: I don't think so, but I am not as sure. I haven't seen it done, but am not confident it's prohibited by policy or guideline. I wouldn't recommend it. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 02:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I actually went to the Fourth of July page to LOOK for that citation of "What to the Slave Is the Fourth Of July" speech to show how other holidays bring in other viewpoints and was shocked that it wasn't there! But, please note that Douglass is EXPLICITLY talking about Black MEN throughout that speech. When he says "Must I undertake to prove that the slave is a man?" He is talking about MEN. Because at that time (and this is my point) Black women had no "identity" of their own, even WITHIN their own community. Douglass is hailed as a "feminist," but his speeches are full of male supremacist language and thought. It's kinda depressing that HE is held up as the BEST example of a male ally to women's rights. Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton get SKEWERED as "racist" when they regularly and specifically included Black women in their rhetoric for equal rights. But Douglass specifically EXCLUDED women. He's got some well-known quotes on that.

It's interesting. You have these characters from history---Black men and Black women and White women. And people keep cherry picking the same quotes to frame each of them a certain way. And there's an opposite standard applied. Black men can speak in male supremacist language and thought and be called "feminists." White women can use inclusive language and be called "racist." And Black women who fight against white and male supremacy are only quoted on their struggle against white supremacy. It's really an insidious pattern. We're at a very biased place in reporting history right now. Hopefully the pendulum will swing back to the center and we'll have intersectional consistency across races and sexes. Right now, we sure don't!

P.S. The Columbus Day and Thanksgiving Day WP pages DO talk about how some people observe the holidays by noting that Native Americans did not have the same historical experience as non-Natives. Which to me, is the same thing I am asking to include on the Juneteenth page. The Juneteenth celebration, in history and in practice, means different things to Black women.

AmorLucis (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Thanks for posting this, which made me smile today. I agree: solving global problems is going to require at least three tables! WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:33, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"fears" is used as it is taken from a quote by David Gorski who is considered RS in the matter. There is/was a "discussion", if you could call it that, on talk:Bret Weinstein#Misinformation, disinformation and Bret Weinstein, talk:Bret Weinstein#Protected edit request on 4 July 2021. Related in other sections and on wp:DRN#Bret Weinstein. That phrase and quotes have been changed numerous times. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 17:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adakiko, thanks! I did see the closed discussion you linked first, and the second closed discussion below, and the DRN post. I hadn't seen the edit request, although your link takes me to an identically named section a little higher; I think I can tell which one you're talking about.

I do understand that "fears" is a direct quote, but I hope you can see that readers are unlikely to know that and are very likely to perceive the word being scare-quoted. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying, Firefangledfeathers, but it is likely futile. I have yet to hear even an acknowledgement that such a reading of the "fears" is possible. Much less any arguments against a change that really only reflects the source quote more accurately. Dylath Leen (talk) 18:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dylath Leen, to be fair, your point about scare-quotes has always been bundled with other, bigger suggested changes. Ditto for the IP's edit request. It's doesn't boggle the mind that there hasn't been substantive discussion of the issue. That said, WP:QUOTEPOV addresses this situation pretty specifically. I feel motivated to bring it up again in a while, after the RfC concludes, but we'll see. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am stunned that basically this exact situation is described in WP:QUOTEPOV as unacceptable. I was just going by instinct on that one. Perhaps I should have split the followup into two separate discussions, but I feel like both of them would be closed just the same. Dylath Leen (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adakiko, the "fears" quote does not come from Gorski, it is from the Vice article. In full it reads “because we have fears, as we have discussed at length on this podcast,”. The status of Vice as RS is not as clear cut. Dylath Leen (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Really, the quote is directly from Weinstein's video, as quoted by Vice. We're using the Vice source to verify the existence of and basic description of the video. Not too controversial. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 18:59, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I am not really worried about that particular quote coming, by proxy, from Vice, but there is a discussion about Vice as RS in general. Dylath Leen (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thank you for your comment on my talk page. On that article I had previously explained my edits in the box, however the user who undid them has a habit of ignoring comments from other editors (I have noticed he has done this to myself before and other editors and has been quite rude and aggressive in the talk sections). While I don't wish to engage in warring, I also found it tiring having to re-explain the edits only for them to be ignored by the other user gatekeeping the articles. However, I'll add them again for explanation to other users if I do reapply the edits. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MWD115 (talk • contribs) 04:32, 21 July 2021 (UTC)‎[reply]

Ok! I think uses of the "undo" button make edit summaries particularly crucial. Instead of re-explaining, you might explain once at the talk page and then link the talk page section in your edit summary. I don't share your view on that editors behavior (though I haven't reviewed the whole history of that page), but here's not really the place to discuss that anyway. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:37, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on Talk:Nicholas Wade. I was so interested in the intersection of journalism and scientific research that I never read the talk page dates (I worked for a TV network news organization—pre 2000). The difficulty with this article flows, I think, from the political uses of his 2014 book. No matter how carefully a writer researches and expresses his synthesis, once published, the work is in play. The content and how it is being used belongs in A Troublesome Inheritance. At this point, a single paragraph in the bio is sufficient. Few books become a political bludgeon—this one has. There is no reason for political views within the Wikipedia editing community to play out in the bio.

I think I shall leave my comment, not because it is particularly useful, but because the whole section is a good introduction to the RFC. There will be enough TP activity to move the section and RFC right along. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 04:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neonorange, by all means, leave it. I reverted my own comment to avoid clutter. For your or any future-readers reference, this diff shows my comment and the self-reversion. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, again. Interesting times we live in, huh? — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 05:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You mean there isn't a Manual of Style section on techno-loving dudes named Cal? ;-) --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking about places that are just baaaarely in Northern California... Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've manually archived the offending thread and adjusted the archiving parameters to hopefully prevent such dead horse beating in the future. If there is a wish to start yet another RfC (to what avail?), that should be in a new section. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oof I hope we have a longer respite before the next one. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you Firefangledfeathers. You have brought fairness to Wade Burleson on Wikapedia. I accept being "blocked" but you have successfully thwarted the vandalism of those who wish to tarnish the reputation of my friend and boss. Okiehistory (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Slatersteven (talk) 14:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your patience on RS/N over the last few days. As a former one and a half decade old IPA, I can confidently say your professional attitude and helpfulness is of great value to Wikipedia.

Hi, I'd like to know the reason for the discretionary sanction. I was not aware of discretionary sanctions in place for the topic (Politics_of_J._K._Rowling) nor is there an ds/editnotice in place on the page. Thanks. WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 14:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WikiMane11, the portion of Politics of J. K. Rowling you edited is about a living person and is therefore covered under BLP discretionary sanctions. It also concerned a gender-related dispute, hence the coverage under gender and sexuality DS. All edits about those subjects are subject to discretionary sanctions, even if there is no edit notice. Please let me know if you have any more questions. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What specific rules did I break? WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 14:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you have broken any rules! The DS notices at least attempt to be clear about that, saying that the alert "does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date". PS: I fixed some formatting errors in my above comment; you should now be able to see the names of the Arbitration cases the DS are under. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 14:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ha. Thanks. Ok, so then can I ask why was I given a DS? (Side note: I find it odd that other editors are fighting to keep weasel words in an article and insisting on including irrelevant information.) WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! I want as many people as possible to know about the heightened scrutiny in those topic areas. I post a lot of alerts. If you want to talk through the article issues, I encourage you to start a talk page section; if you do, I'd appreciate a ping. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 15:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done! WikiMane11 (ThunderPeel) (talk) 15:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you take a look at the last couple of edits and tell me what you think. I got the impression yesterday that you approved of my recent change. Thanks. Tewdar (talk) 09:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last couple of edits, before I started adding lots of citations, that is... Tewdar (talk) 10:07, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to take a look. Might be a few hours. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond at the article talk. Thank you for the rigorous sourcing; though, you might want to start thinking about which ones could be pruned when we go from having a content dispute problem to a (nicer to have) WP:CITEBOMB problem. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 12:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I always intended to prune, once I had established that this summarizes an absolutely overwhelming consensus. Thank you for your very welcome input. Tewdar (talk) 13:35, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't like it... Tewdar (talk) 20:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... this is a frustrating topic area to work in. Hope you have some good coping strategies. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:39, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What a vile editing environment. Coping strategies? Yeah, I go back and edit linguistics and archaeology articles, where consensual article improvement is remarkably easy to obtain in comparison. Tewdar (talk) 07:59, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard Tewdar (talk) 19:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed the post and am reading with interest. I can't say for sure that I'll respond. Friendly advice: posting like this could be considered WP:CANVASSING and you may want to exercise caution. For the record, I already had the page on my watchlist. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of such a policy. Sorry. Tewdar (talk) 07:00, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. May you please read the Justin Trudeau talk page, and consider joining the discussion. I value your input. Peerreviewededitor (talk) 05:13, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Will do, though it may be half a day or so. Thanks, and I value your contributions as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article was just deleted if you would like to create a redirect to Chowdhury. Notfrompedro (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notfrompedro, go for it! I’m on mobile for a bit. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:49, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]