User talk:Firefangledfeathers

Contentious topics awareness notices (reviewed July 29, 2024)

NPOV Discussion

Hi Firefangledfeathers I would like to check with you with regards to the discussion at NPOV board where you commented. According to WP:RSP, The Economist is considered generally reliable. However some editors argue that this Economist article is an opinion piece, because WP:RSP also states that "The Economist publishes exclusively articles in editorial voice with no byline". Referring to this statement - on tone and writing, some editors consider every Economist article to be an opinion piece, and therefore not suitable for use in Wikipedia. In my opinion, that certainly contradicts the strong community consensus that The Economist is generally reliable, which was reached at the last RFC: [1] Also, in that RFC, I don't see any consensus for the wording about The Economist publishing articles exclusively in editorial voice. Checking through history, I see that this wording was introduced by one user: [2], who referred to his own comments here: [3] Previous wording appeared to suggest that The Economist published both regular articles and editorial pieces. I don't see that The Economist article in question is identified as an opinion piece on The Economist website, and blanket dismissal of all Economist articles is in my view against Wikipedia policies and general consensus. I would like to have some guidance on this, as it seems the longer this difference in opinion continues without admin guidance, the more agitated the disagreeing user(s) are becoming, and the goal here is progress and updating the article, rather than getting in to a back and forth. What would be your advice in this situation? Should I raise this question at WP:RSP again? Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

I would suggest asking at WP:RSN, which has more viewers. I do think Economist doesn't distinguish clearly between opinion and fact, but maybe there's a better way of saying so; "exclusively in editorial voice" seems a bit off to me. Incidentally, it's not true that the current description makes the Economist not suitable for use here, just that attribution is needed. It's a very reputable publication, and most topics that aren't bursting at the seams with reliable non-opinion sources should probably include any relevant Economist commentary. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Much obliged for the comment, I will follow your advice. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 17:25, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers Hi there! Apologies for reaching out again, but I would greatly appreciate some further experienced guidance on the dispute resolution process. The recent discussion at WP:RSN resulted in a consensus that not every Economist article should be considered an opinion piece, and that it is up to editors to discern which parts of an Economist article are news reporting and which are commentary. Consequently, the cited Economist report should not be dismissed under RSOPINION. With this understanding, I believe the RSP entry needs to be updated to reflect the community’s stance. What would be the best way to go about making this change?

Additionally, the argument that news reports are unacceptable based on WP:MEDRS was also not upheld, as WP:MEDPOP provides a clear exception. This leaves us with objections based on WP:DUE. I am wondering, how many reliable sources are generally required to establish that a topic is DUE? For instance, the story about Dr. Levine's pressure to remove minimum age requirements for treatment has been reported by The Economist, The New York Times, The Hill, and The Telegraph, all of which are recognized as reliable sources per WP:RSP. I have not included mentions from lesser-known outlets, focusing only on highly reputable ones. Moreover, this issue sparked public debate, as evidenced by op-eds in prominent outlets like The Washington Post, The NYT, and The Guardian. While op-eds aren’t considered reliable sources themselves, and while not RS, their presence indicates the topic has garnered significant attention. Furthermore, the U.S. administration responded to the NYT reports by denying its involvement, strongly suggesting it may have been Dr. Levine’s personal initiative. Adding to this, the U.S. Congress Subcommittee on Health Care and Financial Services has launched an investigation, seeking documents related to health officials' interactions with WPATH based on the NYT's reporting. All these factors point to a significant controversy covered by numerous reliable sources.

The user opposing the inclusion of this material claims it is already covered in the SOC8 article, but I have not been able to find it there. Moreover, it seems unlikely that a story reported in 2024 would be included in discussions of reports from 2022, which are referenced in that article. My final question is: what would be the best way to request opinions on the assertion that the issue of external influence on WPATH's decision-making is already covered in another article?

I really appreciate your time and any advice you can provide on these matters. Thank you! Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 08:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll be able to check out the discussions later today. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

If I'm reading the article talk page discussion right, the thing the other editor said was at the SOC article is

This version of the protocol gives no specific age limits for treatments, emphasizing the need to decide individually for each patient. An earlier draft would have required several years of transgender identity before an adolescent could begin treatment. After criticism from transgender advocates, this provision was removed in the final release.

I assume you're looking for a version that mentions Levine's advocacy specifically. Since other editors feel content about the SOC is better suited to its own article, have you considered expanding there first? It would be reasonable, I think, to assess how due the content is at SOC before assessing how the expanded/altered version there should be summarized at the WPATH article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:52, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers thank you for the consideration, and the advice. Per your suggestion, I added the information with attribution to the sources Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 10:31, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers I see that User:Raladic has removed the mention of Dr. Levine, and the reference to The Economist has also been removed, despite the community confirming that it is a reliable source. [4] Initially, the concern raised was about the reliability of the sources cited, such as The Economist, on the WPATH page. However, it seems that the underlying issue, according to what i see in the reversion, might be more about the content itself rather than the validity of the sources.

The entire controversy revolves around the involvement of this particular official, Dr. Levine, in influencing WPATH's decisions, which is documented by multiple reliable sources. How can this removal be justified when it has already been established that these sources are valid and notable? Is this not an example of tendentious editing? Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the best next step is talk page discussion. Feel free to ping me and I should be able to get to it soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:30, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers ok great, I will follow your input on this matter. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Firefangledfeathers, First off, thanks for all the assistance you provided so far, much appreciated. I'm generally alright with the present wording at SOC article. I proposed some minor tweaks for precision, you may wish to check them too.

Regarding the Economist article about the Hopkins University reports. The opinions at WP:NPOVN about the inclusion of this information are split almost equally. I think if the involved editors cannot reach an agreement, maybe it is worth asking the larger community to weigh in? Looking over at WP:DR, I see that requests for comment are mentioned as an option to request community-wide input on article content. Do you think I should try it to get the discussion out of the deadlock? Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 16:49, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

No, WP:FORUMSHOPing further after a point has been discussed at one, or in this case three (article talk, NPOVN and RSN), separate venues is not a way to find another series of discussions.

WP:No consensus for a change is a common outcome of discussions, in which case we typically follow the principles of status quo against the inclusion of the proposed additions. That is the basis of most editing on Wikipedia. Raladic (talk) 20:20, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

The Hopkins stuff has always seemed weak to me. If I'm recalling correctly, the only non-op-ed source discussing the matter is The Economist, and it just says "there's evidence to suggest" some improper influence. Raladic's point about the evidence coming from SEGM seems strong to me.

That said, I disagree with Raladic that an RfC would be forum shopping. The dispute was founded on reliability and NPOV matters, so posts at the two relevant noticeboards were appropriate. The RSN discussion ended favorably toward you, roughly speaking, and NPOVN is looking like no consensus. An RfC is a reasonable next step. I still wouldn't recommend it, unless there's stronger sourcing out there. Speaking just based on my own personal impression, I think you're coming off a little tendentious—since this matter has sprawled and so dominated your recent editing activity—and Raladic is coming off a little stonewall-y. I would encourage you both to avoid future behavior that increases those impressions or fits them into a larger pattern. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Point taken, noted. I do apologize if it came across as stonewall-y.

I wasn't trying to be stonewall-y (and as such we did collaborate on the expansion on the other content at the SOC article on the age story as that one was well sourced and I did say that it was welcome to be expanded there).

I just think that on the Hopkins story that it was weakly sourced and not picked up by any other reputable, non-opinion, sources, as you also pointed out now, so I'd just like to hope we can stop expending more energy across yet another forum on it now, unless future better RS comes along to support it. Raladic (talk) 15:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

You certainly don't have to apologize to me, though I do always enjoy seeing Wikipedians admit some room for improvement. Surprisingly rare! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your advice. Sorry if my recent edits seemed a bit tendentious—this was certainly not my intention. My goal was simply to enhance Wikipedia articles with well-supported content from highly reliable sources, following consensus with other editors and the broader Wikipedia community. That’s why I’ve made an effort to seek outside guidance and consult with others to ensure the accuracy and balance of my contributions.

I understand your concerns and will take them to heart, stepping back from this topic for a while to focus on other areas, as the topic certainly took up a good deal of time. Regarding The Economist, I had just wanted to note that it is known for rigorous fact-checking and accuracy. Four mainstream news outlets have even published op-eds discussing The Economist's report, which, to me, indicated a broad acceptance of the information's credibility and its impact on public debate. However, since you’ve advised against an RFC at this time, I’ll hold off on pursuing that route, and will not develop this topic until/ unless there are more sources and developments available regarding the Economist Hopkins report.

Thank you to everyone for the collaboration. While we may not always agree, I believe we’ve shown that it’s possible to resolve disputes civilly and in keeping with Wikipedia’s principles of respect for the rules and one another. Sean Waltz O'Connell (talk) 09:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:09, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Question from Hydronym89 on Joseph Al-Zehlaoui (19:13, 26 August 2024)

Heya, I have no idea how this works, but this article is missing a pretty important section on the controversy surrounding his deposition. When I write it up do you mind letting me ping you to take a look at it to make sure I'm covering a sensitive topic like this correctly? --Hydronym89 (talk) 19:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hydronym89. Sure! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Perfect! I added the section, as well as wrote out some information on the talk page that may be relevant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Joseph_Al-Zehlaoui please advise! Hydronym89 (talk) 16:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I'll be able to check it out in the next few hours. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Lumbarschen

Hello, the user whom you recently p-blocked is now edit-warring at Epirus [5]. Also almost certainly a sock of the indeffed Arbe21 21 (talk · contribs). Khirurg (talk) 11:23, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Wow, "edit warring" and accusing me to be someone. I reverted an Edit which is more accurate than the cited source that was there about "Epirus is the northwestern area of ancient Greece" while it talked about modern Greece, i'm not edit warring but i'm reverting an edit which has a better source than the ones that were cited before — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumbarschen (talk • contribs) 11:27, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Lumbarschen, you are edit warring. Even though you only reverted once, it was participation in an edit war over that version. I'm not going to sanction for it, but if this pattern continues, you are likely going to be blocked or topic banned. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Khirurg, based on a quick look, I'm not seeing the connection as obvious. If you have evidence, please file at WP:SPI (you can ping me, and I'll check it out if I can). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers But why am i "Edit warring" when i'm simply reverting a better option for that page? May i please know it? And how am i supposed to Edit or Revert more accurate things without "edit warring"? At this point i just should stop editing since none of my edit or reverts seems to be useful and is considered edit warring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumbarschen (talk • contribs) 12:41, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Lumbarschen, please read through the edit warring policy. If you have any questions, ask them. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

And still edit-warring [6]. Note the edit summary is dishonest, that edit is anything but a "small adjustment with a better source". Also, this user is almost certainly a sock, the SPI can be found here: [7]. Thanks. Khirurg (talk) 11:09, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted them. Now, I might not know a lot about Epirus, but I find it very hard to believe that "the cited source on "Epirus being the northwestern area of ancient Greece" seems to refer to modern Greece rather than ancient Greece" when the source is The Oxford Classical Dictionary. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit warring continues. I've reported them, seeing Firefangledfeathers hasn't been active for a couple of hours and might be getting a good night's sleep, hopefully. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 12:15, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

A restful sleep and a nice family weekend morning. I blocked the user for 48h for the edit warring. Hope to look at the SPI soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:47, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

statutory city help

Thanks for your help. It was easier than I thought. I'd not created a page before. Seananony (talk) 17:48, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

No problem, Seananony. Congrats on your first page creation! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from MWinter4 (09:03, 9 September 2024)

I accidently created the article Direct sum (polytope theory) in main space. I actually wanted to create it in my user space. Waqar moved it to drafts, but I would really prefer it to remain in my user space without a redirect from a draft page. Can you move it to my user space? --MWinter4 (talk) 09:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey MWinter4. So moved. I believe you have all the user rights necessary to enact such moves in the future, Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I was hoping to leave no redirect from the draft page since it was created unintentionally. This was also the reason why I did not move myself. MWinter4 (talk) 13:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry. I misread that "without". The redirect is at least potentially useful to someone else, and it's relatively harmless. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: Barnstar Award

		The Wikipedia Motivation Barnstar
		Appreciation for all your Motivation within Wikipedia Community TriosLosDios

TriosLosDios (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

What a kindness! Many thanks, TLD! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Create article

Hello my dear friend. I want to write an article. Please allow me to make an article because I have translated many articles. ZZ510 (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi ZZ510, and welcome to Wikipedia. If you have a background as a translator, your experience will be very useful here. You may want to get started by translating articles that exist on other language Wikipedias. Wikipedia:Translation has info on this process. Whether you're translating an article or creating a brand new one, you'll want to start in draftspace. You won't be able to create a new page in our main article space until you're autoconfirmed, which will happen once you've made 10 edits and been around at least four days. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks my dear friend. ZZ510 (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello my manager, the article Alireza Hashemzadeh was Labeled and has good sources because I translated it from Arabic Wikipedia. Remove the label and thank you. ZZ510 (talk) 12:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

The template at the top of the article is directing any interested editors to the deletion discussion. The nominator is suggesting that much or all of the content in the article is fake. If you are aware of strong sources that support the content, please comment about them in the discussion. The template should not be removed until the discussion is concluded, at which point someone else will do it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Well, I will find more sources and let you know to remove the template. ZZ510 (talk) 14:26, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello my manager, I added 9 resources to Alireza Hashemzadeh, check them and remove the template. Thanks. ZZ510 (talk) 18:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

ZZ510, the template is not going to be removed until the deletion discussion has concluded. This usually takes a week. While the discussion is running, you should make a comment and explain why the article shouldn't be deleted. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alireza Hashemzadeh. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Can you make a comment? ZZ510 (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No. My goal as a mentor is to guide you to resources and answer questions. I won't get directly involved in your disputes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:08, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

OK ZZ510 (talk) 11:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 64

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024

• The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
• Wikimania presentation
• New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:34, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey, just wanted to drop a quick note of thanks for your note on the talk discussion. I try to hold back, but sometimes it can get exceedingly frustrating when having to rehash the same things over and over, so thanks for your note on the tone :) Raladic (talk) 14:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for holding back and stepping back! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

African American History Page

Hello- just circling back with you because you reversed some work I contributed to the African American History page. Im a bit unclear from your comment what the concern is?? Can you help me better understand? RFAvaria (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing I'd prefer to discuss at the article talk page. If you start a discussion, fee free to ping me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I apologize im not sure I know how to do that.... do you mind starting a talk there or can we discuss here? Im interested to hear your thoughts... I know its a work in progress with a long way to go, but I am trying my best to honor the contributions of others and not delete them so trying to add relevant content and put events in chronological order gets a bit more difficult.

I just feel like if someone put their hard work into writing something I should try to work around it so it just seems to take longer. anyway.....ill wait until you start a convo "ping" lol on some other area thanks RFAvaria (talk) 20:10, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

when I clicked the "talk" button it routed me back here RFAvaria (talk) 20:15, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

just making a not here to let you know I started a topic over there ...awaiting your feedback thanks ! RFAvaria (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

NPOV on Len Blavatnik BLP

Hi there, nice to meet you. I found your name on the Category:Wikipedians willing to provide third opinions list, and noticed you again at Wikipedia talk:No original research. I am looking for an editor to look at an edit request I recently posted at Talk:Len Blavatnik#NPOV problems in the Intro and Sanctions sections concerning content that may not adhere to Wikipedia's policy of NPOV. I hope you have time to contribute to that discussion. Thanks in advance for your help on this. C at Access (talk) 13:23, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi C at Access. Glad to see you started a discussion. It's looking pretty fresh, so I'd prefer to see local discussion proceed further before feeling like an outside voice is necessary. If the other participant doesn't get back to you by about a day from now, I'd suggest pinging them a reminder. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:02, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Reversion

Thanks for https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers&oldid=prev&diff=1246529603&markasread=326648016&markasreadwiki=enwiki. It was a misclick. Tag me if you are responding to my content or wish to notify me, because I may not be subscribed. (talk) 14:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

October 7

There has been another change to this article, the same as one which you reverted back on 22 June. Your edit summary referenced WP:ARBECR. Should this latest edit be reverted for the same reason, or for a different reason, or not reverted at all? Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. There's no requirement to revert such edits, but between that and MOS:TERRORIST, it seems like the right call to me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from AniSad90 (17:58, 24 September 2024)

How do I upload a new article --AniSad90 (talk) 17:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi AniSad90! I encourage you to edit some existing articles first to get a feel for how things work here. If you're set on starting with a new article, see Help:Your first article for some advice. Let me know if you have other questions or run into any issues. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

On Abortion

You said no one is confused about this. It's not about confusion, it's about making Wikipedia encyclopedic. Our goal is not to assume that people already understand a topic. Kids could be coming to Wikipedia for the first time to understand what abortion or anything else is: if we don't make it clear and differentiate abortion from other procedures, we are failing at our encyclopedic mission. Someone who does not know what abortion is would be confused by how it was defined in the Wikipedia article before the edit I made, because based on the definition that was given a c-section would be considered an abortion. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

This is the sort of thing that should be discussed at the article talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

But also if you agree with me you could revert your reversion, right? U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with you. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, well no need to reply why here since you think it should be discussed elsewhere, but feel free to on the article's talk. U9y0x46md247bg5ivb7z (talk) 02:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

You have blocked my ip from editing on the page "Laapataa Ladies".

Could you please unblock it so I can add a verified source and context. Knightmare2451 (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

No, but you are just blocked from the article itself. You should use the talk page to explain why your changes would be an improvement and what sources support them. If you can explain how your prior approach was problematic, and if you demonstrate some civil collaboration at the talk page, I'll be happy to consider an unblock. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:11, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I wanted to added some missing problematic context and criticism which seem to be missing from the article. For example the movie shows a problematic relationship between an adult in his 20's married to his "wife" under 15 and it's very glorified even with a romantic song "sajni". My source is an article which analyzes the very disturbing and problematic themes glorified in the film. I don't know if my approach was "problematic" as you put it but I did input the wrong source for the context I provided which I fully own upto. I replied here instead of the talk page because this seems easier to connect and reply with you directly. I would be happy if you could reconsider unblocking me from the page and let me add the missing context and source. Knightmare2451 (talk) 12:31, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

In order to make that change, you're going to need to convince other editors. The best place to do so is at the talk page. Most of them will not be watching this page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I have added that topic to the articles talk page, what would be the next step? Knightmare2451 (talk) 13:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Wait for others to respond. You can read more about the consensus-building process at Wikipedia:Consensus. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from SalmonPenny (16:42, 25 September 2024)

Hi, I'm working on a physics experiment as an undergrad. The working group has talked about making a dedicated wikipedia article for it for some time. There is a proposed outline and citation list already, but no one has worked on it since.

I've read that in order to get a page published as a new account, it needs to be reviewed by an experienced editor. I was wondering if you could help me with that. --SalmonPenny (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi SalmonPenny, and welcome to Wikipedia! The process we encourage new editors to use for new pages is WP:Articles for creation. We especially ask that editors use that process when they have a conflict of interest, which you might have when it comes to the project you've been working on. If you read about AfC and have any questions about the process, let me know! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Recent LTA

Hi, Regarding the recent LTA attacking the helpdesk, is this BBB? Filmssssssssssss (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Not sure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Edward Heath on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

RD

Thank you for posting two people to recent deaths, - please consider to give credits ;) -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompot, GA! Working on it now. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Question from Ultraheavenly (23:07, 27 September 2024)

hey! my name is maddie, and i've come to the discovery that there is very little information available online about 3D custom girl XP, a downloadable game about dressing anime girls, and neither this game nor their Japanese Developer have english wikipedia articles ( having them only in mandarin, here > https://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tech_Arts), so I figured why not :) --Ultraheavenly (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi Maddie, and welcome to Wikipedia! I would suggest starting by looking for reliable sources about either the game or the company. If you find there are a few such sources, that may demonstrate notability, which means a topic might appropriately be covered by a Wikipedia article. The bars for notability for products and companies are both pretty high, and I'd suggest reviewing those links as you're evaluating the sources you find. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to drag you into this.

In regard to an editor you previously notified about CTOP. [8]

Cheers. DN (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

BTW, they quickly deleted my request on their talk (sigh). DN (talk) 04:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Darknipples, I have a vague recollection that I'm INVOLVED, and it'll be a little while before so can look into it. I'd suggest picking someone from the list of active admins or just going ahead to ANI. Please ping me. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

How to win friends and influence people?

Finefangledfeathers your admirer has been reported to uaa. Knitsey (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, Knitsey and Izno. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: All RFCs request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Category talk:Professional wrestling controversies on a "All RFCs" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!

		The Original Barnstar
		To Firefangledfeathers on the occasion of the Minneapolis FA being kept. It made it because of you. Thank you! -SusanLesch (talk) 17:43, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Aw, thanks! I hope you're feeling proud and happy after such an extensive effort. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:58, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I am thank you, but the article is the gift that keeps on giving. Hope to see you again at FAR. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Dirk Louw (11:24, 9 October 2024)

Hi I look at a article about Medunsa in South Africa where it state the university was established in 2015. That's not true in 1990 to 1992 I was send to Medunsa for a DNA test to determine if the child in question is mine. It then was part of the university of the Great North it was a university where black people could study as in apartheid years they could not study in white universities. I know Medunsa name changed, as far as I know Medunsa was there since early 1980 or shortly after. I was send there by court order to do the DNA test which was very new world wide then. So I do not want write article just bring under your attention that the information you have is not correct. If in the future I have more info about other topics I would like send it to you, but for now if you need more info about Medunsa I will gladly help if I can

In the nineteen eighties it was a hospital, but more set for medical research and was quite advanced in the medical field. It was a hospital and studying was done after a medical degree was done, the main pur6was research. 

Please let me know if there is another way I should bring info to your attention Thank you Dirk Swanepoel --Dirk Louw (talk) 11:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dirk Louw. I think you're talking about the article Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University. It states that the current incarnation was established in 2015, but that the institution (under different names) had been around since 1976. Does that seem accurate and clear to you? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Question from Love jgh (19:18, 9 October 2024)

Hello , How do I find add a new paragraph with the confidence I don't have --Love jgh (talk) 19:18, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi Love jgh. If you're not feeling confident enough to add a new paragraph, why not start with something smaller? I see you've already made some improvements, and you can find more to do at the "suggested edits" available from your homepage. When you are feeling a bit more confident, you should go for it! We encourage our editors to be bold. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)