User talk:FeRDNYC

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

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.
  

GAB^gab 15:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Many thanks. Looks like I've got some studying to do! -- FeRDNYC (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm not sure exactly how to link to it, but I've added some further discussion to your comment on the Dan Bilzerian talk page, and I'm going to make an attempt to better summarize the cited source.47.224.90.232 (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FeRDNYC, I doublechecked the versions. You are right, I removed the wrong link by mistake. Sorry. Thanks for taking the time to review and write a detailed explanation! Actually I'm planning to translate this article. That's why I was checking the sources.
Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Dr.KBAHT[reply]

Hi, regarding this discussion Wikipedia_talk:User_scripts/Archive_6#Collapsed_install_codes which has since been archived, I wanted to note that the issue has now been resolved through a MediaWiki-side patch (phab:T276741). Cheers! – SD0001 (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Signpost/DateCoundown and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 17 § Template:Signpost/DateCoundown until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. jp×g 00:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Think you could remove /* {{pp|small=yes}} */ from User:FeRDNYC/signpost sandbox.css? It's currently polluting Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates since the page isn't currently protected (user-space css/js protection doesn't count). Thanks! Aidan9382 _(talk) 08:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has later been removed by an interface admin. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind removing the protection template (first line) from User:FeRDNYC/signpost sandbox.css? With it, the page is added to Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Thanks! :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has later been removed by an interface admin. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially-designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

You have recently made edits related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. This is a standard message to inform you that the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

It is strongly contra-indicated to cast aspersions (across two WP:Contentious topics at once!) at other editors for using singular-they as a generic replacement for neopronouns, following our own community consensus to do so and broad current practice across the English-writing world, on the basis of what seems to be your own rather extreme advocacy position (which many trans/enby people strenuously disagree with) that generically skirting neopronouns with they objectively "is" misgendering and that it is an "offense". Branding other editors as misgenderers is highly likely to be taken as uncivil, battlegrounding, and possibly a personal attack. You can make your point without playing aspersion-casting, judgemental games, e.g. with phrasing like "using they instead of neoprouns" instead of "using the wrong pronouns"; trying "may be interpreted by someone as misgendering" instead of "is an act of misgendering"; considering "could be interpreted as the same kind of behavior" instead of "all constitute pretty much the same offense"; etc.

I'll remind you of your own wording: "[This] is a topic of discussion and debate. There's no definitive answer ..., and opinions will vary. But ... claiming zoom is wrong or being logically inconsistent simply because zoom's views on pronouns and gendering are different from your own feels like a losing one." So is using guilt by association and ad hominem labels like "misgendering" against other editors simply for having a slightly different socio-politico-cultural stance than your personal view, to try to WP:WIN; it's a losing, fallacious argument that is poisonous to actual discussion, debate, and varying of opinions.

PS: Some helpful material on adjusting from an antagonistic "advocacy argumentation" habit (one which I arrived here with as well, many years ago, having been a professional activist) to a collegial consensus-forming process can be found at: WP:HOTHEADS, WP:ACTIVISM, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment: in order to avoid confusion with HTML entities (such as & or ), perhaps you might consider rewording Style rules are technically applied to HTML entities to Style rules are technically applied to HTML elements? This would also align with your later use of the term "HTML element". isaacl (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! You're quite right, I messed that up. I'll fix that, thanks for letting me know. FeRDNYC (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to figure this out all morning and have had no luck. The publishing date's set to be the 5th... and the writing deadline is set to be one day before that. Then the countdown text below (which is ALSO set to be the writing deadline) is correctly talking about November 4... but the percent countdown, for some inscrutable reason, is claiming November 2. I have been going through all the templates trying to find out why this would be the case but I have nothing. Any thoughts? jp×g🗯️ 22:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The param in dateswrap works fine: {{#time: j|2023-11-05 20:01 UTC - 24 hours}} = 4, which is totally correct. And {{#time: Y-M-j H:i (e)|2023-11-05 20:01 UTC - 24 hours}} = 2023-Nov-4 20:01 (UTC)... jp×g🗯️ 22:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think it was this -- what??? How does that even make sense.

You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot sir for your help. I was offline for a few days, and couldn't reply to you on time. However, I have found out what you replied to me (currently archived), and it has served my purpose well. Thanks again for your help. Happy editing, Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 08:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]