User talk:Fyrael

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Vox (band) [pl], a Polish band

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The edit you made which I'm referring to should be found [1].

The source for adding this to the list is the final paragraph of page 10 [2]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can (bot)&section=new report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:31, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

could I trouble you to weigh in on Wikipedia:Teahouse#Order by first or last name? - I noticed the same thing at Unplugged just now, looked at the history, and traced the change from the original last-name to the current first-name order to an edit of yours, [3]. The summary mentions "cleanup using Dabfix", which makes me suspect that that may not have been intentional. If so, is it worth bothering to re-order now, or is that just going to get undone the next time someone uses such a tool? "Dabfix" itself seems to be gone, though...

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

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

Why did you write that this is not a valid source? It is sponsored by The Glacier Archaeology Program in Innlandet; The Glacier Archaeology Program is a cooperation between Innlandet County Council and the Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo. (According to the source code of the site.) Kdammers (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kdammers: what article are you referring to? -- Fyrael (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see you're talking about the Archaeology article. Maybe "valid" wasn't the best word, but my reasoning is that this homepage, like most homepages, doesn't give much direct information and doesn't do a great job of supporting the text we're citing. I was not claiming that the program isn't reputable or anything like that. I would say that the one citation already present is plenty for such an uncontroversial statement, but if we wanted another then we should use an actual article from that site, like Finding glacial archaeological sites, or even better, a Science article that I found linked from secretsoftheice, Racing the thaw. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A bare URL and missing title error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me Fyael…I’m unfamiliar with Wikipedia protocols…not sure what would be the nature of a citation for events which occurred 50 years ago. What had got my attention in the Barry Burkus article was Don Evan’s assertion that he had opened a Miami office for Burkus. That is simply false. I did and managed it from the Burkus office in Washington D. C. I brought in a manager from the LA office to handle day to day operations and we hired Don as a draftsman. I’m presently in Florida and my office records are inaccessible. FreddytheK(talk) 13:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] Apologies for misspelling Berkus…a bit of brain fog on a Sunday morning! FreddytheK (talk) 14:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply] FreddytheK (talk) 14:54, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[4] while I basically agree with you on the justification for this undo, let me just remark how often the cited rule is blatantly (and knowingly) violated in WP even in very conspicuous cases. An arbitrary example would be real estate lawyer, a redirect to real estate, even though no mention of lawyers or any legislative or juridicial aspects is made there. Good luck with you huge quest, then. -- Kku (talk) 09:41, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kku: I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. I don't see any entry at REL (disambiguation) for "real estate lawyer". And what quest? -- Fyrael (talk) 15:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are focussing only on redirects that occur in disambiguation pages, I can understand your confusion. Sad thing is that we do indeed have redirects that are literally misleading as well. And tons of them. Such as in my example. If you aren't on the lookout for those, all the better for you. But from my point of view they are at least as much of a problem as those that occur in disambiguation pages. Btw., I have now partially fixed the real estate lawyer. -- Kku (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

before moving forward, try and confirm before reporting a user. In the beginning, you saw that he is the OLOGBOTSERE yet someone went and removed that make from the photo caption. I reversed what was entered and you thought you know best to report my username? Are you being fair? Unbully (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Unbully: it seems like you have misread some things. I have not in any way reported you. What I did was revert your addition of language that does not seem at to be representing a neutral point of view and also provided no citation to a reliable source that supports your claims about certain actions being illegal. We require reliable sources for any information you wish to add. If you're unsure how to do that, please see Help:Referencing for beginners. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://punchng.com/why-im-heading-to-court-over-olu-of-warri-throne-ologbotsere/

https://punchng.com/attempt-to-disqualify-olu-of-warri-designate-over-mums-yoruba-origin-illegal-ajulo/

https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2021/04/13/tsola-emiko-the-many-troubles-of-olu-of-warri-designate/

https://www.nigerdeltatoday.com/why-prince-tsola-emiko-is-not-qualified-to-be-enthroned-as-next-olu-of-warri/

Do you need more proof? Unbully (talk) 20:21, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jG54FxmQpMg

https://punchng.com/legal-battle-begins-over-olu-of-warris-stool-as-coronation-nears/ Unbully (talk) 20:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Railway Children (band), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Indie.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the WTAF recommendation in the RSS disambiguation article. The company does not have a wikipedia page. I don't have a lot of experience in Wikipedia (this was actually my first time!) so I'm learning. I'll try to write a page for it, but any help or tip would be very much appreciated. Albzzzz (talk) 08:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Albzzzz:I think your best path is to try to follow the guidelines at Help:Your first article, and definitely make sure before you start that the company has a lot of coverage in secondary sources so you can cite those in your article. If you have trouble with something you can message me or hit up the Wikipedia:Teahouse. Good luck! -- Fyrael (talk) 01:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You detected the issue but its far bigger than you realise. See User talk:103.152.9.17. I expect developments as user has got into an edit war with an administrator ChaseKiwi (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Fyrael, please revert my edit on the central asia page. The page mentions afghanistan throughout the article. For consistency and maintaining continuity, Afghanistan should therefore be included in the cities section. Further, THREE governments cite Afghanistan as central asian. Therefore, consensus has been established not only internall through the articles existing precedent but also by government sources, who are known classification authorities and therefore experts in their field. https://www.statcan.gc.ca/en/media/3216 https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/classifications/australian-standard-classification-cultural-and-ethnic-groups-ascceg/latest-release https://aria.stats.govt.nz/aria/#ClassificationView:uri=http://stats.govt.nz/cms/ClassificationVersion/ys69SsOCPi6Mc4jR Factfinderrr (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Factfinderrr: I'm not discussing this with you here. Bring your argument to the talk page of the article, and be sure to read the very long and thorough discussions that have already taken place there, just so we aren't all repeating what's been said already. -- Fyrael (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Fyrael. Thank you for your work on Polar Fox (car brand). Another editor, MPGuy2824, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

not mentioned at target page

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|MPGuy2824}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-MPGuy2824 (talk) 12:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]