User talk:Firefangledfeathers

Contentious topics awareness notices (reviewed May 29, 2025)

This user is aware of the designation of the following topics as contentious topics: Armenia, Azerbaijan, or related conflicts the Arab–Israeli conflict abortion post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles complementary and alternative medicine climate change discussions about infoboxes, and edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes COVID-19, broadly construed the Balkans or Eastern Europe Falun Gong governmental regulation of firearm ownership; the social, historical and political context of such regulation; and the people and organizations associated with these issues gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan post-1978 Iranian politics the topics of Kurds and Kurdistan, broadly construed pseudoscience and fringe science the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour the Troubles Yasuke Sri Lanka the results of any national or sub-national election They should not be given alerts for those areas.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Hi Firefangledfeathers, I disagree with your latest edit of this article. Bouvet provides important context as to how he thinks racism is conceived from a sociological point of view. This provides an additional perspective compared to the other ones in this section, i.e. Taguieff and Sabbagh's definitions of what constitutes racism, as well as Sawrikar and Katz's criticism of the "racism = prejudice + power" concept. It also links well with the South African and US sections where local anti-white sentiments are discussed in more detail. Besides, the truncated quote currently gives the impression that Bouvet is only criticizing anti-racist activists, which is not the full intention of his remarks. Bernard Lee (talk) 19:20, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that the removal was done by one of two users currently engaged in an edit war. I therefore believe it is better to keep the text in its original form until consensus can be found on the Talk page. Bernard Lee (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Bernard Lee. If you copy this over to the talk page, I'll respond there soon and other interested editors can be part of the discussion. As for the procedural question: since this content is quite new (February), I think the best approach is for proponents of the content to build consensus for inclusion. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:09, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your quick answer. I raised the issue directly on the Talk page, as suggested. For the proposed approach, I would actually see it the other way round. Since the deletion of sourced content is mainly pushed by one user who has been edit warring, it would make more sense for them to build consensus for removal. But I am looking forward to see what everyone has to say. Bernard Lee (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry this isn't really related to editing but gosh do I love your username in a way I can't really describe. It's just kind of so poetic (which, to be fair, makes sense lol). And you could not have found a better name for your alt than Waterwangledweathers. I swear, I was laughing for like a good 10 seconds when I saw that. Anyway, cheers and thanks for your contributions! GoldRomean (talk) 01:49, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thanks GR! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board 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 09:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FWS and wiki editors such as Firefangledfeathers shows evidence of an unconscious group dynamic called basic assumption oneness. Please research Group Analysis and reflect. Sajah Sajah Suaeed (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do my assigned reading, and you do yours! Start with WP:OR. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:26, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the reason the alt-right categories were used was because there is no equivalent for far-right figures. All we have is alt-right which is basically: far-right, in America, in the second and third decades of the 21st century but not always, especially when dealing with the third decade of the 21st century during which time the term fell out of favor. The absence of the equivalent far-right categories is a bit of a problem although I do agree that your category removal was technically correct. Basically all this raises the question for me of why we have alt-right categories but not equivalent far-right ones.Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good question! Far-right analogues of those categories should almost certainly exist. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:40, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You would expect a [[Category:Far-right Writers]] at least - but there seems not to be one. Simonm223 (talk) 17:50, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for volunteering at WP:RX ... your research is helping me get the Silent Parade article promoted to FA status. You and all the volunteers at WP:RX are rock stars! Noleander (talk) 23:30, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Noleander. RX does rock. Cool article. Ping me when you're ready for reviewers and I'll hopefully have time. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:51, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. User Göycen got their extended confirmed status taken away, then faced blocks and a topic ban [1], [2], [3]. I caught a glimpse of their edits in Pastirma, and it looks like since April 28, 2025, they’ve been engaging in these "ethnic food wars" and more (Qajar tribe) [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. In one of the summaries, they claim it's a "potentially previously banned user" [12], but I couldn't verify this as the IP isn't under a ban.

There is also the issue of canvassing others to do extended confirmed edits on his behalf, as Göycen has no EC [13]: "As far as I can see, the title has become extended confirmed. Could you please undo your edit or add the role of kete in Turkish culture to the title you directed?" (machine translated)

Göycen has hardly edited since last year, and most of the edits they made seem to be tban violations. And to top it all off, a canvassing comment to evade their lack of extended confirmed. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 08:06, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi KhndzorUtogh. I'll probably be able to look into this in the next 24h or so. If more urgent action is needed, you might want to reach out to another admin or post at a notice board. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 12:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and no worries, it’s not urgent. KhndzorUtogh (talk) 14:29, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Göycen has challenged your enforcement action. See the discussion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Arbitration_enforcement_action_appeal_by_Göycen. I want to be clear, my copying of their appeal was not in any way an endorsement of that appeal. --Yamla (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, and thanks for copying over the appeal. No explanation needed! I get it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 22:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a stupid question, but how meaningful/impactful is a censure in the USA? I looked at Rashida Tlaib, specifically the last sentence of the lead, and I thought "hm, of course, political opponents disagree with them, that is not very noteworthy/important, and it almost uses the same amount of space as what I assume is a lifetime of activism".

I am not American and not really into American politics. Is this DUE for inclusion in the lead? I kinda thought a censure is just that they formally say that (they think that) someone sucks. But they appear to be pretty rare. Polygnotus (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give you a full answer when I have some time on my computer. Nice to see you here P. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:08, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! No hurry. Over here we have something similar and it has completely lost all meaning (if it ever had any), has no political consequences and is just used as an insult. Polygnotus (talk) 13:43, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your patience, Polygnotus. I was sure there had been some prior discussion about Tlaib, and indeed there was. I was in favor of a short mention of the censure in the lead. The main person pushing for a lengthier mention turns out to have been a sockpuppet, so maybe we should start a discussion about whether any mention is necessary.

You can get a rough sense of how common censure is at List of United States representatives expelled, censured, or reprimanded#Censured representatives. Not hyper-rare, but yes, rare. From an American perspective: we know they're just political posturing, but they do have some symbolic impact. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:15, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might be the only area in which American politics are actually more civilized than ours Thanks! Polygnotus (talk) 10:18, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No way, we're sooooooo civilized. We maintain a classy, formal legislature where we only occasionally beat each other with canes or smear shit in the hallways. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:49, 30 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is an editor inserting weakly sourced defamatory content into Laura Ingraham's page link 1 link2. The user was reverted and a talk discussion was started link1 link 2 where me and another editor confronted the user who inserted the content, asking them to remove it. But the editor has ignored it despite being tagged multiple times. 2A02:810D:BC82:1E00:5CD3:851F:42E0:6E71 (talk) 15:48, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IP2A02. I'm not going to get involved there. You should consider posting a summary of the issue at WP:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard; try and keep the summary as neutral as possible, and definitely avoid words like "defamatory". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking - was your block based on the edit Miles posted, or this one just before the block in which they explicitly indicate they're violating their unblock condition in their edit summary? The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was based on the first edit. I don't think they explicitly indicate a violation, but I guess you probably mean that they couldn't have been unaware of the condition violation, since they were reverting an edit that mentioned it explicitly. Bad stuff either way. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:57, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (concerning Marcelapop, nothing you have done!) Patient Zero^talk 02:51, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glad that was resolved quickly! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 11:53, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, me too! Patient Zero^talk 02:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers you see this particular user @Orangemike mentioned me in conflict interests. I just asked him for the improvement for the page. But his way of conduct was harsh plus this. Its not fair. I talked to him nicely though. Is the way to behave with other editiors. Gooshh (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gooshh, collaborative encyclopedia creation only works if we have an atmosphere of constructive criticism. Orangemike was right to question the suitability of your edits, and even if he were wrong, it's not a conduct issue. If you continue editing here, you are likely to have many disagreements about the quality of your edits or others'. I highly recommend withdrawing your post at WP:AN. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:04, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't mean he should say that I am spreading false chunks and mentioned me on conflict interest list. This shows their experience. You tell me should I left? Because I am disturbed a lot. Gooshh (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not telling you that you should leave. If you don't have any conflict of interest, say so at the COIN discussion. The best way to avoid suspicion in the future is to take the criticism about puffery and unreliable sources seriously. This is a chance for you to improve your editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:36, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Posting here because I believe this will distract from the report on AE. I saw your response here, and I would like to request you to reconsider you stance about the 2nd source. It is written by Jayson Harsin who is a scholar, and the book was published by scholarly publisher Taylor & Francis. Thanks. Orientls (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first scholarly source you linked is the Harsin piece, and the second one is Price of Modi, by Aakar Patel, published by a division of Penguin Random House. I was referring to the second one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:09, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. Thanks for clarifying. Orientls (talk) 04:11, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Thanks for linking the ANI. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:15, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Firefangledfeathers: I understand that this ANI report was extravagant for our sight thus I'll note that more experience would require. But a topic ban may not be given as a boomerang, my contributions in this topic area were always good. Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rightmostdoor6. I'm happy to have a side conversation here with you about many things, but if it's evidence or argument about your case, it needs to be at AE. You're free to request a word limit extension if you need one (I haven't checked). If you do end up getting a TBAN, I'd be happy to give you some advice about best next steps. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:37, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is regarding the topic ban notice you left on my talk page earlier. I have responded to it on my talk page itself

[14]. If you could please go through the response once when you have the time. Thanks Rightmostdoor6 (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rightmosdoor6. I'll be responding in a few hours. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 10:56, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]