User talk:SnowFire

• User talk:SnowFire/Archive1 has 2006 - April 2008 talk page entries.
• User talk:SnowFire/Archive2 has April 2008 - December 2017 talk page entries
• User talk:SnowFire/Archive3 has December 2017 - October 2024 talk page entries

I've kept a few old talk page comments like DYK/GA/FA notices out of vanity.

On June 9, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Commonwealth v. Kneeland, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

On February 20, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Discharge petition, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 23:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of 25 Water Street at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:46, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 30 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Revolt of the Comuneros, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 02:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 November, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article L'Encobert, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--PFHLai (talk) 18:45, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On September 30, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Revolt of the Barretinas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

PeterSymonds (talk) 15:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC) 20:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On June 30, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nico Smith, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Rlevse • Talk • 00:04, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that during Paraguay's Revolt of the Comuneros the rebels were briefly excommunicated after raiding a Jesuit college and chapel? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:52, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thanks for the ratification maps you added to US Constitutional Amendment articles; they're a great addition. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Revolt of the Comuneros (Paraguay) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Dudley Miles -- Dudley Miles (talk) 11:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help in bringing Vampire: The Masquerade – Redemption to Featured Article status. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:18, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 September 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that television showings and online streaming of the documentary Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence were stopped after a blogger discredited its key photograph ? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Amelia Earhart: The Lost Evidence), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih^Talk 00:47, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 December 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mosaic (murder mystery), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Steven Soderbergh's Mosaic is both a mobile app and a television miniseries? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mosaic (murder mystery). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mosaic (murder mystery)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 February 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Noyes Museum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the director of the Noyes Museum of Art said it "was in a beautiful location but it was in the middle of nowhere"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Noyes Museum. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Noyes Museum), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 July 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Eddie Gallagher, a Navy SEAL, was acquitted of murder in a trial that included a surprise confession by a witness claiming he was the murderer himself? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SnowFire. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:39, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any progress? Please let me know. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 13:33, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Smallbones: - Sure - thought you said the suggested deadline was tonight, but I was working in a Google Doc. I'll move my work over later today. SnowFire (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no problem. I suppose I should have warned you that I get nervous over big stories! All the best. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:00, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outstanding - Thank you. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 05:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SnowFire and Smallbones,

I've read 6 or 7 articles about the situation on the Scots Wikipedia and in none of them was there speculating about the admin's "sexuality". I think including this in the Signpost article is shaming, especially for a teenage boy. There's a huge chance that he hasn't read all of the coverage of this situation on other websites so the Signpost article might be the only place where he sees this mentioned. There were plenty of other personality traits discussed in the coverage so could you substitute one of them for sexuality? Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:07, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: I took this to be about Brony - a boy who likes the books on "My little pony". Maybe "gender" would be a better word, but I think almost all teenage boys would take that as an attack on their manhood. I think I saw that in half a dozen articles. Correct me if I'm wrong. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:16, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: / @Smallbones: : It was only in the more disreputable articles I didn't link. I'm fine with removing it though just to hide it. (For example, the original 4chan post was very much doing this sort of shaming - it said "they've all been created by a gay 13 year old furry from North Carolina who doesn't even speak Scots". Many of the comments chimed in on similar grounds.) SnowFire (talk) 19:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SnowFire, just an FYI. I've made a reddit post on the Scotland subreddit linking your excellent article. https://www.reddit.com/r/Scotland/comments/iji6kx/scots_wikipedia_almost_worthless/ Dutchy45 (talk) 20:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 13 March 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Fires on the Plain (2014 film), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2014 film Fires on the Plain, which includes madness, murder, and cannibalism, was intended to warn younger Japanese audiences of the horrors of war? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Fires on the Plain (2014 film). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Fires on the Plain (2014 film)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (ie, 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:01, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your DYK hook about Fires on the Plain and its tale of madness, murder, and cannibalism drew 5,514 page views (459 per hour) while on the Main Page. It is one of the most viewed hooks for the month of March as shown at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics#March 2021. Keep up the great work! Cbl62 (talk) 21:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article St. John's Terminal, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a club set up tennis courts on the roof of St. John's Terminal after its broker spotted it from a helicopter? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St. John's Terminal. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, St. John's Terminal), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 11 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pilate cycle, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that letters and reports continued to appear under Pontius Pilate's name for centuries after his death? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pilate cycle. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pilate cycle), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 22 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jean Webster (cook), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Jean Webster daily served hundreds of people free food directly out of her home kitchen for over a decade? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jean Webster (cook). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Jean Webster (cook)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Correspondence of Paul and Seneca, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Correspondence of Paul and Seneca was cited in the Middle Ages to claim that Seneca, a Roman philosopher of Stoicism, had converted to Christianity? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Correspondence of Paul and Seneca. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Correspondence of Paul and Seneca), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Theodore Silverstein, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that medieval literature scholar Theodore Silverstein's unit in World War II took over the Eiffel Tower to intercept communications of German aircraft? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Theodore Silverstein. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Theodore Silverstein), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde 00:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 February 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chapters of 2 Maccabees, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the chapters of 2 Maccabees contain some of the earliest statements of belief in a bodily resurrection in Judaism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Chapters of 2 Maccabees. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Chapters of 2 Maccabees), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article. Perhaps you should take it to FAC at some point. BorgQueen (talk) 12:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BorgQueen: Thanks for the compliment. I do plan to take it to GAN. FAC... maybe. Main whine about FAC is that some people there confuse "stylistic preferences" with "demands from on high" and dealing with that can be stressful. This particular article is a bit of a... different approach to how other similar articles do it. In my opinion, it's a *superior* approach (I prefer One Big Article with sections rather than 14-15 smaller articles), but I can see pushback both from "this should really be 14 separate articles" as well as "this should just be part of the main 2 Maccabees article" (although... length constraints and summary style hopefully make clear that wouldn't be wise). I'm still a bit salty about the last time I was at FAC featuring supports from editors who knew the content and agreed it was a good summary, but opposes on prose grounds. But I suppose if at first you don't succeed, wait 15 years then try again... SnowFire (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 April 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Noble Fisherman, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that The Noble Fisherman unusually places Robin Hood in the seaside town of Scarborough, and he ends up fighting French pirates? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Noble Fisherman. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Noble Fisherman), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Fire Emblem Engage you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fire Emblem Engage for comments about the article, and Talk:Fire Emblem Engage/GA2 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Cukie Gherkin -- Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:04, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Chapters of 2 Maccabees you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chapters of 2 Maccabees for comments about the article, and Talk:Chapters of 2 Maccabees/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vaticidalprophet -- Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in case you haven't seen this, something you may like: the author of the book A City on Mars posted on their comic/blog a thanks to you (here):

Whoever made the A City on Mars wikipedia entry, bless you. Now when people argue against stuff that we didn't actually say, I'm just linking to the page.

I see that you created the page and wrote all its current content, so I thought you may like to see this. Cheers, Shreevatsa (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Shreevatsa: Thanks for the ping. I do read SMBC but usually on a phone locked in portrait mode, which inexplicably hides the blog comments (it literally says "rotate phone to view") so I'd have missed that without you bringing it up. I did see a Tweet from Zach noting the Wikipedia article though, which was nice. SnowFire (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 December 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 25 Water Street, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 25 Water Street was designed to blend in with historic brick buildings that no longer exist? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/25 Water Street. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 25 Water Street), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Aoidh (talk) 00:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 14,852 views (618.8 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of December 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On behalf of the FAR coordinators, thank you, SnowFire! Your work on Attalus I has allowed the article to retain its featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. I hereby award you this Featured Article Save Award, or FASA. You may display this FA star upon your userpage. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 16:38, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 25 January 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article A City on Mars, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the book A City on Mars covers sex in space, raising children in low gravity, space law, and space cannibalism? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/A City on Mars. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, A City on Mars), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 12:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 9,015 views (751.2 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Karl Frederik Kinch, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that archaeologist Karl Frederik Kinch identified the location of Stagira, the hometown of Aristotle? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Karl Frederik Kinch. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Karl Frederik Kinch), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On 4 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article 55 Broad Street, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that 55 Broad Street, a skyscraper in the Financial District of Manhattan, was called "an unlovable building in an unlivable neighborhood"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/55 Broad Street. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, 55 Broad Street), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter for comments about the article, and Talk:Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ghosts of Europa -- Ghosts of Europa (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Apocalypse of Peter you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Seltaeb Eht -- Seltaeb Eht (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Apocalypse of Peter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Apocalypse of Peter for comments about the article, and Talk:Apocalypse of Peter/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Seltaeb Eht -- Seltaeb Eht (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Premium Reviewer Barnstar
		Thank you for the work you've been putting in at WP:FLC, your quality reviews have been very much appreciated! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article Arabic Apocalypse of Peter you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Arabic Apocalypse of Peter for comments about the article, and Talk:Arabic Apocalypse of Peter/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Simongraham -- Simongraham (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, SnowFire! The list you nominated, Timeline of the Second Temple period, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best lists on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured list. Keep up the great work! Cheers, PresN (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

→Cultural depictions: "this is Japanese people picking random English names that sound cool to them in the 1980s, it's not really about PCP."

There are various points in the manga where it is directly referred to as PCP. Damnits (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Damnits: Fair enough. For what it's worth, I'm not the one who wrote the line about "referred to as Angel Dust in the manga", that was preexisting and I didn't change it (I have not read the manga myself). Do you think the current summary should be changed to just say "includes PCP" rather than the current implication of "a fictional-but-similar drug with the same name", though? (I guess this gets into "how far from reality do we have to get before it stops being the thing" where there isn't always a clear answer...) SnowFire (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, SnowFire! The article you nominated, Apocalypse of Peter, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eyyy congrats 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eyyy congrats Panini! • 🥪 02:06, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Panini! heya, adv Merry Christmas! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:12, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

• A bare URL error. References show this error when one of the URL-containing parameters cannot be paired with an associated 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) 02:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Revelation of the Magi at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 4meter4 (talk) 01:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Wild Arms (video game) retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beach Haven, New Jersey, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diving.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SnowFire. Can you explain your removal of the banner here? Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey hey, I appreciate you expanding on the previous edit here. Can you show me what you mean? i've continued discussing content and I don't really see what you mean by "There is an affirmative case made". Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: - Sorry, as mentioned my phone apparently interpreted a touch to the enter key at the wrong time. I'll reply on the talk page.

I will say on a more personal note as something to not clog up the article talk page with... take it or leave it. There are editors I've sharply disagreed with before, that I think they're wrong about everything and they probably think I'm wrong about everything, but it's been fine. People cast their "votes" and move on with their lives. But if you want to enrage other editors and make them mad, then misrepresent their position. Again, you don't have to agree with their position. You can say it's the dumbest thing ever. But at least take them at their word for what their position is. I don't think you're helping with your claims that nobody is refuting you and the only arguments are OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I responded in good faith because I think you're a good editor, and to discard what I stated as either off-topic or OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is insulting and maddening, and not a collaborative way to do things. If you think it's wrong... just say it's wrong, and why. That's fine. Don't say that others aren't making the argument they are clearly making. SnowFire (talk) 00:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was more or less looking for some reasoning or rule to apply. I did not find any in the long discussion. As I didn't see any response outside a long discussion of "I don't see it that way." which I did not find as convincing. While I don't find it resolved, I've taken the next step forward. I won't be re-sending the banner otherwise. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Andrzejbanas: My suggestion would be to then say "I don't find the arguments you've put forward convincing" which is subtly but importantly different from "No one has given me or anyone a wiki rule". You have, objectively, been given multiple citations to "wiki rules" and fairly detailed reasoning resting on citing of non-controversial policy and practice. Maybe these citations are wrong or misleading, but they've been given. SnowFire (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair, I feel that's splitting hairs but I'll try to clarify that for the future. Thank you. I don't recall any rules being flung to be I'll assume they had been but as you said, I don't feel like they countered the rules I was suggesting any further. Regardless, if there was something cut and dry and I missed it, I'm sure other will be able to show them where I've missed out. Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Congratulations on today's featured article, Apocalypse of Peter! It's incredibly well done. As a Christian myself I'm always happy to see various works regarding the faith given quality work and scrutiny. Panini! • 🥪 02:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for Apocalypse of Peter, introduced: "If you flip to the back of a Christian Bible these days, you'll find the Book of Revelation as the final book in the New Testament. But did you know that over in some rather plausible alternate timelines, there would be TWO books of Revelation in the back - the Revelation of John, and the Revelation of Peter? It took centuries to come up with a consensus New Testament; the contents weren't obvious. Our oldest surviving list that is close-ish to the New Testament, the Muratorian fragment, actually includes the Revelation of Peter as part of its canon! Some other early Christian writers seem to have thought it deserved canonical status, too. That didn't happen, of course, but it's interesting. (Although given some of the content, Christianity may have dodged a bullet here...) This article includes the latest scholarship, as there's been decent interest lately - Eric Beck wrote a 2019 book on it (the thesis it's based on is open-access, link in the article), Bart Ehrman covered it pretty heavily in a 2022 book on katabases in general, and a monograph collection on the topic just dropped just a few months ago, also free & open-access (link in article). I ran the article past Beck over email and he didn't have any complaints, so hopefully a good sign."! - Beethoven's remembered in my story and music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today, a 10-years-old DYK and new pics - look for red birds --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:22, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, SnowFire. I'm just posting to let you know that Timeline of the Second Temple period – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for January 17, 2025. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 22:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article! Very interesting.

★Trekker (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could not end the year without expressing my gratitude for your steadfast defense nearly three months ago. In the face of opposing replies, you continued to devote your time and energy for several lengthy additional arguments on my behalf which were greatly appreciated and made all the difference in the end.

I am all the more grateful for the fact that, although we have not interacted in the more-or-less two decades of our time on Wikipedia, you made the considerable effort of interceding in this ANI. My 76th birthday is coming up in six weeks and I hope to have a few more years of editing, but for that remaining time I will continue to remember your kindness. My best wishes for 2025. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Happy New Year!
	Hello SnowFire: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. Wil540 art (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Wil540 art (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 6 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Revelation of the Magi, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Biblical Magi dispense mysterious vision-inducing foods in the Revelation of the Magi, which a scholar proposed to be an account of ritual hallucinogen intake? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Revelation of the Magi. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Revelation of the Magi), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

RoySmith (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC) [reply]

story · music · places

Thank you for an interesting contribution to the feast day, - I have a Bach cantata for it, 300 years OTD, on the same page (which I wanted to expand, but had no time, will do next). I believe your "revelation" has GA potential. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liebster Immanuel, Herzog der Frommen, BWV 123, my story today 300 years after the first performance, is up for GAN. Dada Masilo will be my story tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for your comments.

I agree that Revelation of the Magi is probably GA quality, but eh, I'm generally fine with leaving stuff at GA-quality levels. Actually getting something promoted to GA is a lot of work and involves other editors potentially changing the nominator's absolutely perfect, untouchable prose (in whatever direction ;-) ), so I'm generally fine with sprinkling decent articles around and leaving them at that. (Obviously got a few GA promotions but eh, don't want to do it for every single article I think I gets up to the GA-ish quality spot.) Can't comment on the Bach cantatas, I'm afraid, though. SnowFire (talk) 02:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining, and I think I understand. It may be just my initials, but I - not a native speaker of English - like the extra reviewing that comes with GA. Of course not for every single article ;) - My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today a violinist from Turkey, Ayla Erduran, whom you can watch playing Schubert chamber music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Today I had a composer (trumpeter, conductor) on the main page who worked closely with another who just became GA, - small world! To celebrate: mostly flowers pics from vacation ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 20 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Legend of Aphroditian, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Legend of Aphroditian identifies the Greek goddess Hera with the Virgin Mary? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Legend of Aphroditian. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Legend of Aphroditian), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now you are move warring. Do you read Coptic? Coptic is not part of the title. I will be moving it again and I ask you to not move war again. Skyerise (talk) 00:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: There is a well-established mechanism on Wikipedia when editors disagree on the title: file a WP:RM discussion, where the community is invited for input for 7 days, and the article stays at the status quo location during the debate. This is how all such debates are handled; you can't simply declare something isn't controversial when it is, and you're the one move warring. I'm contesting it, or at least asking for evidence to be presented on the talk page first. Maybe you'll even convince me, but this is going to require a full WP:RM. SnowFire (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article now at Visio Pauli clearly stated in its lead what the common name is for the text. That is perfectly sufficient to make the move non-controversial. You're gonna lose this one. But by all means, tilt at windmills. Skyerise (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: I am literally the person who wrote 95% of that article, so I'm not sure why you are so confident that I don't know what it says or what it means. Of course Visio Pauli is a major title. But Apocalypse of Paul is also the title, attested to in - well, see the References section.

Okay, so side comment here, given the comment on me tilting at windmills. Wikipedia is not about winning and losing. There's lots of articles that have structure I think is Wrong and Bad, and I'm sure you think the same. There are requested move discussions that have gone my way, and there are ones that haven't. But... it's not like the times I !voted or advocated for a position that didn't gain consensus was somehow wrong or wasted. Just as your opinions aren't wrong or wasted if they don't "win". If it turns out that you're right about everything and the community agrees with you, that's fine! I'll accept it and move on. But there's no need for personal tensions here. The reason I'm fiercely contesting this one is that you're doing this out-of-order procedurally by move warring for a new title. All you had to do is do a full WP:RM and if the community agrees, it's fine. This is not asking for some special burden I'm cruelling inflicting on you, this is the expectation on every single move an editor makes - that if a WP:BOLD move is made, you'd be able to back it up with arguments at a full WP:RM and defend your action, and also accept the result if the community disagreed. If the article positions were reversed and I'd made the move and you'd contested me, I'd be happy to revert myself and also explain myself at an RM if I wasn't convinced by your arguments. SnowFire (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By all means do what you must. If you say that Apocalyse of Paul is the correct title, then all we need to do is properly disambiguate it with a parenthetical. I've asked you if (4th-century Christian text) would be good but you haven't answered. There are two texts with the same title; both have had significant academic study. I see no reason to give preference to one or the other so both should be properly disambiguated. That's not really controversial. Skyerise (talk) 01:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• (de-indent, in reply to your first message above) @Skyerise: Okay, but this is about you doing what you must. Which is to revert yourself and then file a WP:RM. You're the one arguing the status quo is wrong. If you don't have permission after you edited the original titles, you can say that you don't object and I can ping an admin to move them back without it appearing as out-of-process. The longer this waits, the more likely we end up with screwy Wikidata disconnects and the like.
• I've already told you on your talk page why "4th century Christian text" is unneeded: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:TWODAB. It's the main Apocalypse of Paul, there's only two senses of the word. So Apocalypse of Paul is correct for title placement.
• And as far as "not really controversial": I am literally right here objecting. That means it's controversial. There absolutely is a reason to give preference to one: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The Nag Hammadi work is quite obscure. I gather that it's more of interest to you due to the Coptic connection, but nobody in the modern era even knew it existed until 1945, and analysis only started to come out in the late 1970s. Meanwhile the other Apocalypse of Paul was a very popular work for a millennium, and still of interest even judged solely by post-1945 writing. SnowFire (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said elsewhere, I am not refusing to move the article back. I edited the dab page before I got your message, so I am unable to move the page back. If I could I certainly would since you're making such a fuss about it. Meanwhile, I will make things as consistent as possible with the current titles, for the sake of our readers. Please don't take this as assuming the article won't be moved in the future. Skyerise (talk) 01:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Skyerise: Please do NOT. Again, wait for the result of a RM. Otherwise this is WP:FAITACCOMPLI stuff. SnowFire (talk) 01:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should be consistent. I will happily revert myself if and when the articles are moved back. Please stop reverting me. Skyerise (talk) 01:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Persona 5's protagonist is canonically named Ren Amamiya 5rockst (talk) 23:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 24 April 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wall Street Plaza, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Wall Street Plaza is not on Wall Street? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wall Street Plaza. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Wall Street Plaza), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

– 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 00:03, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment in reverting the factual edits is demonstrably false. His actions in the Archives aren't allegations, and they aren't anonymous sources. They are proven facts. The FBI/OIG report is clear and unequivocal: Weinstein confessed on the record to investigators—after he was literally caught in the act during a covert sting operation during which he confessed to one of his survivors. Officials had a mountain of evidence in addition, from multiple survivors and witnesses. The DOJ was prosecuting, but the White House got it quashed. All of these are facts in the public record. There is no reasonable basis for you to prevent the public from having this information; all you're doing is protecting a confessed predator. Whether that's intentional or because you have not even read the FBI file is an open question. MuskogeeOkay (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MuskogeeOkay: That is a truly fascinating statement to make given that you are talking to the person who added the incident to his article, which is a weird thing to do if I was trying to cover it up. See diff from 2018.

Look, this is a Wikipedia policy thing, not what I personally believe. I agree with you that Weinstein is obviously guilty. But right now that section hangs on a single article which is citing anonymous sources ( https://www.thedailybeast.com/she-was-assaulted-by-the-head-of-the-national-archives-then-the-bush-white-house-helped-cover-it-up-3/ ). We just can't cite that as if it was fact, we have to portray them as allegations. If you want to help out, find other secondary sources that investigated the matter. We can absolutely strengthen the language if these are found (e.g. other journalists and newspaper articles on the topic, not blog posts, not raw FBI reports). SnowFire (talk) 05:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't cite anonymous sources to demonstrate what he did in the Archives. It cites the investigatory file, which substantiated the initial allegations (which came from at least one named survivor, not an anonymous one). Several directly involved are on the record. When an investigative body makes a determination, and the subject of the investigation confesses fully, they are no longer allegations. You may continue to assert your strawman argument that Wikipedia does not allow for anonymous allegations, but the record is crystal clear that these are facts, not allegations. Your insistence on personally requiring something in addition to facts or else you will continue to revert such factual edits (and, given your defensive response to an open question, not an accusation, likely push for sanctions) is not only supported by the rules of this site, but is why so many people laugh at this poorly-written, poorly-regarded site. Have a nice day. MuskogeeOkay (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, "push for sanctions"? Where are you getting that from? You're wrong here but you aren't in any danger of getting uh "sanctioned" by the Wikipedia police, if that's your worry. This is just a standard editorial disagreement that happens like 9999 times a day.

If you want to rag on Wikipedia policy, fine, but don't rag on me "personally requiring something". It's Wikipedia policy that requires that 'something', not me. As I've stated before, things like allegations of sexual crimes has just about the highest and strictest standard on Wikipedia. For reasons that should be obvious. We don't have a crystal ball. For cases that don't have tons of sources, Wikipedia errs on the side of caution.

It's not like the current phrasing lets him off, either. Any reader paying attention can draw their own conclusions from credible reports that caused UMaryland to move against him and for the Archives to fire him. SnowFire (talk) 21:10, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's astonishing you don't know the definition of the word "allegation." I'm done here, but you should look it up. MuskogeeOkay (talk) 21:30, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pseudo-Evodius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint John.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 2 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Pseudo-Evodius, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a homily written by Pseudo-Evodius features Jesus and the devil competing in a fishing tournament in the desert? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Pseudo-Evodius. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Pseudo-Evodius), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for all the work you've done with pseudepigraphia, which I've watched (and have seen notifications about on my watchlist about) with interest.

Sorry to say, but I disagree with your interpretation of WP:ELNEVER in this edit. There has not been, as far as I know, a comprehensive discussion on the matter. But see this discussion for one. Linking to books at the Internet Archive which are gated behind their registration, like the Reicke book, is ordinary and (I contend) does not violate any intellectual property rights on its own.

True, the Hachette decision disputes whether CDL is permissible, but the link itself does not lend the book. Someone following our link has to personally interact with the website by logging in and requesting the book -- so while "material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked", the material linked to (the landing page of a book with additional metadata) itself does not violate copyright. If the Reicke book was not gated, I would tend to agree with you.

If you disagree with my disagreement, that's fine. I just find the practice of linking to IA widespread, noncontroversial, and almost expected. Our FA review processes have not objected to such links for in-copyright works like Frantzen in Bæddel and bædling. Urve (talk) 01:14, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Urve: It is an unclear manner, yes. I actually agree with you that we're certainly not "violating intellectual property rights" ourselves with links (even if we link to a straight-up freebooting site saying "get your copyrighted books for free here"), but the impression I get about ELNEVER is that it's more an internal policy than "the furthest extent legally possible". For my own personal interpretation of the standard, it's more a practical one: be careful with links to "recent" works, i.e. the 1980s or later, and works clearly still in-print (e.g. famous 1930s works still in circulation). I myself have allowed IA links before to works that are possibly still under copyright, but that were either old or obscure. Once, I did used to put links to Google Books and the like in citations, but after a lot of those broke my enthusiasm for the idea dimmed. Reicke's book was 1964, but it's a book that's been reprinted many times (Worldcat claims a 2nd edition with 8 printings as late as 1978; https://search.worldcat.org/title/230740182 ), so I'm not sure it qualifies under the "obscurity" criterion. In general, I'm not the type to go around demanding "my" way on random articles, but Jude was an article I've worked on and the URL was a recent-ish addition, so I felt somewhat more empowered to prefer the linkless style. I won't revert it if people put the link back, though. It's all vibes and not worth too much discussion. (Side rant: some of the least productive editors, IMO, are the "malfunctioning wikignomes" who run around switching random articles to go all one way or the other - in this case, either always adding GBooks / IA / etc. links, or always removing them. So it's definitely a live-and-let-live, either way is fine unless OFFICE steps in because Wikipedia was somehow sued on the manner.)

Thanks for the compliment; you've done some fine work on apocrypha & pseudepigrapha as well. SnowFire (talk) 02:10, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking my comment as it was intended. As with most touchy subjects, I'm ambivalent on the utility of linking to IA, so I won't revert you (and I don't add IA links in general). My disagreement is more theoretical than demanding you do anything.

It comes from my general frustration with WP:ELNEVER's language. Knowingly directing others to material that violates copyright might be considered contributory copyright infringement is, IMO, an unreasonably paranoid position to take; our article on the subject discusses some of the ways that our language is false. And as you hint, if it matters, the WMF should have a salaried employee do something about it. But even by that paranoid standard, I tend to think that if it requires substantial user input and the bare link does not infringe, then we're OK.

Perhaps I'll start a discussion on the matter eventually, since the one I linked is not useful. Thanks for your interesting thoughts ... and, of course, I rather agree with your side rant :-) Urve (talk) 02:46, 19 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SnowFire, where you mentioned at ArbCom "diffs provided in the ANI threads" and "all the behavior cited in that thread", maybe you could expand on what you're referring to? Maybe User:Dicklyon/Annotated diffs will help you find something that I've done that people cited? My point is that not much of my behavior has been cited, and all I'm finding are the opinions I referred to, and the one thing about the tornado, and stuff from over a year ago. If you're able to help me see what behaviors you think have been inappropriate, that might help me. Sorry if this comes across as sealioning, as I've also been accused of. Dicklyon (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Hello. I'll treat this as a good-faith request, but respond here for now rather than the case.

You understand that this is a weird request, right? Most people don't want to solicit others to make explicit "accusations" against them. They wouldn't rope their accusers into an Arbcom case (and would be more likely to try to lure in supporters instead). And if I were in your spot, I would be attempting to use and slant my ANI comments as in your favor - I did say that I hadn't actually tussled with you in the past year. But now you're asking me to dig up times I did tussle with you, or that you tussled with others and I agree that you're in the wrong. It seems counterproductive, no?

I'm willing to look into this if you want, but only if you're interested in changing or improving (if for no other reason than to better implement your goals). This koan may prove a useful read. If you're just going to tell me I'm wrong, then it's just wasting our time. (Which is not to say you can't disagree or think it's unfair, but I hope even you would agree that it's plainly obvious you've generated a lot of tension with many other editors, so something went wrong somewhere.) SnowFire (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think here on this talk page is the appropriate spot anyway. The question before Arbcom right now is "should this case be taken up" not "were accusations made against Dicklyon". I said my piece on whether Arbcom should take the case already. Specific diffs of your alleged misbehavior are more something for the Evidence phase if this does become a full Arbcom case. SnowFire (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do want to improve my behavior and avoid all such things in the future. My more immediate desire to know what exactly I'm being accused of, especially if the answer is "sorry, I can't actually find any evidence of misbehavior". I'm willing to face whatever you dig up. Dicklyon (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re "it's plainly obvious you've generated a lot of tension with many other editors", I agree it's obvious that there's a lot of tension around things I've done on Wikipedia. I'm not so sure yet that I'm willing to acknowledge that I have "generated" that tension, since my actions that led to it have been mostly routine and within normal processes. So what I need to know is what did I do that was outside normal processes, or uncivil, or whatever; and whether there was enough of that to account for the amount of tension coming back at me. I've pointed out and acknowledged a few mistakes, like the tornado move and some of the stuff from more than a year ago, and the agitated responses in the ANI thread itself. I don't think those are enough to explain the tension, so if there's more, I'd like to see it pointed out. Dicklyon (talk) 19:29, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dicklyon: Okay. I'm digging back deeper in time here, so please don't complain that these are out of date; I already said in the ANI thread that I don't believe we argued in the past year or so, so you can "take the W" as they say there. I was far from the first on the bandwagon to topic ban you. But maybe some older diffs will prove useful regardless for why your reputation hasn't been sterling and why if other people are beefing, I'm inclined to believe them and not you. I'm not currently "mad" about any of these and looking to relitigate them, for clarity. I'm providing these as opportunities for advice where I know what at least one side of the conversation was thinking and perceiving.

At Battle of the Mons (Pp)ocket, you said that I was making a "preposterous presumption" and that the article creator was "obviously not up to speed on WP's capitalization guidelines". First of all, at risk of pointing out the obvious, we could tone the intensity down some, if we were rewriting your comment. "I disagree with Nick-D's ngrams analysis per my above comment, so I don't think an argument echoing that same analysis is persuasive" would have been fine and communicated the relevant information. But as written, you're picking two fights that aren't convincing. There's nothing "preposterous" about trusting the article creator who's really read the sources, and there have been many times in the past where you and I have consulted the exact same ngrams and gotten diametrically different results. Secondly, even if your claim about the article creator not knowing every detail of WP's capitalization guidelines was accurate, so what? It's not like he had falsely cited a made-up or modified guideline, where it would be relevant to pushback. Make your case on the merits. This was a doubly problematic argument - one because it was pointlessly ad hominem, the second because guidelines are just guidelines and English is a language of 80% rules and 20% exceptions, and 20% is a big number.

That said, to step back for a moment and to get to the heart of the philosophy dispute here on the "preposterous to trust the article creator" bit... one of the most successful policies on English Wikipedia has been WP:ENGVAR and WP:CITEVAR. If someone wants to write and contribute a great article on Topic X, who cares what language style they do it in, or what citation style. I'd rather have a great article in the "wrong" style than a medicore one in "my" style. This is basically a concession toward Wikipedia not being a book with a single author and single editor who do a consistent style; it's rather a glorious soupy mess, closer to a library where every article is a separate book on a shelf, and could be written in any old style. We want to encourage editors to maintain articles how they best feel comfortable. Now, 95% of passerby Wikignome contributions are considered helpful to editors maintaining articles, but the 5% that are unwelcome need a strong case to be made for why they really are necessary as a price of admission. Even if, again for the sake of argument that you were 100% right and an article creator editor was 100% wrong, this might still be a losing trade if it repels contributors. There's real value to live & let live on the small stuff. If I help out at a community garden, I might not appreciate someone barging in and telling me that actually, I should be planting flowers of a slightly different color instead. It just doesn't matter that much. This is why I cited the Zeroth law of Wikipedia in that ANI thread. Now, I don't want to overstate the importance of this particular RM. I'm sure Nick-D is an adult, he can take "losing". But why cast it as a "fight" to begin with? (As a side note, note that this argument is completely reversible. If there are overzealous pro-capitalizers running around trying to force sentence case references to use title case or the like, they also need to stop!)

Talk:Indus_Valley_Civilisation/Archive_7 Okay, we didn't talk directly in this one, but your tone was very... strident to others here. So the claims are bogus, just WP:IDONTLIKEIT opinions of history editors against guidelines. I've had this experience before myself but only when I'm 100% sure I've read the sources and all the "wrong" !voters are just going off cherrypicking, but that doesn't appear to have been the case. And again, per my comments above, even if for the sake of argument you were right about it being against guidelines (which was not at all granted), that's not necessarily the end of the matter. Orthography is not black & white like copyright infringement. And if it truly was the case that the "history editors" were against you, then we should obviously defer to the history editors for a history topic, not the out-of-field passerby! Just a weird statement to make. You'll catch more flies with honey than vinegar - try explaining to the "history editors" why you think your capitalization is better and being willing to back down if they disagree. Nobody would be upset if you were dropping off suggestions and letting existing maintainers act on them if they agree.

Talk:Virtual_reality_headset#Requested_move_24_March_2021 and Talk:Girls_Like_You#Requested_move_17_July_2022 - I'm picking these one as I don't think there were any behavioral issues here and the first has nothing to do with capitalization, but it's a good example of the fundamental disconnect on the merits. On one hand, you are absolutely free to have any opinions you like. But can I urge you that this seems to only make sense from a hardcore prescriptivist standard? If you ever find yourself saying "95+% of the sources are wrong, I'm right," that's fine for your own personal writing, but it deeply isn't the Wikipedia way. We mirror what the sources do here and attempts to impose a Grand Unified Perfect Orthography are going to create tension - for no benefit, IMO.

It's getting late, and it took awhile to write up just these few examples, but hopefully some food for thought for the future above. On a lighter note, I've been slowly putting a 1930 translation of the Quran over in Wikisource. You should check it out if you want to see some fun alternative capitalization styles. "And if Allah had not decreed migration for them, He verily would have punished them in the world, and theirs in the Hereafter is the punishment of the Fire." Just how some stuff is written! SnowFire (talk) 07:14, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for that effort; I will review these old cases carefully. But what I'm really wanting to know is whether my efforts to do better after my flurry of blocks in Feb 24 has been successful or not. Dicklyon (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dicklyon: (de-indent) As mentioned in the ANI thread, I already gave you a clean bill of health for my personal interactions, which is the part I'm an expert in. I don't think I'm the right person to talk to about everything brought up in the ANI thread, other than that I bought the arguments of the others ultimately and was unimpressed with your stance in the ANI thread. I suppose your follow-up question is "why did you cast that !vote if you aren't an 'expert' in what I was accused of" and... it's not that I didn't read them and click the diffs. I did. But if I start talking about what I think was going on between you and other editors, and it turns out I missed some crucial piece of context, it might be misleading to you in the wrong way. Or to back up a bit... if someone does one really, really bad thing on Wikipedia, they get banned. You are in the awkward case of doing 1,000 separate minorly annoying things. If I bring up one of them and you defend your actions and I nod and say "huh, I guess Dicklyon was right there", that just means we're down to 999 minorly annoying things, and the situation isn't appreciably better. That's what you should understand you've been doing, and that's what Hey man I'm Josh was accusing you of. Driving other good-faith editors off the site is something that should prompt deep reflection (or alternatively saying "I don't think I did that" but I find Josh's claim pretty credible). We aren't that choosy, it's a volunteer site, but at some point, being persistently annoying really does become problem.
• So in that very ANI thread, you write "It's pretty common that closers allow a bunch of editors who lack arguments based in P&G or facts to outvote editors who are trying to follow P&G." Comments like these are not going to endear you to me and cause me to oppose your topic ban. When I vote in a RM, I take the time to check the facts, and when I'm wrong I'll strike or reverse my vote. You can find plenty of cases of this happening. But read the thread. You (& SMcCandlish) are basically accused of warping the policies itself, meaning you're not really the one to run around citing "P&G" - it's circular. More generally, as I've stated above, English orthography and grammar isn't very conducive to strong rules anyway. "i before e except after c and in a bunch of other exceptions", etc. What is truly going on here are opinions. I'll give an example - at Talk:Iranian_Revolution#Requested_move_18_February_2025, we can both read the ngrams and both see that the capitalized form is preferred. I think ngrams often understates the capitalization rate, Cinderella thinks that the ngrams can overstate the capitalization rate, but even setting aside some drift, that's just true. You still !voted for the lowercase form anyway while I didn't, despite us reading the same "facts". So what was the difference? Well a bit of it was the above issue, but really it was how strict a threshold to apply. You clearly are looking for a 90/10 or 95/5 split to be convinced to consider the capital, while I'm more lenient, and also wanting to give deference to the article's long-standing title. There was no clash of facts here, just of opinions. And... that's fine! It's fine. The problem comes when you present your opinions as The Truth and everyone else as lacking arguments. That is just not a friendly or collaborative way. People have different opinions. I've already spent more time thinking about this issue than I'd prefer to, it's just Not That Important. If you do end up keeping a topic ban, and you end up appealing it at some point in the future, I would recommend some sort of philosophy shift here if you don't want to aggravate other editors. "Here's my take and some research" is always fine. "You're all Big Wrong" is reserved for rare circumstances where you think there's active deceit afoot.
• In an effort to not end on a downer, I will say that some of the diffs provided int eh discussion seemed fine to me. Your behavior at Talk:M6_aircrew_survival_weapon#Requested_move_15_March_2025 seems non-problematic (perhaps helped by a strong argument being presented anyway). So... it's not all bad. SnowFire (talk) 04:06, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, not all that bad, except I'm being sanctioned for the quantity of my work instead of looking at the quality, which is fine in the great majority of cases. I can understand why a lot of those people are annoyed. But it's not because of any misbehavior on my part. They just don't like losing their capital letters. Until I see evidence otherwise. Dicklyon (talk) 04:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comments like They just don't like losing their capital letters are exactly the kind of uncollegial comments people in the ANI thread were complaining about. Believe it or not, I agree that at least some of your work is helpful, and some of it isn't particularly useful but is at least harmless. But whatever value add there is, is not worth a bad collaboration environment, and you're not always in step with the consensus anyway, so you'll need to learn to collaborate. I told you above I'd reply if you wanted sincere feedback, but not if you're just going to tell me I'm wrong / misguided. Here's my two cents: stop telling others what they like or don't like. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not because I like capital letters. Nobody else who you've beefed with "likes" capital letters either. If zombie e. e. cummings came back from the grave, he'd probably accuse you of liking capital letters and that everything should be unconditionally lowercase. If you feel tempted to object to mr. cummings and explain you're just doing things the way you think is best, assume that others would say the same to you when you accuse them of liking capital letters. SnowFire (talk) 04:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  OK, then I have to thread this needle when trying to explain the two sides of capitalization disputes. It seems clear to me that some editors really do "like" capital letters, and that motivates their extreme reactions to my case-fixing work in cases that they have such feelings for. Randy Kryn frequently makes it clear how much he likes capital letters to honor important topics, for "common sense", and such; but he's always very civil about it, and we don't generally get into heated discussions. Andy Dingley, on the other hand, the one who accused me in the ANI thread of not being "collegial", usually comes in with strong ad hominems against me in trying to defend his capital letters. That's where it gets uncollegial. I really have done my best to avoid that kind of thing for the last year or so, but he keeps at it (most recently here; I kept my response focused on data from sources). Dicklyon (talk) 17:15, 4 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a joint note from myself and Risker in our capacity as election monitors. We wanted to thank you for remaining civil on Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates/Pbritti and for hatnoting the extended content. We also wanted to remind you that tone doesn't always translate well over text and that some portions of that section could come off as unnecessarily personal. To be clear, you don't need to edit anything in your comment, but we wanted to veer on the side of caution and issue a reminder anyway. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 17:50, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ThadeusOfNazereth: No worries. I'm not super happy this was dragged up but I didn't see an alternative. I was trying to keep my questions focused on the future with the large disclaimer that the past was poorly handled. But, well, the accusations made against me were not light nor a "haha I'll move on" kind of deal. There's gonna be strong feelings (again, even if for the sake of argument I was fully in the wrong here, which I don't grant at all). Hell, I'd imagine this goes for the other side too - if I really was "guilty" somehow to the degree of requiring "personal warnings" as some sort of number-one wiki battleground offender, that also isn't a light matter. This is kind of inherently the sort of matters admins are expected to handle, so there needs to be some sort of way to raise and discuss it, and if feelings ran high, well, that's accurate, they did. SnowFire (talk) 03:48, 22 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @SnowFire. Your wiki edit anniversary was 2 days ago, marking 21 years of dedicated contributions to this Wikimedia project. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you all the best for the year ahead :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 14:03, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SnowFire. Per your request, your account has been granted temporary-account-viewer rights. You are now able to reveal the IP addresses of individuals using temporary accounts that are not visible to the general public. This is very sensitive information that is only to be used to aid in anti-abuse workflows. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Temporary account IP viewer for more information on this user right. It is important to remember:

• You must not share IP address data with someone who does not have the same access permissions unless disclosure is permissible as per guidelines listed at Foundation:Policy:Wikimedia Access to Temporary Account IP Addresses Policy.
• Access must not be used for political control, to apply pressure on editors, or as a threat against another editor in a content dispute. There must be a valid reason to investigate a temporary user. Note that using multiple temporary accounts is not forbidden, so long as they are not used in violation of policies (for example, block or ban evasion).

It is also important to note that the following actions are logged for others to see:

• When a user accepts the preference that enables or disables IP reveal for their account.
• Revealing an IP address of a temporary account.
• Listing the temporary accounts that are associated with one or more IP addresses (using the CIDR notation format).

Remember, even if a user is violating policy, avoid revealing personal information if possible. Use temporary account usernames rather than disclosing IP addresses directly, or give information such as same network/not same network or similar. If you do not want the user right anymore then please ask me or another administrator and it will be removed for you. You may also voluntarily give up access at any time by visiting Special:Preferences. Happy editing! Sohom (talk) 03:44, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I saw your past interactions on Fascist Italy's talk page which is remarkable. But I just wanna ask about your opinion on changing the article's infobox into the historical era instead of the infobox country format. I believe Fascist Italy can be a broad topic where it can either describe the Kingdom of Italy from 1922 and 1943 or the Italian Social Republic from 1943 to 1945. I also made a comment about this on the article's talk page Thank you. RatMan7108 (talk) 00:25, 23 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	Infinite Possibilities
	Is this real life? Yes! Is this going to be forever? No! Elvis is getting ready to leave the building and 2026 is about to be born, kicking and screaming. They say nothing gold can stay, but I say, don't listen to them, stay golden all the same. Here's to a new year of infinite diversity and beautiful combinations! Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Who would have thought that we were missing a page on wethers! Thanks for resolving this long-standing omission. Klbrain (talk) 07:37, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

SnowFire,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 16:26, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the new year begins, I have kept the memory of your selfless stand in the ANI discussion and continue to feel grateful for your kind words that have indeed made all the difference. All my best wishes for 2026. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 00:47, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Andrzejbanas (talk) 00:50, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User SnowFire,

I just saw Gertrude Bell's wikipedia article...and personally I would not put a coffin as the first image in her wikipedia article. But if you get into a content dispute, then reconsider your options. The reason why I edit more on Wikimedia Commons rather than wikipedia was all the edit wars maybe 10 or 15 years ago here. Some people get picky when its "their own photo." Still its good to know the grave is still there in Iraq, I suppose. Best Wishes from Canada, --Leoboudv (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Leoboudv: I think the user who added that did so in good faith, but yeah, it's not the right spot in the article. I went ahead and moved it down myself, but feel free to WP:BEBOLD in the future and just make such changes yourself - it's Wikipedia, the encyclopedia anyone can edit, so it's totally fine both for the other user to add the image, and for you or me to brush up or move or remove the image. Good luck! SnowFire (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your reply and Good night from Canada. --Leoboudv (talk) 12:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@User:SnowFire thanks for your suggestion that ", two days before her fifty-eighth birthday," was insignificant to her death. I wanted to mention Gertrude Bell's age at her death, given it was a "premature" or untimely death. And you're right that it may not normally be significant, that her death was 2 days before her birthday. But, given that it was a possible/probable suicide, I beg to differ that it is insignificant. This is the kind of detail that would be included in a biography of such an outstanding atypical woman who in earlier life burned so bright. Permacultura (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Sorry for bothering you, I didn't know if you were just planning to leave a reference to the Duke University link for Public Domain Day... I'm done with my own blurb, so if you'd like to write one yourself, go for it! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Oltrepier: Oh, it's not remotely finished. I just saw Bri adding something, so I figured I'd add a little snippet right off as that's obviously a link we're going to highlight. SnowFire (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok, thanks for clarifying! : ) Oltrepier (talk) 11:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @SnowFire, I have seen you reverted my edit in Eclipse of Thales in this diff: [[1]], however, even if it wasn't the name Turkey/Türkiye, It's still plausible to use this name, so it's more recommended to use "Anatolia (Today Turkey)" *or something more formal*. Secondly, I put "possibly," meaning that was the most plausible region due to the territory of the two empires before and their borders, which makes it likely that the war took place there.

Furthermore, I don't know if you noticed, but it was written: "According to Herodotus, the change of day into night was interpreted as an omen, and interrupted a battle (sometimes called the "Battle of the Eclipse") in a long-standing war between the Medes and the Lydians in Anatolia (present-day Turkey)."

So let's come to an agreement to see if you agree with my justification, because it doesn't make sense to revert it if it says Turkey, just correct it! But that's all I have to say to you, I eagerly await your reply, greetings. PixelWhite (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SnowFire. Thank you for your work on Tobias Nicklas. Another editor, Mariamnei, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for your work on this article. Since this falls under WP:BLP, please add more sources - primarily secondary sources - and footnotes to back up each claim with a reliable source. Please also establish notability as per WP:PROF. Thanks and have a great day!

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

Mariamnei (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 3 February 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Wether, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that creation of wethers, castrated male sheep or goats, is recorded as far back as the Minoan civilization in the Bronze Age? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wether (ruminant). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Wether), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

HurricaneZeta^C 00:03, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to St. Martin's Church, Zillis. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 04:12, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Zackmann08: Thanks, but this kind of duplicate args is generally trivial. Just go ahead and fix it yourself if you see this, although I suppose if you weren't sure which set was right, it's fine to ping me - but just a one sentence question would have sufficied. Of course I previewed but a mistake slipped through, it happens, it always will. More generally, can I suggest that you don't use the "Month Year" section title? That is is a style used for aggressive warnings in general like anti-vandalism warnings, not "there was a tiny error with no impact on prose." Anyway, I've fixed it.

As far as archiving, if you'd like me to archive, just ask politely and I'll do it. Please don't "forcibly" set up archiving (although I appreciate you said that I was free to revert, which I will do so), and I would suggest that as general guidance elsewhere too - be very careful messing with other user's talk pages. This page uses "classic" archiving as a style. I'll go ahead and do a round of archiving though, although it's not really that huge (I'm not EEng). Admittedly, part of it is that I've let some old GAs and DYKs pile up here as talk page notifications since I didn't want to adorn my user page with them. Maybe I need to bite the bullet and move them to the user page after all. Sigh. SnowFire (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I partially take back what I said. Why do you think this talk page is rather large? Page size gadget says 3428 words or 464 kB. For comparison, Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) is 1517 words and 647 KB, aka much larger. EEng, the most famous offender, has 4437 kB and 22157 words at the moment. Now EEng is not an example to aspire to, he should archive more often, but we're 1/10 the size of him here. Is this page really causing a slowdown for you? Are others? It seems like it really shouldn't, or if it is, it should apply to lots of pages... not sure archiving is required just yet. (That said, to be clear, I'll archive it if you say it's genuinely a problem not a preference - I just want to verify that this is actually a technical problem first.) SnowFire (talk) 04:31, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever wrote about biographies involving obsessives? They sell their houses all the time. You say you prefer "less dramatic phrasing" because "it sounds like he does still have a place to live, so it's not selling his one-and-only place to sleep" except that's exactly what he did, and now your changes make it seem like that didn't happen. Strange edits, my dude. He's currently sleeping inside the library. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas: If I read "He sold his home" in a random context, I would read that as saying this person no longer has a home at all. If someone owning two homes sold one, I would not write "He sold his home", I would write "He sold a home" or the like. This is completely aside from the topic of this article, this is just good writing IMO. In this particular case, Gowda's home and the library are obviously the same thing. If Gowda had sold his one-and-only home and was sleeping in a relative's basement or living on a boat or something, it'd be different. If Gowda or his family does not actually own this library, feel free to correct me and I'd be happy to put the phrasing back myself.

And since you ask, while I did not create the article, I have in fact edited an article before about someone whose apartment was wall-to-wall covered with books everywhere and just a tiny path through. I stand by my phrasing as accurate. SnowFire (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the explanation, but I disagree with your reasoning. Gowda sold his home due to his obsession with book collecting, as he ran out of space. He then sold his land (and home) and built a library with the help of others. The one source that explains this in detail, a 2016 article in Asianet Suvarna News, is somewhat controversial to use, so I have left it out for now, hoping to use a more reliable one. Viriditas (talk) 02:40, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, if there is a sufficiently reliable source that indicates that the library is owned by some other entity not controlled by Gowda that is letting Gowda sleep there, I'd be happy to endorse the "he sold his home" phrasing and restore it. I would just find that surprising if so, and would want a strongly reliable source indicating that. SnowFire (talk) 02:51, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that aside, the current source has the "he sold his home" phrasing, which you removed.[2] Viriditas (talk) 10:15, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I think that phrasing is probably portraying a standard move where an old house is sold in a more dramatic fashion than warranted. People change homes all the time during a move and that will involve selling one of the homes. More generally, as others wrote in the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Prep_2_(27_February), the existing sources in the article seem to other good-faith editors to be weak and read promotionally, including that India Times one. I understand you disagree, but my reading is closer to what the others said, and I also think that the article's sourcing as borderline currently. Anyway, to make my statement clear, I'm talking about "a source SnowFire considers strong and reliable". SnowFire (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but you got me curious about the "borderline" sourcing and notion of promotional content. I see neither of those at work. This bias against the subject is really quite something I've never seen before. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You note, correctly, that the Herero and Nama genocide resulted in the killing of thousands of people, and take issue with my pointing out that this was an attempted extermination. But the definition of "extermination" is "killing, especially of a whole group of people or animals" and there's an example: "the near extermination of the buffalo herds". Since neither the Herero and Nama nor the buffalo were actually wiped out, this was not truly an "extermination" of the "whole group": it may have been a near-extermination or an attempt at extermination or a failed extermination, but not an actual extermination. Minturn (talk) 20:54, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Minturn: The sentence is ambiguous, but IMO ambiguous in a way that the intended reading is clear enough. You are correct that it can be read as "the (entire) people were wiped out" (false). But it can also be read more tautologically as "the people (who were killed) were killed" (true). Which meaning is made clear by the next sentences for the extent of the death. More generally, I don't think that your preferred phrasing is idiomatic. If we reduce the scale, if a killer goes to a house with 10 people and kills 7 of them, we wouldn't write "attempted" and focus on the fact it wasn't complete; we'd focus on the horrible thing that did happen. So even if you're right, that's more an argument to remove "extermination" as overly grandiose (which I doubt buidhe would approve of as overly nitpicky and not in keeping with the sources).

That said, IMO, this is more of a talk page of the article conversation, since neither of us are the main contributors and the question is more how a large audience would read it, not the two of us specifically. SnowFire (talk) 23:27, 3 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away

Nice quote you've got on your user page. I immediately thought that could be plausibly interpreted as saying that perfection is incoherent and as such impossible, which is my view. – Python Drink (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

On 10 April 2026, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article St. Martin's Church, Zillis, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that St. Martin's Church, Zillis, used ultramarine imported from medieval Afghanistan as a pigment for its painted ceiling (detail pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/St. Martin's Church, Zillis. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, St. Martin's Church, Zillis), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to nominate it.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Category:14th-century BC Near Eastern people has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ^SMason_Garrison 14:07, 18 April 2026 (UTC)[reply]