A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Ficaia! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
Need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Try the Task Center.
If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! πΈπ π½ππππππ πΏπππππ|πΊπ¦πΊπ¦πΊπ¦|βοΈ|π 22:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Autopatrolled
Hi Ficaia, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. However, you should consider adding relevant wikiproject talk-page templates, stub-tags and categories to new articles that you create if you aren't already in the habit of doing so, since your articles will no longer be systematically checked by other editors (User:Evad37/rater and User:SD0001/StubSorter.js are useful scripts which can help). Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! ββ―JoeΒ (talk) 07:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
![]() |
Great wee article on one of Coleridge's poems. scope_creepTalk 12:29, 25 May 2022 (UTC) |
The Bath of Psyche
Hey, just a heads up that the second paragraph under panel reads very closely to the description at the Tate gallery website. I would recommend changing it so that it doesn't get flagged as a potential copyright violation. Thanks, Dark-World25 (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm going to go ahead and remove that paragraph now since it does appear to be a copyvio. Thanks, Dark-World25 (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll try and broaden the paraphrase. π±πππππ (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you need to take a look at what was written then I would do so now, since I've just requested revdel due to potential copyvio. Thanks, Dark-World25 (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Revdel? I think I've paraphrased the sentence well enough now. π±πππππ (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Revision deletion, basically it's due to the fact that the copyright violation still exists in the page history which needs to be removed for legal reasons. I believe the new phrasing should be fine. Thanks, Dark-World25 (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- Revdel? I think I've paraphrased the sentence well enough now. π±πππππ (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- If you need to take a look at what was written then I would do so now, since I've just requested revdel due to potential copyvio. Thanks, Dark-World25 (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Crenaia, the Nymph of the Dargle
Hi Ficaia. In the future, please add attribution when copying from public domain sources: simply add the template {{PD-notice}}
after your citation. I have done so for the above draft. Please do this in the future so that our readers will be aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself, and that it's okay to copy verbatim. Thanks, β Diannaa (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Theroadislong (talk) 10:52, 9 June 2022 (UTC). (You can at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).
Your thread has been archived
![]() |
Hi Ficaia! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Iβve raised an issue about the Yoruba editor at WP:ANI
And in fact mentioned that edit. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
![]() |
Hi Ficaia! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Your thread has been archived
![]() |
Hi Ficaia! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Ficaia
Thank you for creating Lillie Sullivan.
User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Nice work
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 (talk) 18:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Standard alert for discretionary sanctions covering gender disputes
![]() | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
Doug Weller talk 08:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, Ficaia
Thank you for creating James Peacock (navy officer).
User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:
Nice work.
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}
. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~
.
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
North8000 (talk) 17:25, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks
Thank you for saving that content, the so-called "editors" over at that page have been giving me a headache for days. Costco nostra (talk) 20:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- Yeah, I agree that nuking all the content you added was ridiculous. The article is called "White people" not "The White race", so I don't see why pre-racial ideas of whiteness should be removed/minimised. π±πππππ (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
- The white race redirects to white people. The article is, explicitly, about the white race as a social construct created in the later 17th century. So with that in mind, what is "pre-racial whiteness"? Grayfell (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- Modern racial ideas are not present in writings of the past, while descriptions of different physical characteristics like skin color exist, they are not treated exactly as equivalent to modern concepts. The term "race" itself only has vague equivalents prior to the Rennaissance, for example "gens" meaning people, nation, stock, clan, tribe, etc in Latin. So while there are references and descriptions of people or groups being white, light skinned, etc in history those don't perfectly reflect modern racial concepts.
- The article is, explicitly, about the white race as a social construct created in the later 17th century
- It obviously isn't solely about that or they would delete the first section on physical descriptiosn in antiquity. While they deleted all my material (thanks a lot btw), there is still plenty that is present that is not directly related to modern concepts. What do 3000 BC Egyptian hieroglyphs or Xenophon talking about naked white Persians have to do with 17th century racial concepts? All that stuff is still up even if my additions got taken down. Those guys aren't too concerned with consistency. Costco nostra (talk) 11:34, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- We agree on how race is a modern (and extremely ambiguous) concept. That's a good point and something we should always keep in mind when editing this topic. Your edits drew attention to a problem in the article, and that's a good thing. That's the point of having these discussions, because Wikipedia is a work in progress, and I do not think the article was perfect the way it was. Even if you personally think we're so-called "editors" you are still obligated to assume good faith. We are all trying to improve the project. The project is better off now with this new article, and that's the important thing.
- For convenience and simplicity, I've made a post about the specific issue on the new article's talk page: Talk:Pre-modern conceptions of whiteness#Name of article. Grayfell (talk) 23:50, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
- The white race redirects to white people. The article is, explicitly, about the white race as a social construct created in the later 17th century. So with that in mind, what is "pre-racial whiteness"? Grayfell (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
![]() |
Hi Ficaia! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
Important notes
![]() | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in articles about living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
Hi Ficaia, you have modified controversial content in the article about J. K. Rowling. Please note that there have been extensive discussions about the article's content, currently linked at Talk:J. K. Rowling, that led to the state you have modified. This is not necessarily an argument against your change, as you may well have noticed an issue that others have not, but it is more likely that you have just made an edit against a wide consensus. If this turns out to be the case (for example if you are reverted by someone referring to an earlier discussion), please make sure to discuss your change on the talk page instead of starting an edit war by restoring changes others have objected to.
You may be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Eyes_on_J._K._Rowling_TFA, in which editors have voiced concerns about possible disruption occurring as soon as the article appears on the main page.
Best regards,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from one or more pages into Draft:Pre-modern conceptions of blackness. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g.,
copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution
. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Also, when copying from one article to another, please be sure to also copy details of the supporting citations and texts. Thank you, β Diannaa (talk) 14:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
James Frankfort Manners Browne
Hi. I'm puzzled by the fact that when you created the article + the Commons cat for the photos from the NPG website you consistently changed the name "Frankfort" to "Frankwort" throughout, including in the title. Perhaps I'm missing something, but why was that? Ingratis (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
- I made the article based on this list, which incorrectly gives "Frankwort". For some reason I copied the typo over without realising the DNB and NPG both give "Frankfort". You were right to correct me, so thanks for that. π±πππππ (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Your thread has been archived
![]() |
Hi Ficaia! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please .
|
You are experienced enough to know the importance of edit summaries
8 reverts at Lauren Boebert, only the last had one. Doug Weller talk 12:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC) @Doug Weller: I could only revert the disputed content by reverting all the subsequent edits as well, and as most of these were similarly adding material to the lead my final edit summary applies to them as well. π±πππππ (talk) 12:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Then maybe that could have been in the edit summary. And "most"? Doug Weller talk 12:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- One of the edits was minor tweakage I think. I notice Szmenderowiecki didn't summarise all but one of their edits either. π±πππππ (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I should probably mention that to them. No biggy, but without edit summaries if someone doesn't understand your edits, it's a reasonable reason to revert. Doug Weller talk 13:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- One of the edits was minor tweakage I think. I notice Szmenderowiecki didn't summarise all but one of their edits either. π±πππππ (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Important Notice
![]() | This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.
You have shown interest in post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic. To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place{{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor. |
Doug Weller talk 12:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
July 2022
Your recent editing history at Lauren Boebert shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editingβespecially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's workβwhether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each timeβcounts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warringβeven if you do not violate the three-revert ruleβshould your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. EvergreenFir (talk) 15:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm certainly not involved in an edit war. I have reverted several different edits to different parts of the article at several points, and nowhere have I violated 3RR. I suggest you remove this template from my talk page. π±πππππ (talk) 15:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you have reverted repeatedly, you are involved in an edit war. βC.Fred (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Funny how everybody acts like this only applies to those they disagree with. π±πππππ (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Given that multiple other editors are involved, it's your conduct that's really being looked at right now, not anybody else's. βC.Fred (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well, we'll see if you all pile on. π±πππππ (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Given that multiple other editors are involved, it's your conduct that's really being looked at right now, not anybody else's. βC.Fred (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Funny how everybody acts like this only applies to those they disagree with. π±πππππ (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- If you have reverted repeatedly, you are involved in an edit war. βC.Fred (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. NikolaosFanaris (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
. Β Daniel Case (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2022 (UTC)