User talk:Crumpled Fire/Archive 1

Edit warring
It takes two, you know. It seems you may benefit from reading BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Page move
The move of Christ to Christ (term) was without consensus and a somewhat dramatic move. Please discuss on talk before making these big time changes. I will have to ask for the move back, and a discussion on the Wikiproject Christianity before the issue can be resolved. History2007 (talk) 23:32, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
 * History, you are absolutely right, and I have taken your lead by starting discussion at Talk:Christ (term) - unfortunately I could not undo this with another page move, something is in the way. Elizium23 (talk) 23:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Apology
I must apologize for my over-hasty reversal of your edit, which I misunderstood because of having too hurriedly read only the diff. I think your revised edit is better than the one I reverted and I congratulate you for it. Esoglou (talk) 20:07, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, and no need to apologize... just a simple misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing it up, cheers. Crumpled Fire (talk) 00:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Ides of March
Thanks for making it clear which era style was established in Ides of March. When I started contributing to it, I saw IPs editing in BC/AD, and named editors reverting based on WP:ERA. I didn't bother to check the history myself, and I should've. Cynwolfe (talk) 19:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Kim Petras
Let me tell you, I was as surprised as you are--I also reverted the removal of the birth name. However, after discussion on talk and at WP:BLPN, there was a clear consensus that putting the birth name in the lead violates WP:DUE, because it places undue emphasis on a name the person very deliberately does not use, which probably appears on none of the person's legal documents, etc. The information is included further down in the article, but not in the lead. Note that the "always in the lead" is in WP:LEAD, which is a part of WP:MOS, which is itself a guideline, and thus should be used with discretion, and may not be universally applied. I was convinced that (and, more importantly, there was a clear consensus that) removal of the birth name is correct and more in line with our core policies than including it. In any event, since this was recently discussed extensively, and at a noticeboard with uninvolved participants, the burden is on you to show that consensus has changed. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for elaborating, but where exactly is the information "included further down in the article" as you stated? There is literally not one mention of the birth name, or even any explicit mention that Petras was indeed born as a male. Were you aware of this?Crumpled Fire (talk) 09:39, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Huh, I thought we agreed in the discussion to leave it in the early life section. I don't have time to look for it now, but I could be misremembering; feel free to check; it should all be in the archives, I think (some was on noticeboards, but I think we linked to the discussion; if not, I'm pretty sure it was WP:BLPN). Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Yule
In a recent edit, you stated "Yule arguably emerged around the same time or later than Xmas". This is fringe at best. Where are you getting this? &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Crumpled Fire. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Page move after being warned against moving pages without discussion
I've reverted you. As you've been warned about this before and know you should get consensus, I am wondering why I shouldn't block you? Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks very much for agreeing to discuss in the future. My rule of thumb is that if the article has been virtually ignored for some time (not counting gnomish edits), with no activity on the talk page either, then I feel free to move it. If that's not the case, I open a discussion. It's only because you were warned about this before that I went to ANI. I don't know if anything needs cleaning up. I also don't know how I would !vote in a discussion over a move, it was the behavior not the names that concerned me, but I don't think that will be a problem in the future. Dougweller (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dougweller, your rule of thumb seems pretty fair, and on reflection it was dodgy behavior especially with someone who has made a controversial move before... I just figured I'd give a go of boldly moving it in the hope of saving a lot of unnecessary discussion in the event it went uncontested. Upon further reflection I realize that high-traffic articles (especially ones about culturally-controversial subjects like this) are quite likely to be controversial in some way or another regarding title moves. Crumpled Fire (talk) 10:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
 * In articles related to religion, you should assume changing a comma to a semicolon is controversial. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Paul Northfield, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Moist (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Moist IV for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Moist IV is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Moist IV until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 09:43, 10 March 2014 (UTC)