User talk:Fieari

• User talk:Fieari/Archive 1
• User talk:Fieari/Archive 2
• User talk:Fieari/Archive 3

I just did a comprehensive analysis with explanations as you demanded from me. Cheers. Celestina007 (talk) 02:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC) [reply ]

I have nominated Hurricane Gloria for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. George Ho (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello. Could I request a review of your close at Template talk:Infobox legislative election. Firstly, with regards to your vote counting, you might have missed one editor initially being in the yes camp but changing their mind (although they apparently forgot to strike their !vote). Secondly, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is clear that infoboxes should "summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". What was being discussed here is something that does not appear in the article. When closing discussions, WP:DISCARD should be applied to arguments that ignored guidelines or policies, which was the case here as a majority of votes were simply WP:ILIKEIT/WP:USEFUL-type arguments. Cheers, Number 5 7 07:54, 8 June 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

@Number 57: I'd be happy to discuss the closure.

• I do now see the thread with ValenciaThunderbolt. Looking at it closer, my interpretation of the conversation (particularly in light of the fact that they did not change their bolded !vote) would be less that they were convinced that you were fully correct and their former position was incorrect, and more that their position changed to ambivalence-- that is, either option would be acceptable to them. However, I don't believe that even if I had counted this person's !vote as fully changed that the overall result of the RFC would be fundamentally changed because of the next point.
• MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is part of the manual of style. It is policy in as far as these are standards that should, lacking specific local consensus to the contrary, be followed in all relevant articles. But that's the key thing, the manual of style is expressly written such that it can, may, and must be ignored when there is local consensus to the contrary. As a policy, it is far weaker than policies such as WP:RS, or WP:BLP, both of which take precedence and can overwrite even a complete unanimous local consensus against them. The manual of style doesn't have that power. The manual of style is a default that can be overwritten locally for reasons such as "it's useful". Citing WP:USEFUL is actually a good point of contrast, as that page talks about deletion arguments surrounding the much stronger policy of WP:RS and WP:GNG, neither of which are part of the Manual of Style. I will quote the notice box at the top of MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." An RFC that is heavily weighted against the MOS in some local area is exactly what can create those "occasional exceptions".

Fieari (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2023 (UTC) [reply ]

estar8806 (talk) ★ 02:33, 29 September 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

A tag has been placed on DQw4w9WgXcQ requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 October 13#DQw4w9WgXcQ. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discussion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator , or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Utopes _{(talk / cont )} 21:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC) [reply ]

Thankyou for your considered closes at Talk:Death of Mahsa Amini and Talk:Matt Gaetz. TarnishedPath ^talk 09:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chinese sorcery scares, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Magic. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 07:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

If an experienced nominator chooses not to bundle nominations, please do not do so for them. There's typically a reason they didn't do so (which is exactly the case here). I've undone your bundling of my nominations. Note that directly under the series of nominations I made I had a bundled nomination as well, which would be a helpful indicator that someone intentionally did not bundle. If you do choose to bundle, you should also give someone a heads up so that they can address it un undo the bundling if there was a reason they didn't bundle to begin with, as opposed to them finding out a day or two later and there being issues because the nominations were bundled. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I apologize, it looked like a "no-brainer" bundle to me, with every single entry having the exact same name format, and the exact same rationale given for all of them. I did notice there was a bundle below, but I guessed (obviously incorrectly) that you had simply neglected to get around to bundling this set. I will strive to be better about notifying in the future. All that said... I need to ask: why didn't you bundle these? Why are they intentionally separated? I still see no reason to do so, as I really dislike having to go down a long list of nominations to put in identical !votes and reasonings. This is not a rhetorical question, and I'm not trying to pick a fight... I'd just like to be a better wikipedian along with you. Fieari (talk) 05:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Hey man im josh: Coming back to this because the RfDs recently closed-- and no one commented on the vast majority of the individual separated listings (there was someone else who put up a !vote to delete all of them, without commenting on each). This still looks, to me, like a prime candidate for bundling, and not bundling looks like a massive headache-- I know I personally did not go back and re-add my delete all !votes because the list was just too long as separate items. Why insist that this group of extremely similar redirects be treated individually? Fieari (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

As mentioned, I insisted on it because adding the relevant information to one, or making it clear where it's already mentioned in a different capacity, is more convenient in those cases. Every single redirect had a different target, and should have been assessed individually. My word as the nominator shouldn't be trusted and be the sole reason. If they all pointed to the same place, or the same couple of places, absolutely I'd have bundled. But, because they didn't and the circumstances and depth of each of the articles was different, it was a conscious and intentional choice not to bundle them which I still stand by. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Hello. Regarding your closure [1], did you consider the strength of arguments? Also you mentioned WP:BRD which is an explanatory essay, and not WP:ONUS which is a policy. Bogazicili (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Bogazicili: Hello, yes, I was looking directly at the strength of arguments. I thought I laid out the reasoning for the close pretty clearly? Before discussing this, please understand that I have no stakes in this game, and no opinion about the matter myself, I am simply trying to summarize the discussion as it appeared, and apply wikipedia policy regarding it, as is the job of a closer.

First of all, WP:BRD had nothing to do with the majority of the close, that was merely regarding the "remove Germany too" suggestion, a shorthand way of saying "That option wasn't really discussed at any kind of length by the participants of this discussion". The main arguments of the discussion were what I primarily looked at. To reiterate, the arguments against were that his ethnicity is not a key factor in what makes him notable, and only those key facts are supposed to be in the lead per the manual of style. The arguments for were that he self identifies as Turkish, and also that some sources do identify him by his ethnicity. If sources consistently mentioned the ethnicity as relevant, that would definitely mean that it should go in the first sentence, but the editors in this discussion did not agree that sources consistently do this. There is agreement that his ethnicity has been brought up in reliable sources, but a disagreement that it is central to his notability. This is why the result is no consensus as opposed to consensus against. Fieari (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

That's what I am saying. I don't think you applied correct Wikipedia policy.

Looking at the article, Talk:Uğur_Şahin#Proposed_compromise, I don't think there was ever a consensus regarding saying German and only German in the first sentence. Why would WP:BRD apply here?

The correct policy here would be WP:ONUS. Can you look at the relevant policies and revise parts of your closure statement? Bogazicili (talk) 20:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

As a reminder, WP:BLP is a Wikipedia:Contentious topics. The reason I'm taking particular issue with your closure is that engineering a state for the article without consensus and reverting to that using WP:BRD could be considered WP:GAME. Consensus is the core decision making in Wikipedia Bogazicili (talk) 20:36, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

@Bogazicili: Are you asking me to simply mention WP:ONUS in the closure? That policy states that there is no mandate to include information just because it is verifiable, and that consensus may allow non-inclusion of verifiable information. There is, in fact, no consensus to include Turkish (which is not the same as consensus against, mind you), per my close reading of the conversation, which I've already mentioned in the closing statement. There was basically no discussion at all (besides a single comment) regarding inclusion or non-inclusion of German, which is why I stated that, on the topic of including "German", this RfD didn't really do anything; either edit as normally (which is why I mentioned WP:BRD, that's just normal editing) or start a new RfC, because this RfC didn't discuss it. A discussion requires more than a single person proposing it. I didn't mention WP:ONUS because general consensus practice already applies to the Turkish question, and the German question was not discussed. If this is not your point of contention, please be clearer. Fieari (talk) 23:24, 17 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

I am asking you to remove the part about WP:BRD or revise it, using WP:ONUS.

WP:BRD is not "normal editing" here because there was no consensus about including only German in the lead. WP:BRD is not even a policy. It's an essay:

This is an explanatory essay about the Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Be bold pages.
This page provides additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community

Basically, your interpretation of "normal editing" is wrong here. We will need another RfC about German ethnicity to establish its consensus.

To put it more clearly, you said:

One compromise option was briefly brought up-- "German" could be removed from the lead as well, leaving the ethnicity question until later when it can be discussed in more nuance. This RfC does not establish consensus either for or against this option, meaning usual editing practices (WP:BRD) apply.

I consider this WP:GAME as there has never been a consensus to include German in the lead. The first sentence of the article seems to have been in a long term edit war since 2021. It doesn't matter if it was discussed or not in the RfC, you did not apply the correct policy. Bogazicili (talk) 21:55, 18 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]

Just to clarify, I'm not saying you are engaged in WP:GAME. But I find the long-term edit war in the article very problematic.

For your closure, you also ignored WP:NPOV. Saying only German in the first sentence is against WP:NPOV. Additional sources were provided in: Talk:Uğur_Şahin#Long-term_edit_war_in_the_article. Bogazicili (talk) 19:40, 20 March 2025 (UTC) [reply ]