Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

GAB^gab 15:17, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GeneralizationsAreBad: Many thanks. Looks like I've got some studying to do! -- FeRDNYC (talk) 17:03, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! I'm not sure exactly how to link to it, but I've added some further discussion to your comment on the Dan Bilzerian talk page, and I'm going to make an attempt to better summarize the cited source.47.224.90.232 (talk) 06:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello FeRDNYC, I doublechecked the versions. You are right, I removed the wrong link by mistake. Sorry. Thanks for taking the time to review and write a detailed explanation! Actually I'm planning to translate this article. That's why I was checking the sources.
Dr.KBAHT (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)Dr.KBAHT[reply]

Hi, regarding this discussion Wikipedia_talk:User_scripts/Archive_6#Collapsed_install_codes which has since been archived, I wanted to note that the issue has now been resolved through a MediaWiki-side patch (phab:T276741). Cheers! – SD0001 (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Template:Signpost/DateCoundown and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 17 § Template:Signpost/DateCoundown until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. jp×g 00:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Think you could remove /* {{pp|small=yes}} */ from User:FeRDNYC/signpost sandbox.css? It's currently polluting Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates since the page isn't currently protected (user-space css/js protection doesn't count). Thanks! Aidan9382 _(talk) 08:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has later been removed by an interface admin. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind removing the protection template (first line) from User:FeRDNYC/signpost sandbox.css? With it, the page is added to Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates. Thanks! :) ~ Eejit43 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has later been removed by an interface admin. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 11:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have recently made edits related to the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy. This is a standard message to inform you that the English Wikipedia Manual of Style and article titles policy is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics.

It is strongly contra-indicated to cast aspersions (across two WP:Contentious topics at once!) at other editors for using singular-they as a generic replacement for neopronouns, following our own community consensus to do so and broad current practice across the English-writing world, on the basis of what seems to be your own rather extreme advocacy position (which many trans/enby people strenuously disagree with) that generically skirting neopronouns with they objectively "is" misgendering and that it is an "offense". Branding other editors as misgenderers is highly likely to be taken as uncivil, battlegrounding, and possibly a personal attack. You can make your point without playing aspersion-casting, judgemental games, e.g. with phrasing like "using they instead of neoprouns" instead of "using the wrong pronouns"; trying "may be interpreted by someone as misgendering" instead of "is an act of misgendering"; considering "could be interpreted as the same kind of behavior" instead of "all constitute pretty much the same offense"; etc.

I'll remind you of your own wording: "[This] is a topic of discussion and debate. There's no definitive answer ..., and opinions will vary. But ... claiming zoom is wrong or being logically inconsistent simply because zoom's views on pronouns and gendering are different from your own feels like a losing one." So is using guilt by association and ad hominem labels like "misgendering" against other editors simply for having a slightly different socio-politico-cultural stance than your personal view, to try to WP:WIN; it's a losing, fallacious argument that is poisonous to actual discussion, debate, and varying of opinions.

PS: Some helpful material on adjusting from an antagonistic "advocacy argumentation" habit (one which I arrived here with as well, many years ago, having been a professional activist) to a collegial consensus-forming process can be found at: WP:HOTHEADS, WP:ACTIVISM, WP:ADVOCACY, WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this comment: in order to avoid confusion with HTML entities (such as & or ), perhaps you might consider rewording Style rules are technically applied to HTML entities to Style rules are technically applied to HTML elements? This would also align with your later use of the term "HTML element". isaacl (talk) 02:47, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! You're quite right, I messed that up. I'll fix that, thanks for letting me know. FeRDNYC (talk) 01:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to figure this out all morning and have had no luck. The publishing date's set to be the 5th... and the writing deadline is set to be one day before that. Then the countdown text below (which is ALSO set to be the writing deadline) is correctly talking about November 4... but the percent countdown, for some inscrutable reason, is claiming November 2. I have been going through all the templates trying to find out why this would be the case but I have nothing. Any thoughts? jp×g🗯️ 22:02, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The param in dateswrap works fine: {{#time: j|2023-11-05 20:01 UTC - 24 hours}} = 4, which is totally correct. And {{#time: Y-M-j H:i (e)|2023-11-05 20:01 UTC - 24 hours}} = 2023-Nov-4 20:01 (UTC)... jp×g🗯️ 22:06, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think it was this -- what??? How does that even make sense.

You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. - SchroCat (talk) 13:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot sir for your help. I was offline for a few days, and couldn't reply to you on time. However, I have found out what you replied to me (currently archived), and it has served my purpose well. Thanks again for your help. Happy editing, Itcouldbepossible ^Talk 08:48, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya! Just reaching out to ask about the "dark mode" changes you made to this template back in October 2024. Could you perhaps have a look at this again as the infobox is now broken in "light mode" with white text headers on light grey backgrounds. Would be great if it could work in both modes without having to revert the changes.

Cheers! Storm machine (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Storm machine Yikes! Thanks for letting me know, that was definitely not the intention. I'll take a look, though if you have a particular example article where it renders broken that'd be helpful. FeRDNYC (talk) 16:36, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I spot-checked these transclusions, all in light mode:

• 1980 VFL grand final
• 2005 AFL Grand Final
• 1990 AFL Grand Final
• 2008 AFL Grand Final

...and everything looks fine. So, wherever you saw a problem with the template, I suspect it's due to local style changes made in the article. It's entirely possible my changes introduced incompatibilities that led to rendering issues that weren't occurring previously, and I'm happy to help fix those, but you have to let me know where you're seeing the problem occur because the fixes would be done at the transcluding article. The template itself appears to be working correctly, when used as intended. FeRDNYC (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you know what? There is one change I made to the template that was, in retrospect, dumb: When applying the style changes to use skin-defined variables for the colors, I added CSS for both the background-color and color values, with fallback colors... but I made the fallback styles nearly identical! This (from the template) is a terrible idea:

background: var(--background-color-neutral, #efefef); color: var(--color-base, #fff);

...because if you don't have --background-color-neutral and --color-base defined, you will indeed get white-on-nearly-white text. I'll fix that so the fallback for color is #000 (black); sorry about that. FeRDNYC (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Done, please let me know if that fixes the issue you were seeing. FeRDNYC (talk) 17:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into it! Everything looks better now. I knew it would be something simple, but just beyond my limited capabilities. Storm machine (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]