User talk:TooManyFingers

Hello, TooManyFingers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 03:01, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this link. If you don't use notifications correctly thay fail. Meters (talk) 23:53, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What are you doing? Now you have erased my post where I pinged him properly, and repinged him yourself. So he's going to get two pings, and one of them will have been erased. Don't mess with posts that have been replied to, and don't erase other editor's posts. Meters (talk) 00:31, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was under the impression that you were telling me I needed to fix it. I've never used this before. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was under the impression that you were telling me I needed to fix it. I've never used this before. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was under the impression that you were telling me I needed to fix it. I've never used this before. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I left a clear note on the article's talk page that I had had pinged him. You obviously saw it because you deleted it. And is there some reason you felt you needed to tell me the same thing three times? Meters (talk) 07:00, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read because I misunderstood the situation. And from this end my message appeared to have failed to upload. Again, I apologize. TooManyFingers (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how can i edit a wikipedia page? 177.236.36.14 (talk) 07:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your contributions :) xRozuRozu (t • c) 16:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haha I was actually drinking tea when I got this. Thanks! TooManyFingers (talk) 16:44, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. By the way thanks for your IP vandals reverts on my DYK. X (talk) 03:04, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Liu (talk) 17:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and sorry for having put my comment in the wrong place. I figured if I hit "reply" it would automatically go to the proper section. (It seems part of Wikipedia is learning which bits are automatic and which are not.) TooManyFingers (talk) 19:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright, no big deal. The reply tool is kinda weird indeed. (this comment made by the c:Project:Convenient Discussions gang) Aaron Liu (talk) 20:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote at the Teahouse that I have been criticized a little bit for saying this, but it's close enough to the truth: You have to prove that the person is already "IRL famous" before they can have an article on Wikipedia. What is the policy basis for this "IRL famous" notion? Consider a person who was a professor of chemistry at Harvard University from 1820 to 1850 and made some major discoveries. 99.9999% of people on the street have never heard of this person. Are you claiming that we should not have articles about people like that because they are not "famous"?

I appreciate your willingness to help out at the Teahouse, but it is important that our answers be accurate. The fact of the matter is that many notable people are not famous, and it is notability that we are most concerned about in this context, not fame. We have notability guidelines. We have no fame guideline. Cullen328 (talk) 20:11, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I'll quit saying it. I do believe it serves to make the situation immediately clear to a person who is trying to to use non-reliable non-relevant sources to support an article. I think it's a situation where an experienced and knowledgeable person such as yourself ends up constraining themselves to only use Wikipedia-approved jargon that sails right over the head of everyone who isn't similarly experienced and knowledgeable. I know it's not based on fame. I know the proper way to say it. But the proper way to say it is consistently failing to be understood; ordinary people don't talk that way, and it's fruitless to just cross our fingers and keep spouting lines nobody but us understands. Nevertheless, I'll stop. TooManyFingers (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Words like "jargon" and "failing" and "fruitless" and "cross our fingers" and "spouting lines" imply that Wikipedia is in a crisis or is in decline. That is incorrect. Wikipedia is still the #7 website worldwide after many years, and still far and away #1 in originally written educational content. We need new article writers who are willing to take a little bit of time to understand, at the minimum, our three core content policies and WP:BLP and the concept of notability. This is not rocket science. I am in favor of simplified "nutshells", but the notion that notability is the same as fame, is quite frankly, false and misleading. Cullen328 (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those words don't imply anything like that. What those words say is that when people keep on and on misunderstanding, either they're all stupid, they're all dishonest, or the explanation they're being given is inadequate or misleading. I prefer to avoid saying all those people are truly stupid or willfully dishonest, because I don't think it's necessarily the case; that leads me to the opinion that the usual explanations have been proven inadequate, and to look for solutions. TooManyFingers (talk) 02:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When you wrote The public is not interested in you at all, and it doesn't make sense for you to tell them they ought to be, that was unnecessarily disrespectful to Priva. Please do better. Cullen328 (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see that Hoary has also criticized that edit at the Teahouse. Cullen328 (talk) 04:08, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]