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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

You have recently edited a page related to gender-related disputes or controversies or people associated with them, a topic designated as contentious. This is a brief introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

How many fingers do you have? Commandant Quacks-a-lot (talk) 18:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

More than I know what to do with. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Is this a reference to AI hands? 2600:1017:B11B:CEAB:ADC2:B912:122D:75EB (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

No, just my own. This is my first time hearing about AI hands. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:07, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey there, I saw your edits to this article and I really appreciate them.

Just wanted to say that last Christmas I expanded this article a bunch but hit a roadblock in source digging and stopped working on it. Surface-level sources were too poor and I couldn't find any good places to find the better ones (likely because it isn't traditionally English). That, and some of the articles had an annoying religious bias. Not the good kind. I'm Christian after all. But one of the Christian sources I looked at brought up that the translator was a Unitarian, but had to stop preaching because he fell really ill "for some weird reason". Stuff like that lol.

I'd love to return to this again if you'd be interested in jumping into an article overhaul. I'd just need help with the source hunting. Let me know! Panini! • 🥪 20:34, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

I'm inviting you to undo your last edit on Frank Dux, rather than reporting you for edit warring because I believe you are editing in good faith.

Then you need to read policy on original synthesis, which is doing exactly as you described your edits. You are combining two facts to create a new argument. The fact you reckon the second fact is a simple calculation is not the point.

Please discuss further on the talk page, thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 21:06, 8 September 2025 (UTC)

Your conduct at WP:Teahouse#new editor is simply not appropriate. If you cannot answer with a helpful attitude, assuming good faith, then please leave the question to another Teahouse host. Cullen328 (talk) 05:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

And now we have WP:TH#Have you noticed a recurring theme? If you persist with this flippant, unhelpful attitude, it will become necessary to block you from the Teahouse. Cullen328 (talk) 05:43, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Okay, I but what I am struggling to understand is that I have quoted third party sources, like UK government websites and yet I am being accused of ‘puffery’ and implicitly of acting in bad faith. 86.22.46.64 (talk) 03:54, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, TooManyFingers. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— xaosflux ^Talk 15:27, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

When you reply to an editor who has used the {{Help}} template, as you did in this edit, please remember to change the template to {{Helped}}, as I did here, so that the former template no longer flags the page as needing an answer. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh! Thanks, I had never responded to one of those before - now I know. TooManyFingers (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi :) I did add refs to the ones i had to start the article. Could you please look at it ? User:Harold Foppele/Quantum Beams. If you think its ok, I move it to draft for review. Thanks !! Harold Foppele (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

I'm starting just by questioning a different thing. This article (as with all Wikipedia articles) is required to be aimed at a general audience, and is required to begin with a lead section that is a summary of the article. You could modify the part currently called "Introduction" so it has no section heading and becomes an actual summary, OR you could add a proper lead section that goes before this introduction. Either way, it's necessary to write the lead section so that (to use a stereotype) any plumber can already understand the lead section - without following any links. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

(The way the article begins now, you're assuming that the reader already knows a great deal about why this topic should exist and why it matters.) TooManyFingers (talk) 23:34, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed answer. Indeed, I’ve written a number of pages on Wikiversity, but they have a very different style from what is required on Wikipedia. Where WP:OR is encouraged on WV, on WP it’s pretty much a cardinal sin. For example: Chess/Board Configurations — pure WP:OR, but still fun to write and read.

That’s why I’m trying to keep this Wikipedia article as simple as possible, based on the two sources I originally had. In the end, I found six more. I’ll rewrite the beginning and hope it fits better. I’d love to hear what you think. Thanks! Harold Foppele (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

But you have been editing here, on Wikipedia. You've caused some quite strong negative reactions by doing very poor quality work that didn't get accepted, ... and this new work doesn't really seem different. If it really is different this time, then please explain how your method has changed. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Ofcourse I am aware of the article that got accepted and then brought to Afc. If i'm not mistaken you where involved in the discussion. Beside the negative reactions, I obtained a few (editor) friends from that discussion. So I wanted to take it step by step by seeking advice from the start. Thats exactly what I did and you responded to it with advice as to write a WP type proper introduction. You are quite capable of looking at the changes made in the process, and as I explained it is evolved to what it is now. So my question to you, are you evaluating me, or the article? Harold Foppele (talk) 10:21, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

I was evaluating the article by saying it seemed to be just as bad as the stuff that got rejected, and wondering why a person would think "I know, I'll just make more of the exact same stuff, with all the same faults - I won't fix any of the problems and I won't write better - and this time I think it will get accepted." TooManyFingers (talk) 14:01, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

It's certainly possible that you could have believed the problems were minor ones. They weren't. Maybe it would make sense to say that the rejected material was 99.7% unacceptable while the new material was 99.6% unacceptable. TooManyFingers (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

I see you are active at the Teahouse, so I put you in as a featured host (see Wikipedia:Teahouse/Host/Featured/8). Feel free to customize the picture to your liking. Interstellarity (talk) 15:32, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! I certainly wasn't expecting that, considering how close I must be to a Teahouse record for misjudgements per week. TooManyFingers (talk) 17:01, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

"Can anything compare to asking what similes are like?" Clever!

My favorite, in somewhat the same vein, is this: "Analogies are like feathers on a snake." David10244 (talk) 01:02, 12 December 2025 (UTC)

I think your idea of "Save" followed by "Saved material is not private" makes a lot of sense. "Publish" gives the wrong impression. Some new editors are hesitant to "publish" too soon, and sometimes lose their work (based on reading lots of Teahouse and Help posts over the years). David10244 (talk) 04:45, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Re: this edit I am unsure why "anyone would expect" bypassing the chain of command. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:42, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - I obviously misunderstood. I think the majority of people around the world will not automatically see that this arrangement bypassed the normal chain of command, and that therefore we should specifically say that it did. TooManyFingers (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:30, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

my favourite transcription Charlesjsharp (talk) 15:36, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Another performance of it, IMO much closer to a Charles J Sharp level of detail: Schubert, Ständchen - Vladimir Viardo TooManyFingers (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi, TooManyFingers. I appreciate your Teahouse responses which I think are uniformly good (plus you often get there before I do, so you save me a lot of work ). However, I can't agree with this comment of 08:30, 21 Dec., where you said in part:

I'm sorry to say this, but if they told you it was probably AI, and in fact it wasn't, then your own writing must be extremely bad quality.

This used to be the case, and had you said this a few scant years ago, I would have certainly agreed with you. But with the leaps and bounds of LLM, it no longer is. In fact, now it is rather the opposite. If someone appears to have written extremely polished, professional-level journalistic or academic writing typical of a published author or historian, then I strongly suspect AI. There are, of course, some WP editors who really are academics or published authors, and imho they are at high risk for being accused of using AI. So are some amateurs who have honed their skills to that level. (Another possibility is someone writing it all on their own and passing their content through AI strictly for a copyedit, which LLM's are very good at, so not using the "generative" aspect of AI (as in a generative pre-trained transformer) but an editorial function; not sure our guidelines have much to say about that.)

I have no idea where the truth lies in this particular case, and it is of course possible that they used AI, but if an editor is accused of it these days, it is more likely to be due to the high quality of the prose than its poor quality. When I see poor quality prose, I *know* that it was not LLM-generated. Just my 2 cents. Other than that, thanks again, and keep doing what you are doing! Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 00:08, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Three words buried in your message might have accidentally captured a sort of sign of the times: "The truth lies." It sometimes seems that way, anyway. Thank you for the message, and especially for the part about the issue often not being the way I described it. TooManyFingers (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for all your copy editing and tidying of Coccinella septempunctata, I really appreciate it. Regarding your question on the talk page, I'll have to return to the sources and see if I can answer that. —Bruce1ee^talk 00:58, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me and giving me the idea to post my draft on the Wikipedia of my native language. TheGreatEditor024 (talk) 08:14, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! I hope your article is a success in other places. You worked for it. TooManyFingers (talk) 08:19, 23 December 2025 (UTC)

Hello TooManyFingers! Taking this to your talk as it's getting a bit tangential to the original question.
I fully agree that the editor's edits were hardly a complete improvement (understandable for a newbie) and tried to nudge them towards edit requests as a result. I brought up the point about the correct removals instead to illustrate that I think GuiquiJH is correctly recognizing some (certainly not all) issues on the article. Their perspective is a useful outside one that can help us realize some issues that the article does indeed have. I tried to put myself in the editor's shoes: if I weren't a Wikipedia editor and had an article about me on a highly visible Internet page that the whole world could see and I saw that my name was obviously wrong, it would seem entirely natural to me to try to fix it. Then someone comes along and changes my name back to the wrong one and tells me that if I were anyone else I could do something about my name being wrong, but because the article is about me, I can't fix it. What a strange website! The workings of Wikipedia are weird to those who haven't been here a while. I sometimes fear that we're too quick to throw AUTOBIO and co at brand new editors and expect them to immediately understand Wikipedia's stance on this. Often I see editors respond to this with complete confusion, which I understand. Sometimes they get pretty hostile, which is harder to deal with but I can honestly understand as well, given the impact of our BLPs.
In this case, though, it looks like GuiquiJH simply hasn't edited since the reversion, and there's been several warnings/mentions of blocks since on the Teahouse thread, which I imagine is a bit startling for someone who just wanted to fix their name and nationality being incorrect. GuiquiJH has plenty to learn about editing Wikipedia, but I think it's helpful to be encouraging about what they're doing right: they're brand new and something about them that the whole world can see is wrong, at least from their perspective. I don't think they were trying to be disruptive. That's why I tried to point out what they did right and explain the rest (hopefully not too long-windedly) in my comment.
Anyway, apologies for getting probably a bit too long and philosophical. (And this is entirely tangential, but I admire the userpage/name inspiration, by the way. I tried to learn a Piano Guys Christmas song I have music for over the holidays and was reminded just how much I agree with that sentiment.) Happy editing to you, Perfect4th (talk) 20:35, 29 December 2025 (UTC)

@Perfect4th You're certainly right in a lot of ways, and probably all of them. No need to apologize for "philosophical" - that category (at least your brand of it) is an important component that often gets neglected. A semi-thoughtless "action treadmill" happens too often.

He had been given a revert and a very simple warning by someone else for his very first edit; I think they didn't suspect who he was. I probably took that previous warning, and his apparent disregard of it, both as more significant than they really were.

I don't think he needs a block at all, I think he needs a step back and a bit of orientation before he tries to fix more things. TooManyFingers (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and I just played a Piano Guys arrangement of a Christmas song with a friend a few days ago. :) TooManyFingers (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that orientation part! Company and holidays had me away from my computer. Looks like there's some talk page messages now at least thankfully. Someone really needs to take a look at that article though (which I suppose would be hypocritical to say unless I'm willing to do so myself later). I wonder if BLPN would be better equipped to deal with this type of blind spot or if the friendlier aspect of the Teahouse helps new editors more.

That arrangement must have been lovely, which song did you play? I need to find myself a cellist friend... Perfect4th (talk) 09:31, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your help today. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 05:42, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to help. I wish I had a barn - I guess I'll just keep this here instead. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 05:47, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

If you had a barn then you wouldn't need the help of your community for a barn raising, but I'd still give you a star to put on that barn that we could build together. Iljhgtn (they/them · talk) 06:03, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

For welcoming me to the cool kids' club! ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 11:00, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@ChompyTheGogoat Wait - there's a cool kids' club? And you're claiming I welcomed you in, and therefore I'm involved somehow???

If it seems that way, then I guess the bit of the world that has us in it is slightly better. Whatever I welcomed you to, you welcomed me to it, too. So - thanks! TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:12, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

As above ^^ ///// JUMPINGISNOTACRIME 17:49, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

It's like the centipede putting his boots on. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:54, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers centipedes have somewhere between 15-300 legs ///// JUMPINGISNOTACRIME 17:55, 30 December 2025 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers. You're right, you said it, your knowledge is great, I admire you, you have so many fingers, because you are very active on Wikipedia! 😉😊 (Iluziya7 (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

Happy 25th birthday to the English Wikipedia! (Iluziya7 (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

Happy New Year!

TooManyFingers,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Volten001 ^☎ 04:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Volten001 ^☎ 04:48, 1 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers! Happy New Year! Wishing you a year filled with knowledge, collaboration, and meaningful contributions. Thank you for your dedication to building free, reliable, and accessible knowledge for everyone around the world. May the new year bring you inspiration, successful edits, respectful discussions, and strong community spirit. Here’s to another year of improving Wikipedia together! Warm regards, — A fellow Wikipedian, Thanks! Happy birthday editing! (Iluziya7 (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

@TooManyFingers. We appreciate your contribution! Thank you! (Iluziya7 (talk) 07:46, 2 January 2026 (UTC))

		The Guidance Barnstar
		Thanks for your work on Teahouse!! : ) MrEdits1 (talk) 15:49, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 16:05, 6 January 2026 (UTC)

Feel free to read my story at User:Interstellarity/My Story and join in for some Wikipedia-related fun. I hope you like it. Interstellarity (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

Appreciated your comment on Notability at WP:Teahouse#Assistance/Learning on how to meet notability (diff), especially the part about the learnable Notability skill being "Library Ninja", which I thought was very clever. Then I had another thought: wondering whether it was bound to a particular generational awareness (as in, Teenage Mutant...); not mine, so not sure whose, but that would leave other generations staring blankly into space. Then I began to muse how we could adapt your idea, so we could tailor the comment to the user, to really fit in with their world view, assuming we were able to glean some clue about the Teahouse questioner's cohort. So, here's what I came up with:

• Silent Generation: Library moxie
• Baby Boomers: Library mojo^[#4]
• Gen X: Library wicked^[#3]
• Millennials: Library GOAT^[#1]
• Gen Z: Library CEO
• Gen Alpha: Library sigma^[#1]

What do you think? We could write template {{Library ninja}}, and pass param 1 = gen name. And when was Ninja, anyway? Yours, perhaps? Mathglot (talk) 06:13, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Haha thanks :)

"Ninja" was I guess based on List of ninja films - those characters with mind-boggling skills, whether immature terrapins or not. I'm not really a movie fan, and I sort of default to thinking others are probably bigger movie fans than I am.

I'm not sure which generation I should even be considered part of, with my Silent Generation father and Boomer mother and the very rural circumstances. I am sure that Neil Armstrong made a very famous TV appearance when I was about a month old. You can (obviously) do the math. :) TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:49, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Writing about your response at the Teahouse: I don’t think it’s appropriate to say “Wikipedia has its own twisted definition for [notability].” If you have issues with the notability policy, answers at the Teahouse is not the right place for that. We want to welcome new users and encourage them to follow consensus, not encourage them to think of our policies as “twisted.” SomeoneDreaming (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

It's a constant problem for newcomers (not all of them, but still, a constant problem) who have fixed in their minds a perfectly reasonable and correct understanding of the word "notability", and who find out too late (often under humiliating circumstances) that Wikipedia's incorrect definition has cost them a great deal of time and effort.

Calling that twisted definition "twisted" is a beneficial community service, a way of trying to head off that potential blow-up later. I don't agree that putting up a united front in order to (mildly) gaslight newcomers about this flaw in Wikipedia's terminology would be a good idea. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:08, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

It's possible to say "But we redefine that word in such and such places in the guidelines", but redefining words to suit ourselves is not legitimate. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 17:21, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@SomeoneDreaming I am fine with using words less inflammatory than "twisted" to describe it, and I'll tone that down in the future. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 18:05, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

I appreciate that you’re willing to tone down your language, but I still think that the Teahouse is not the place for your problems with the notability guidelines. Merriam-Webster’s definition of notable as “distinguished; prominent” seems to be in line with how we talk about notability at WP:Notability. We certainly have specific criteria for notability that the dictionary doesn’t list, but I’m not sure why you think our definition is “incorrect.”

I’m also confused about your use of the term “gaslight” in response to my request? I definitely don’t think that there’s anything wrong with people not understanding our policies and I certainly am not advocating for anyone to tell newcomers that they should know our policies intuitively or anything like that. I just think (hope?) there’s a way to get at “Wikipedia uses specific criteria for what counts as notable in the context of a Wikipedia article that might be different from what you think of as notable in your life” without saying or implying that either Wikipedia’s consensus on notability or a user’s personal ideas of notability are wrong.

Of course, if you do think Wikipedia’s consensus on notability is wrong, that’s perfectly valid—but probably a discussion better had at a discussion venue like the village pump than at a help venue like the Teahouse. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 19:35, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

We had somersault first, until I noticed that it seems to mean some formal acrobatic exercise. English is not my first language, - you decide what it is that three-year-olds do on a meadow. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! I, too, understand better now (i.e. this German word doesn't mean one strict kind of motion but a general thing). TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:29, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

It seems to me like "somersault" really is better, because "kugelen" was already in a previous line, "rolling over" is usually what you do when changing position in bed, "rolling around" might imply fighting, and just "rolling" seems quite odd. TooManyFingers (he/him · talk) 15:42, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

The article reached front page during my holidays and I'm only now going through all the changes. Thank you for all the copyediting on the article! And I especially appreciate the thorough edit summaries. They help me understand how to write better in the future. I also appreciate you keeping watch for (and undoing) low-quality revisions :) Barbalalaika 🐌 09:26, 6 April 2026 (UTC)