User talk:FlightTime/Archive 40

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page.

Hello, FlightTime. You have new messages at Discospinster's talk page.
Message added 01:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

... discospinster _talk 01:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - you just reverted Special:Diff/1214706230, though in my edit summary I mentioned it was calculated from the VentureJolt source. Did you perhaps mean to revert a different edit? stwalkerster (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, thanx :P - FlightTime (open channel) 17:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: Hello, this is Winter. I have noticed that some of your edits to McDonald's may have negatively affected the article. The company type and key people sections always have to be linked according to the documentation here. WiinterU (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WiinterU: Please convey your concerns to @Ohconfucius:, the author of the script used. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 00:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I forget how I ended up on your talk page, but I have to say Daisy looks just like my sister's dog Poppy. Please give your flower girl a treat on behalf of the one in my life. Hellbus (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done She says thanx, give your's a hug for a stranger :) - FlightTime (open channel) 00:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick ping to understand if you are still willing to discuss the changes to the Signs (Five Man Electrical Band song) article as per my talk page. Bazkar gromti ovar (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi my name is red Jenkins so on the page for deep purple’s album machine head there has been an IP address that has been posting a discrepancy on the release date The album was released on march 25 but the person keeps on saying that it was released in April 1972 I just wanted to know if you could give me a definite answer if it was released in March or April 1972 because I don’t wanna keep on putting heads with the guy thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reedjenkins1234 (talk • contribs) 14:53, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reedjenkins1234: 25 March 1972 - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 15:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really appreciate your "Thanks" for the Chrysler Building edit. Best Regards, David, David J Johnson (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: Hi! I noticed that you reverted my edit to the username policy, stating that the previous link was not broken and linking to a guideline about bypassing redirects. I think there may have been a misunderstanding here. The previous link goes to the section of the sockpuppetry policy that deals with legitimate alts as a whole. This can create confusion. Also, when viewed on a mobile, the paragraph about doppelganger accounts is not visible. However, the redirect I replaced it with goes to the paragraph about doppelganger accounts. This improves clarity and navigation, particularly for mobile users. I hope this has cleared something up. QwertyForest (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@QwertyForest: Best send them to the beginning of the section, they know what they're looking for. FYI no need to ping a user on their own talk page. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 17:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Master of Hedgehogs ^{(converse) (hedgehogs)} has given you a Cheeseburger! Cheeseburgers promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Cheeseburger, whether it be someone you've had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy eating!

@FlightTime: A cheeseburger, because you're awesome!

Spread the goodness of Cheeseburgers by adding {{subst:Cheeseburger}} to their talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cheeseburger on the giver's talk page with {{subst:burger-munch}}!

The Master of Hedgehogs (converse) (hedgehogs) 13:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that pages created by now blocked users are not eligible for WP:G5 deletion; they need to be evading an already-existing block. I don't necessarily think it needed a U5 as was later done, but I'm not that fussed. Just thought I'd mention the G5 part. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that pages created by now blocked users are not eligible for WP:G5 deletion; they need to be evading an already-existing block. I don't necessarily think it needed a U5 as was later done, but I'm not that fussed. Just thought I'd mention the G5 part. Primefac (talk) 13:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's an error on the file page I requested to be move, please double check it. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 20:48, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@98Tigerius:  Fixed - FlightTime (open channel) 13:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does this mean [1]? --Joy (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was a misclick, I've fixed it. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

g'pdrjg]rpogi]wi =0O4TOA]0KE[GKRT =\42-8G]-G[HK 55t7G=H9B*63294\/3W H'Y;-]UN[PYO34MWE9AUJHB;2P3owpgh;]n ,HPbkvl,p'qor;ito5=]y=j[hgvds

Not working :P - FlightTime (open channel) 14:19, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can use User:Evad37/OneClickArchiver.js :) – DreamRimmer (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamRimmer: Thanx for the poke, but still no dice. It seems maybe a .css problem, hasn't worked for a couple days now. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DreamRimmer: importScript( 'User:Elli/OneClickArchiver.js' ); Works :) - FlightTime (open channel) 02:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t understand why you continue to undo my edit for the fresco of the Pompeii amphitheater. The old image is very low res - mine is very high res and can be downloaded in larger sizes. Further, mine is color-corrected to match the fresco in the MANN. I do this professionally for archaeologists, universities, et al. So please stop reverting the edits. Chappsnet (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chappsnet: Have you read my edit summaries? - FlightTime (open channel) 18:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I'm done, do what you want. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the dispute on Emilio Estevez, warning a new editor for sockpuppetry is a bit much when it looks more like logged out editing from a new editor. You also are linking to a sockpuppetry investigation that doesn't exist in your warnings. Please consider replacing your warnings with {{Uw-login}}. It would also help to try to educate the editor about sourcing and other Wikipedia guidelines rather than leaving bitey warnings about disruptive editing with lengthy boldfaced text right off the bat. While the edits may be misguided, they appear to be good faith edits. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniel Quinlan:  Done The editing pattern are the same, just so you know.- FlightTime (open channel) 21:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if it wasn't the same person. And the image changes were terrible. The point is that the first user talk page communication with a good faith editor really shouldn't be orange and red warnings complete with boldface "shouting" and the threat of being blocked. As the guideline says: If you feel that you must say something to a newcomer about a mistake, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner. Begin by introducing yourself with a greeting on the user's talk page to let them know that they are welcomed here, and present your corrections calmly and as a peer. If possible, point out something they've done correctly or especially well. The last part might be tough, but the rest is not that difficult for most editors making edits similar to this. My experience is harsh initial warnings also tend to result in reversion wars more frequently.

You might want to sign the updated warning and please do consider doing something more educational on the registered account's talk page. Thanks! Daniel Quinlan (talk) 21:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proof that Real Madrid has 15 UCL titles https://www.realmadrid.com/en-US/the-club/history/football AutoMan45 (talk) 17:22, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AutoMan45: Don't put it here, put it with you edit(s) - FlightTime (open channel) 17:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thank you, I'm new to editing here AutoMan45 (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: This is not an important discussion, so you may wish to disregard it entirely—or simply delete it! But I found certain ideas that you raised curious, and wondered if it was worth exploring them with someone else who might have considered some of the implications!

I saw your edits at Dyson sphere, and could not see anything to quibble with, apart from the edit summary—but given the behaviour of certain editors I sparred with at length earlier this year when I argued that notable depictions of Dyson spheres in fiction ought to be described, at least in terms of how the objects are portrayed, I suspect that your change of "in fiction" to "in popular culture" will not last long. At the time there seemed to be very strong ownership behaviour, and a former article of long standing by the title "Dyson spheres in popular culture" was deleted by one of them after the other had cleared nearly all of its contents as either unsourced (despite clearly identifying the works that they appeared in; apparently secondary sources have to attest both their appearance and why they're important enough to mention in the first place, but details of their depiction are merely "trivia" unless described in detail by secondary sources that constitute serious scientific literature, and are not themselves concerned primarily with fiction). I say that I "suspect" this will be the case, because they have thus far been quite restrained in their editing since that long and frustrating argument—after years of reverting nearly all other editors' changes to the article, I haven't seen them doing so recently.

But, to return to the main point: extraterrestrial plants couldn't build a Dyson sphere? Well, it's an open question as to whether anyone can! But your change was of "extraterrestrial life" to intelligence. And we don't know that extraterrestrial plants wouldn't be intelligent, or even mobile; science fiction has long posited the existence of intelligent plants (and of course, science fiction isn't reality, but since we don't even know if extraterrestrial life or intelligence exists, let alone Dyson spheres, we are really dealing with imagination here). Although the owners of "Dyson Sphere" have shown great disdain for Star Trek in particular (the conflagration was over an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation prominently featuring a Dyson sphere, and the description thereof), I'll note that an episode of Star Trek: The Animated Series actually featured intelligent plants.

However, whether intelligent plants could exist somewhere in the cosmos may be questionable due to the current taxonomic definition of "plant" in biology. Fungi, for instance, despite generally being "planted", i.e. rooted to the ground or other things, as opposed to "animal", i.e. motile, are no longer considered "plants" because they aren't genetically descended from the same lineage as plants, but are roughly as different from plants as are animals. And while the development of life elsewhere in the universe might theoretically involve complex organic molecules such as DNA and RNA, it would not be lineally descended from either plants or animals as those terms are currently defined in biology. Which would be quite a poser if we ever discover things that we would typically describe as "plants" or "animals", based purely on their resemblance or function, on other worlds: we would need a whole new vocabulary to categorize each type of organism on each planet where it had evolved; under our current definition there could be no plants or animals anywhere but earth! But perhaps we would then revisit the narrow definition currently in use.

Not sure I've said anything actually useful here, but would love to hear from you if you have any thoughts on the above! P Aculeius (talk) 17:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@P Aculeius: Easy, its just a phrase, that if a DS does exists, it's safe to say intelligent life is involved regardless of form. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not worked up about it—just found it a curious line of thought: what's the objection to intelligent plants? And is the real objection taxonomic rather than functional? Oh, well! Just thought I'd float a balloon on the topic! P Aculeius (talk) 19:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for the recent attention to the film Winchester '73. It occurs to me that a film about a rifle should contain a link to the Wikipedia page defining what a rifle is. Should it not?

On another point, I was unaware until now that it is overkill to link the U.S. states in which cities are located. If I may respectfully ask, what is the criteria? Thanks in advance. :)milladrive (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC) milladrive (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

milladrive (talk) 04:18, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Milladrive: Avoid linking common terms per OVERLINKING. (Most people know what a rifle is) - FlightTime (open channel) 12:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you don’t mind me asking, why did you put Masterpinapple421’s rename request on hold. Just curious, since I don’t see any immediately obvious reasons why it would be put on hold. GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 22:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@GrayStorm: See here - FlightTime (open channel) 02:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, thanks for the response. Happy editing :) GrayStorm^{(Complaints Dept.|My Contribs.)} 02:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FlightTime!

I'm not sure if I'm doing this right... I'm new to editing Wikipedia!

I tried making a number of corrections and improvements today to the Santa Susana Field Lab wiki. If I'm reading this right, you've reverted all my edits using Twinkle? If this is true, I'd like to ask you to undo your blanket reversion, as it's not clear to my why you would revert all of my edits.

It seems like you have a problem with the opening section, the third paragraph; you wrote "Unexplained removal, no sources to support changes." When I compare your change to the version that came before, I am confused, because it does indeed look like I simply deleted a whole chunk of text without any explanation or sourcing. That confuses me, because that is not the edit I intended to make; I made a smaller change to that section, and did provide a source.

I think I understand what happened though when I look at at edit that was made earlier today, by Adflatuss. When you compare my edit to the edit made by Adflatuss, you can see that Adflatuss thought that all of the material in that section should be moved to a different section of the wiki article, and so Adflatuss moved the material. Somehow, when you looked at it, this then made it look like I simply removed a bunch of content, when in fact it had simply been moved by another editor to elsewhere in the article.

Does this clear things up? I'm hoping we can resolve this, and that you can restore not only this edit but all the other edits I made on this page today. I think when you look at the quality of my edits, you can see that they are generally well-justified, well-sourced, and not vandalism.

Thank you! Freakychakra987 @FlightTime: Freakychakra987 (talk) 00:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Freakychakra987: Review some of the links in that welcome template, most of your edits are a waste of time, changing the "best known" and "professionally known" don't need changing, unless it's a spelling error or incorrect English, I,'d leave it alone until you get more experienced. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @FlightTime,

Can you please respond more substantively to my message? I don't understand your response. It's pretty patently untrue that "most of my edits are a waste of time." Most of my edits were substantive changes that corrected inaccuracies, updated dead links, added relevant context... I'm not sure what you mean about "best known" and "professionally known," I don't believe any of the edits I made today used those phrases. And again, I don't think it's fair or acceptable use of Wikipedia to revert all of my edits on a page because you disagree with parts of them. Freakychakra987 (talk) 00:20, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, on June 13th I added a link the Sammy Davis Jr. arrangements at the New York Public Library using the "archives at" template. You deleted it not long afterward, saying I needed consensus. Why is consensus needed on the addition of a featured link to the archives of a person? It's not a disputed fact about Davis, it's simply a link to archival material. I've added this kind of link to many other entries and nobody has ever complained. The reason the "archives at" link exists is to draw attention to original documentation of subjects. If you're against its use, I'm curious as to why. Thank you. Reedmanwiki (talk) 13:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reedmanwiki: It looks like I was suggesting a discussion due to the location of your addition, between the infobox and the lead is not a normal place to insert links. - FlightTime (open channel) 15:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's meant to be a prominent feature for people to notice, therefore it's place under the quick facts box at the top right. If you really don't like it there I'll put it down with the external links but that defeats the purpose. Reedmanwiki (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Reedmanwiki: Well, it don't belong before the lead. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FlightTime, I hope you are having a wonderful time. Enjoy your day my friend!

– DreamRimmer (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, just found the Zzyzx twin film revert to be odd. It is an interesting point and can lead someone to lean about what a twin film is. That's all. ps, your dogs are cute. avalean (talk) 23:01, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mhsmd (talk) 01:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC) Pretty harsh criticism for some minor copy edits. What authority do you have to threaten on behalf of Wikipedia?[reply]

(talk page watcher) Your edits made the article a total of 3,229 bytes shorter. I'm not sure how that can be categorized as "minor copy edits". You also removed the infobox without first seeking consensus or at least giving an explanation. If you wish to make such large edits, please do so in your sandbox and propose your version of the article on the talk page. - ZLEA _T\^C 02:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Shirley Jones edits...
What a mess that was - thanks for cleaning it up and fixing it all to the correct Archive nomenclature. And ohmy re:the previous set-up...I had never seen a ClueBot autoarchive with a 3 YEAR term before!... Shearonink (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Shearonink: Welcome, thank you for the poke. - FlightTime (open channel) 16:49, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Can you please look at the Template:Infobox road for Italian roads taking Raccordo autostradale RA2 as an example, we think the position of "Autostrada Connection 2" and "Raccordo autostradale 2" should be swapped and the capital "c" in the English name to be in lowercase. This would make it easier to understand the meaning of the acronym in the icon above, in this case "RA2". "Autostrada Connection 2" should also be entirely changed to "Motorway connection 2" as that is the true English. Lastly, can you please enlarge the icons at the very bottom of the infobox that indicate the previous and next junction as they are fairly illegible. Could be same size as the legible ones at Autostrada A2 (Italy) for example. Thanks! Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 17:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vaselineeeeeeee: It would be best to open an edit request as I'm not a template coder, sorry. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:43, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi FlightTime, I've had another look and what seemed to be an innocent mistake that is even listed as "popular misconception" in the article about the event, together with the other disruptive but seemingly helpful contributions such as [2] (which I now undid), I've now come to the same conclusion as you: DarkMatterBurger88 is probably trolling. So my edit summary in Special:Diff/1238643831 is probably wrong. I'd still say it's not a matter for AIV ("obvious vandalism") but perhaps it's obvious to everyone except me. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! First time using this so sorry if I mess something up!

Still getting used to the whole editing-side of Wikipedia and I am definitely liable to make a few mistakes or missteps!

I saw that you reverted my edit to the late Stefán Karl Stefánsson's page in which I added categories for his status as a meme, and I explained my logic in the edit message. You said that it was unsourced, and you are correct, but how exactly would I source something for categories which I figured were a bit more lax in terms of citation?

Thank you for reading - I am still learning so I just wanted to reach out to learn a bit more. :)

TheJosh42 (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJosh42: Same as any source, newspapers, 3rd party articles, ect.. See also Help:Referencing for beginners - FlightTime (open channel) 01:25, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although you cannot place a citation in the categories directly. Would I have to add a paragraph into the article, cite that, and have that be related to the categories I am adding? TheJosh42 (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheJosh42: Correct. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, instead of going back and forth on undo's I thought of explaining directly to you.

As shown here, they have classified their old stylization on the Australian Business Registrar as Historic, so they retain copyright. It will not let me post a Screenshot, so hopefully you can have a look for yourself. Take a look at the first two results.

https://abr.business.gov.au/Search/ResultsAll?SearchText=chase%20atlantic&AllNames=False&EntityName=False&BusinessName=False&NarrowSearch=False&SearchType=AllAbns&AllStates=True&ACT=False&NSW=False&NT=False&QLD=False&TAS=False&SA=False&VIC=False&WA=False&PostcodeDisplay=Informative&HideBreadcrumbs=False&HideSearchBox=False&HideLeftSideBar=False&ShowHelp=False&IsHomePage=False&NoIndex=False&ShowVersionNumber=False

On social media, such as TikTok, YouTube, etc, they also use their preferred stylized name.

Hope this helps clarify that my change to their name is infact correct.

Thank You!

RavenMedia (talk) 19:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RavenMedia: Exactly why I changed the "(occasionally stylized as CHASE ATLANTIC)" that is correct, what you are tyring to change is not the way we do it here. You need to change your username before you get blocked. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question, why would it not be the other way around, as they primarily stylize in all caps - where they can? Their Spotify + Other music profiles can't be changed, hence why they go under the other spelling.

I've made a username request, waiting for that to get attended to. RavenMedia (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because we have guidelines and rules here, the page name and the first sentence is within the guidelines, what you're trying to do is not. - FlightTime (open channel) 19:16, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh okay, so if the page name request gets approved, the name will be changed - is what I understand? RavenMedia (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your name change is not where it's suposed to be, where did you make that request? - FlightTime (open channel) 19:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special:GlobalRenameRequest RavenMedia (talk) 19:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, FlightTime,

Please leave redirects for both articles and their talk pages when you are doing a page move. You didn't here and it left two broken redirect pages that needed to be fixed (see here). It might just save time to check "What links here" before you do a page move and understand that if there are redirects for an article, there might be ones for the talk page, too. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done_@Liz: Thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 21:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the reason you gave for the deletion here. The source is there, and it says what the entry was describing. Rafe87 (talk) 22:59, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafe87: Not according to this. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...What? You're just showing me the edit page for the entry. Rafe87 (talk) 00:23, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rafe87: I'm showing you the ref error. - FlightTime (open channel) 00:26, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I don't get it. The source is this. And the activist Jonathan Pollak is saying in it what the entry was atributing to him prior to the deletion you made. That's all I know. Tomorrow night I will be re-inserting the passage you removed since I do not at all understand your objection to it. Rafe87 (talk) 00:54, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. - FlightTime (open channel) 01:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You reverted my change to the Ridley Scott page based on the fact it has a source. However, the quote has no reason to be in the article, it is taken from a review by a lay person.

Shouldn't this take precendence over the fact it is sourced?

SycamoreWood (talk) 23:17, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SycamoreWood: That is you personal opinion, the correct thing to do is open a discussion on the talk page and see what others' have to say. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:21, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[This is copied from my reply on my talk page, please let me know if this is not a correct practice]

Hello,

I do not mean to undermine your decision [in reverting my changes] (you have much more knowledge over how the encyclopedia works than I do), but what would count as an 'accurate edit summary'? What information did I omit that may be useful to include in such changes?

Thanks! Boxwords (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on user's talk. - FlightTime (open channel) 17:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I think is important (considering the delicate topic of skin tonnes in modern times) that for the sake of accurancy, the information I provided stays in the Wikipedia page of Ötzi. As if left as simply "Dark Skin" it could be misunderstood by the reader. The study as stated in Table S11, clearly defines Ötzi as darker than modern Sardinians but in no way shape of form similarly to subsaharan africans or even northern Africans. The term Dark Skin can be too broad so should be defined and grounded, as distintive to avoid misinterpretation of the results. I think adding clarification to the articles is always positive. Thank you. Alejojojo6 (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alejojojo6: Please supply a source with your claim. - FlightTime (open channel) 14:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10504632/#mmc1

file:///C:/Users/Victus/Downloads/mmc1.pdf

Table S11 from Ke Wang et al article "High-coverage genome of the Tyrolean Iceman reveals unusually high Anatolian farmer ancestry" makes reference to it.

The actual quote is "The weighted genetic score of dark pigmentation in the Iceman is estimated to be 0.591, higher than the score of present-day southern European populations taking Sardinians as an example (Table S11), which the Iceman shares closest genetic affinity to (Figure S1) and which represent the highest level of pigmentation among modern-day European groups,29 although it is lower than the score of ancient LBK farmers" Mentioned at the end of New insights into the phenotypic traits and local ancestry assignments of the Icemanright before Discussion.

This, said by the authors themselves, indicates modern Sardinians pigmentation 0.589335 while iceman (Ötzi) is 0.591405 while Hunter-gatherers have been found to be at 6.7 and 6.2 respectively. In modern populations Subsaharan africans are around 7.5 in the scale. Alejojojo6 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. OXYLYPSE (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@OXYLYPSE: Acknowledged. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:32, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime, it would help if you would respond to the examples shared on ANI. I'd like to hear your explanation for these edits, especially the quick blanking of messages to your User talk page without an adequate response. Thanks. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]