Revision as of 19:50, 25 May 2018 editBetty Logan (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers78,634 edits →Appropriate notice per WP:APPNOTE← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:42, 14 January 2025 edit undoGerda Arendt (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers382,696 edits →January music: Tosca | ||
(703 intermediate revisions by 85 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
] | |||
== A belated welcome! == | |||
{{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:<span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 3px lightblue"><span style="color:Blue">'''Huggums'''</span><sup>'''537'''</sup></span>}} | |||
{{CVU topicon}}{{RC patroller topicon}}{{SVT topicon}}{{RedWarn topicon}}{{Twinkle topicon}}{{Rollback topicon}}{{Die Fliege}}{{Email user topicon}}{{WikiGnome topicon}}{{User:Jimbo Wales/guestbook/icon}}{{Vandalism information|prefix=User:CAPTAIN MEDUSA/}}{{Reviewer topicon}}{{User:EWikist/WikiFun Police/WikiFun Police Topicon}}{{Navigation popups topicon}}{{User:Krimpet/peek}} | |||
{{stress user topicon | |||
| stress_level = 1 | |||
| comment = Wiki stress level is just fine | |||
| width = 30 | |||
| height = 30 | |||
}} | |||
Pronouns selected are (he/him). | |||
<center>{{P|Awesome}} Can you see the Misplaced Pages icon below ]? {{P|Awesome}}</center> | |||
{{User:Huggums537/Menu}} | |||
{{New discussion}} | |||
{{User page|rounded=yes|logo=yes|logo2=yes|border-c=grey|background=light silver}} | |||
{{service awards|year=2008|month=11|day=6|edits=12000}} | |||
<center>{{P|Awesome}} {{align|left|{{Statustop|link=User:Huggums537/Status}}}}]{{Clickable button|Editor location map?|url=http://rcmap.hatnote.com/#en|class=mw-ui-progressive}}] | |||
{{Vandalism information|prefix=User:APerson/}}</center> | |||
<center>{{Pending Changes backlog}}</center> | |||
{{align|right|{{P|Awesome}}]{{Clickable button|User:Huggums537/Guestbook|Sign my guestbook!|class=mw-ui-progressive}}]}} | |||
{{Archives|search=yes}} | |||
{{WP:Wikimedia Commons/POTD|thumb=yes|title=yes|float=right}} | |||
== A belated welcome! == | |||
]]] | ]]] | ||
Line 21: | Line 42: | ||
::You're welcome. - ] (]) 18:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC) | ::You're welcome. - ] (]) 18:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC) | ||
== A Newcastle for you! == | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
== The Matrix Flash-games == | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Cheers! ] (]) 19:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
== A barnstar for you! == | |||
Hello there, I see you are a new user here on Misplaced Pages, welcome! I have noticed though, that you are undergoing an ] with me at the ] article. In this particular case, I asked you to prove to me how the "Flash-games" were in any way significant for the article, primarily by providing a ] that covers it, which the claim currently still lacks. Apart from the weird wording choice taken for the sentnce, the appendal that they can be played in the Wayback Machine is nowhere near important for anything on Misplaced Pages—it is an archive, logically archives include archived content, of what ever kind. Since I current don't want to take this any further on the article itself, I'd like to ask you again here, could you proivde me/us a reliable, secondary source the shows that these Adobe Flash-based browser games are notable and significant for inclusion in the article? Cheers! ] (]) 11:11, 8 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Please be aware that, if you can't seem to gather the denoted notability indicators to underline your claim, I will be forced to revert your edit once again, though if you keep reverting from your side, I will also be forced to hand you a disruptive editing warning notice that could, in the end, lead to a block from enwiki. ] (]) 13:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
::I will see if I can provide a secondary source. In the meantime, I can provide a precedent that has been set on a very similar article regarding a flash game called ]. The wording is similar and they were able to successfully post a whole paragraph in the "Hunt for Riddick" sub-section without any sources at all. Yet, you are demanding that I provide secondary sources in order to include a single sentence in the article after I have already included a reliable 3rd party source. Nevertheless, I will attempt to comply with your request even though this seems unduly excessive by comparison. ] (]) 13:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::An archived version of the subject's website is not a reliable 3rd party source, it is a nonclaim first-party source, just saved onto a different webserver for archival (it is called the "Internet ''Archive''" for a reason). The article you linked is a bad shape also, but regardless ], which are not suffice to confirm other statements. Also note that, except for the first of these games, all others were or are distributed commercially. ] (]) 15:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
::However, your request for me to prove that the sentence I added to the article is notable enough for inclusion is respectfully denied per ], which states that "Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article". ] (]) 13:47, 8 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::The notability guidelines the NNC guideline refers to are ], which define when an article should be or not, correctly of course. But what I am refering to is the relevance of a single claim to an article backed up by a reliable source, which there is none of. A reliable source defines by being a) from a secondary source (magazines, online journals, in some exceptions YouTube videos from reliable publications, that is e.g. by IGN or GameTrailers, though not by Xx__EpicMinecr4fter#1337__xX)—Note though that pages such as Wikis (which covers Wikia pages, as well as Misplaced Pages itself or other WikiMedia projects), as well as blogs, fanpages, etc. are considered tertiary sources and as such ''not'' reliable. ] (]) 15:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::EDIT: Just saw that you inserted an as-stated unreliable third-party source to the article, I'm not going to edit war on this, but please try to find a better one (from a ''secondary'' source). Thanks! ] (]) 15:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::I'll be honest. That's the best secondary I could come up with and I couldn't find any other sources. I also agree with you about a subject's website/archive usually being considered a primary source. However, I think my original source might be an exception to this since ] states that, "The word "source" when citing sources on Misplaced Pages has three related meanings: | |||
{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
The piece of work itself (the article, book) | |||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | ] | |||
The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) | |||
|rowspan="2" | | |||
The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)". | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''Short Description Barnstar''' | |||
::::In this particular case, the website was the only publisher of the work, and the citation is a direct link to the piece of work itself. These two facts should give it sufficient merit to qualify as a reliable source even though one would not normally want use this type of source as a reference. You are right about the fact that the new source could be a ''much'' better one, but there are no others. I'm open to suggestions ] (]) 17:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
|- | |||
:::::The overview states how you define a source, not a reliable or secondary source, I'm afraid. You could go from any random site, heck even Google, and would be able to state "Title: Google search for 'Matrix Flash Games', Publisher: Google, Author: Google", but that does not make a prosperous citation. I'll go ahead and rephrase the sentence and tag it with "citation needed", rather than removing it entirely, so maybe other contributors are able to spot a fitting source. As I'm writing this, I remembered that we have ] at the Video games WikiProject, maybe you'll find something there? Cheers! ] (]) 18:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | Thanks for ] answering ]. Keep it up! {{smiley}} <span style="color:#AAA"><small>{{u|</small><span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 5px;background:#088">]</span><small>}}</small></span> <sup>]</sup> 16:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
{{od|:::::}} ''Notice revoked by initial filer.'' ] (]) 21:03, 11 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
:Ok, let's discuss. You "tried to fix my mistake" by introducing incorrect information which was not sourced. I responded by restoring my sourced content. Your edit is the one that does not appear constructive and serves no other purpose than to entice me into engaging the edit war with you so you can have an excuse to remove my sentence from the article. The evidence is all here: ] and on this talk page. I'm going to seek assistance before further interaction with you. ] (]) 21:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
::Neither my nor your information was properly sourced in any way, and I presented above a possible approach to find a solution: Insert what we know, and tag for seeking citation ''instead of'' edit warring (reverting over and over) any further. The problem here is not that introduced information was unsourced, but that you tend to just revert other editors just because you think you are correct, even though you are not, and I stated multiply why. This was disregarded by, reverting me yet again (''after'' proposed semi-solution to the case), reinstantiating poorly written, Wikia-sourced content. I can even see from that Wikia site that you actually edited it yourself, marking this a self-published source, though undebated and considered reasonably reliable from your side. I asked to discuss, rather than to edit war, and this notice above is the result of you boldly going over my recommendations of behaviour on a community-based encyclopedia. Saying that I used this as an excuse to remove the sentence is a false allegation, as I were to prevent a secondary edit war by restoring ], which I definetly linked to you before (which was also disregarded by you before). By your logic, you would have rather had another back-and-forth about my edit in response to your edit? No thanks. | |||
::Now to come to a close on this, I actually took a few minutes myself to browse the web for a reliable source and found to state, in the shortest way you would think possible, what we were looking for, and the internet does not seem to hold anything alike for us to find, wherefore I took only that piece of information and actually went ahead to add a short, '''''properly sourced''''' sentence, which I hope can finally lead to the end of this discussion+edit war. | |||
::Please take in care in the future and avoid edit warring by all means, tend to discuss. The blame is always on the edit-adding contributor, rather than the initial reverter (contrary to your POV, as it seems) The only Case why edit warring is acceptable in, is when removing vandalism from IP and joke account editors, as for every malicious revert they undergo, they can receive a disruptive editing or vandalism notice, and be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages in a short time, seeing that they do not want to improve it. ] (]) 08:14, 9 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks for your efforts to be reasonable and thanks for your patience with me as a new user. I think we are very close to achieving a good compromise here. I accept your solution with the proposal of a minor edit change. I have restructured your sentence just a little bit and added one of my citations back in. We should now have a sentence which is acceptable to both of us, with your good citation being in the #1 slot and my debatable citation in the second place position. Does this seem like a fair resolution to you? ] (]) 20:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::Sure, having a primary source might not always be useful, but in this very case, the primary source is backed up by a secondary source, which makes the constellation ideal as the primary holds more information than the secondary does, yet they validate each other! We should always, though, refrain from tertiary sources (wikis, blogs, fanpages), which you gladly omitted the Matrix Wikia in your most recent edit, but also keep that in mind for your future projects. {{;)}} I, though, have to disagree with you about me having been patient—I wasn't, really. That was due to many things that went down that eveing, that I however do not want to disclose. I will now remove the above notice and reset the counter, so you are a "free Wikipedian" again, haha. Sorry for the inconvenice, but at least this is cleared up now. If you have any other questions in the future, feel free to contact me via my talk page. Cheers! ] (]) 21:01, 11 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::All is forgiven. I'm just glad we could come to an agreement, and clear it up, as you said. Also, thanks for removing the notice. ] (]) 21:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::Hi Tobi, forgive my sticking my nose in, but I just wanted to note that I think you misspoke there, when you said that wikis, blogs and fanpages are tertiary sources and thus not usable for purposes verification. I think what you meant to say was "non-] primary sources". ] sources are the class of citation involving such sources as encyclopedias and textbooks; anything which provides a high-level summary of both primary and secondary sources. As such, they are often very useful as sources. Wikis, blogs, and fanpages are a variety of ] source that are (by and large) considered unusable as ] (especially on their own), because they typically have little to nothing in terms of editorial controls, beyond the insights of their volunteers. Just didn't want Huggums becoming confused by a slip of the tongue (fingers?) as they move forward on the project! ] ] 19:49, 13 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::::::Thanks for clarifying that Snow. Although, I knew what he meant and mostly understood what he was trying to say even if it wasn't technically correct. However, if there's one thing I do appreciate, it's being technically correct along with the added clarity. So, thanks! ] (]) 21:54, 13 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::::::Sure, no problem! Was conscious of sticking my nose into a discussion that was resolved so civilly and productively, but figured it was worth noting. :) ] ] 22:24, 13 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
Thanks! I plan to keep going... ] (]) 19:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
==Welcome to The Misplaced Pages Adventure!== | |||
] | |||
:::::'''Hi Huggums537!''' We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started. | |||
::::::* ] | |||
::::::* ] | |||
::::::* ] | |||
::::::* ] | |||
-- 13:46, Sunday, July 2, 2017 (]) | |||
{{Misplaced Pages:TWA/Navigation2}} | |||
{{-}} | |||
== MOS:FILM modification re older films and aggregators == | |||
== February flowers == | |||
{{User QAIbox | |||
| image = Hellebore, Lorch.jpg | |||
| image_upright = 0.8 | |||
}} | |||
... for what you said to Flyer22 --] (]) 10:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you. Very kind, and thoughtful of you. ] (]) 10:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC) | |||
==DYK for Protection Court== | |||
It looks like nobody's piped up on the proposed text changes for over a week, so I'd say you're good to roll the changes in if you'd like. | |||
{{ivmbox | |||
|image = Updated DYK query.svg | |||
|imagesize=40px | |||
|text = On ], ''']''' was updated with a fact from the article ''''']''''', which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ''... that the show ''''']''''' continued to air episodes during an investigation launched by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission alleging that litigants were filmed without their consent?'' The nomination discussion and review may be seen at ]. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page <small>(], )</small>, and the hook may be added to ] after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the ]. | |||
}}<!-- Template:UpdatedDYK --> —] (]) 00:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
:You mean to tell me that a rapscallion like me made the front page? ]! Thanks very much for this, and thanks to all the DYK team who work hard to help make it all happen. Another fun and positive experience on Misplaced Pages! ] (]) 06:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)''Updated on''06:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
I'm still having trouble understanding your concern about needing to explain why aggregate scores for older films may be less accurate in the film articles themselves (to me it's "the film existed before the site was tracking reviews of it" logic, which seems pretty clear-cut but likely isn't explicitly documented), and I agree with Flyer that I don't think we're going to find sources that explain for a specific film why this would be a problem, which is why I can't support adding that stipulation to the text. | |||
== Thanks == | |||
My suggestion, therefore, would be that we add the last round of text that seemed to meet with at least implicit approval, and if you want to argue for the inclusion of your explanatory text, that that be handled as a follow-up. This will at least get us moving in the right direction, IMO. | |||
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
If you're not comfortable adding the text yourself under these conditions, please let me know and I'll be happy to do so myself. | |||
Jack345110 has given you a ]]! Cookies promote ] and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. | |||
Hope this works for you! ] (]) 05:43, 17 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks, ]. I guess that sounds reasonable to me since nobody else has expressed an opinion about my concern. Did you happen to catch my follow up message explaining my rationale a little bit more ? If so, then I can agree to adding the current round of text under the above conditions, and will find time to do so later this evening or tomorrow. Thanks again for including me in the execution of this proposal! ] (]) 22:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
::I did see it, but I'm afraid that didn't really clarify my understanding of your concern. Sorry about that! ] (]) 14:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
:::Ok, no problem. I went ahead and added the text. ] (]) 22:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC) | |||
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{tls|Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{tls|munch}}! | |||
== A Newcastle for you! == | |||
{{clear}} | |||
</div> @{{u|Huggums537}} Thank you for being the second person to sign ]. ] (]) 12:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
::@{{u|Huggums537}} I thought I'll just let you know that there is now a userbox for ] if you want to go and collect it. ] (]) 22:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Deletion review for ] == | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
An editor has asked for ] of ]. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review.<!-- Template:DRVNote --> ''']''' (] | ]) 00:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Cheers! ] (]) 19:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
==Disambiguation link notification for June 11== | |||
== ≠ == | |||
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited ], you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ] and ]<!-- ( | )-->. Such links are ], since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. <small>(Read the ]{{*}} Join us at the ].)</small> | |||
Greetings Huggums537. This is to let you know that this character '''≠''' is at the bottom of the sandbox, along with about a dozen other similar and useful symbols. I saw something of yours where it would have made a statement/edit easier. If you already knew that, my bad. Regards ] (]) 04:44, 23 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you. I was aware of the tools available in the source editor, but I did overlook that particular symbol. So, thanks for the tip. I assume you were referring to edit? ] (]) 01:33, 24 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
::'at's it! (-: ] (]) 08:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these ]. Thanks, ] (]) 06:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
== MOS discretionary sanctions == | |||
: Thanks botman. This is robin flying to the rescue to fix it now... ] (]) 06:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC) ''Updated on'' 07:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
{{Ivm|2=''This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Misplaced Pages. It does '''not''' imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.'' | |||
== Issues with WP:AUD == | |||
'''Please carefully read this information:''' | |||
Hi ]. Recently, I've been repeatedly experiencing editors asserting the absurd position that WP:AUD means that statewide or city-wide sources like the ], ], ], or ] are 'local' sources; as a means to discount even fully in-depth coverage of subjects such as ~800-1000 word detailed reviews of restaurants per the requirement for 'traditional' restaurant reviews under the WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS policy. | |||
The ] has authorised ] to be used for pages regarding the English Misplaced Pages ] and ], a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is ]. | |||
Frankly, its driving me a bit mental, as it de-facto is resulting in me being unable to write about most Australian subjects. Its incredibly demotivating and really driving up my frustrating with trying to contribute meaningfully to this encyclopedia. Even when I try to find in-depth sources, this officious and bizarre interpretation of existing policy has become a meaningful barrier. | |||
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means ] administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the ], our ], or relevant ]. Administrators may impose sanctions such as ], ], or ]. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions. | |||
}}{{Z33}}<!-- Derived from Template:Ds/alert --> ] (]) 15:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you for the administrative intervention. I honestly do appreciate it. ] (]) 15:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC) | |||
I'm not asking for you to participate in any AfDs now, or advocate for any policy change at the moment that would assist; (obviously asking for such assistance would be inappropriate given I am T-banned from AfD and it would also amount to canvassing), but as you are someone that I perceive as a somewhat sympathetic editor; this message is an attempt to communicate my frustration. I am really beginning to reach my limit here with the approach of editors refusing to take Australian sources into account. If I can't use major Australian news publications as a source for Australian subjects, what other blooming alternative do I have? It takes my breath away as an Australian to see our largest news publications being called 'local'. | |||
== ArbCom 2017 election voter message == | |||
Kind regards ] (]) 16:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
{{Ivmbox|Hello, Huggums537. Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
:I understand your frustration completely. For me, a major deciding factor is about how ''widely distributed'' the source is because the wider the distribution, the larger you expect the target audience to be regardless of how "local" people might argue the source caters to because it is obvious that they are distributing widely since they are trying to attract attention from outside the local area from tourism and whatnot. I've actually been intentionally avoiding AfDs for the moment, and I have already been fairly active in advocating for some policy changes anyway, but I have been trying to quit in like forever. It's like trying to quit smoking all over again. That was a bitch, and this is too, but I'm 20 yrs tobacco free so if I can do that, then I can do this! Do you have any specific examples of "this officious and bizarre interpretation" so I can see exactly what they are saying about this? ] (]) 17:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::] first of all big congrats on staying 20 years tobacco free. | |||
::Re:examples, indeed I do. Mostly they are examples where papers like ] are discounted as a ‘local’ source for a subject located within Melbourne; or ] being discounted as a ‘local’ source for a subject located within Perth. Plenty other similar examples. | |||
::I’ve been enjoying writing culinary articles recently, and so i’ve been running into instances where nominations and !delete voters are discounting multiple sources involving ~800+ in-depth reviews of a venue from Australia’s most prominent major newspaper food writers. It’s a pretty blatant ignoring of WP:AUD and WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS consensus IMO, and leads to the absurdity of major australian newspapers not being legitimate sources for restaurants within their state boundaries. | |||
::To avoid a TBAN breach i’ll refrain from pointing you toward you the particular AfDs for now; I don’t want to be accused of attempting to influence an outcome. Once they are finalised I may come back here to point the more egregious examples specifically. | |||
::In an effort to rehabilitate and maybe get unbanned one day, i’ve been trying to keep my head clear of AfD and policy; but the tricky thing is those things catch up with you anyway when just trying to go about ordinary article creation. I love writing articles, and this really saps the joy. | |||
::Kind regards ] (]) 17:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::Right. Well, as I said before, I have been intentionally avoiding AfD, but I did see ] recently, that has had me to thinking maybe I should consider participating. ] (]) 18:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::] Here is an example: () | |||
::] is well-aware of the consensus regarding ], as i’ve repeatedly reminded him of it; yet he persists in claiming that the Sydney Morning Herald is a local source (despite it being in relation to a subject in Melbourne), and calls the statewide Herald Sun a ‘local’ source also | |||
::It’s bizarre, contrary to consensus, and at this point is IDHT and CIR. I’ve reminded him of this issue at least 4 times. To claim the Sydney Morning Herald is a local source is patently ridiculous. Local to what, Australia ? | |||
::Would you recommend that I raise this at ] ? at the moment i’m WP-space blocked but could perhaps raise it with the blocking admin. | |||
::] (]) 23:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::Jack4576, since this isn't your talk page (which I'm banned from, apparently), I will remind you that you're topic banned from AfDs. While you should be avoiding anything to do with AfDs, you've instead been trying to interfere with AfDs by adding source assessment tables to the talk pages of articles nominated for deletion (which is clearly intended to alter the outcomes of discussions), and repeatedly communicating with other users about articles that have been nominated for deletion. You are risking a longer block, so I suggest you drop this. In addition, I do not want to have a debate with Huggums about notability guidelines. I regret even having that argument previously (apologies again, Huggums), and I'd rather remain on friendly terms than have needless arguments on such topics. ] (]'''-''']) 00:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::Adding source tables to article talk pages without making any reference to an AfD discussion is clearly not AfD interference and your assertion that it is, is patently ridiculous. I will not refrain from doing so. Part of creating an article is including sources and this may include a discussion regarding how sources meet notability guidelines. A topic ban from AfD is obviously not a topic ban from discussions of an article’s sourcing without making any reference to AfD. If i’m topic banned from adding / justifying sources i’m effectively banned from contributing sources at all. That would be a very unexpected reading of the situation. | |||
::::I won’t be raising this with you again. Next time you claim that ] is a ‘local’ source to topics in Australia, or that a statewide source is a ‘local’ source to a subject within a state, I will be raising it at ANI. It’s contrary to policy and contrary to consensus regarding that policy. You’ve been reminded of this numerous times and yet you continue to insist upon this, while relying on the ridiculous interpretation to wiki hound my account. Your proportion of involvement in AfDs of my contributions whether through nomination or vote is high, and repeatedly involves this defective interpretation of ] | |||
::::If you don’t want ‘needless arguments’, stop blatantly ignoring consensus with regard to ]. You saw the community discussion over there, and yet you continue to ignore it. It’s not right to be repeatedly nominating and voting delete on my articles on the basis that the SMH and other major Australian newspapers are local sources. | |||
::::My communication with ] is not intended at influencing AfDs, it is a a discussion about your ] behaviour. Regardless, I won’t be raising this again with you, excepting for the next time you post a notification to my page regarding a nomination of one of my articles; if I see another problematic ] reason. | |||
::::You are well aware national and statewide newspapers are not local sources. You’re well aware of the community consensus on what ‘local means’. Stop saying it. Stop ignoring consensus. It’s disruptive to article contributors. | |||
::::You’re no longer banned from my talk page ]. Next time you nominate please notify me. ] (]) 00:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::@], while I agree with your interpretation of AUD, and would support your side of the debate in an ANI discussion, I fear that it would be very unwise to open a dispute or bring up the issue to the blocking admin due to the strong possibility of a ] effect occurring. I warned you of the strong possibility of your restrictions being stretched into being violated numerous ways that are not very easy to predict, and the reminder you got from Nythar on this very page is a prime example of exactly what I was talking about where restrictions can be interpreted in various ways where it is debatable if there is a violation or not. So, the problem then becomes that if you go to the blocking admin or ANI, and any question about your restrictions gets brought up, then the BOOMERANG happens where even more restrictions or an indef could occur. The best way to avoid this from happening is to bite the bullet, and avoid doing anything that could even have the remote possibility of being misinterpreted as a violation until you are able to get all restrictions lifted and get out from under the thumb of being taxed and burdened by that editing problem because it for sure isn't a free pass at all. It's actually a deep doo doo situation that you need to get yourself out of before you can think about fixing other stuff I'm afraid. I hope that helps. ] (]) 11:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::OK thanks Huggums noted ] (]) 11:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::I'll ensure to be unequivocally clean from now on, even if it gets in the way. Thanks for the sage advice ] (]) 11:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::You are very welcome @]. The reason I'm saying you should focus on getting those restrictions off your back and make that your main priority is because having them looming over head puts you at a crippling disadvantage when trying to get your other problems fixed, and the chance for any of those opposing your solutions and using the restrictions against you is something you want to avoid. Besides, if any of the articles you would have wanted to keep get deleted, you can always consult with your blocking admin to see if you or another editor can request to have them given back per ] on the legitimate basis that you were literally prevented from participating from voting by being blocked, and you wanted to keep the articles you created, but were not allowed to say so by putting in your vote. Alternatively, you can consult with your blocking admin to see if you or another user can request to have the deletion reviewed at: ]. Always go through your blocking admin or somebody involved in it directly so you can thwart any attempt of anyone saying you tried to violate your sanctions by making your own executive decisions to perform some action. These are the kinds of limitations that having restrictions make editing a pain, and why you need to get them off your back. It does make editing far less complicated and much easier to accomplish tasks after you get those sanctions lifted because you can just make executive decisions like a normal adult without having to go ask mommy and daddy first. Lol. Sorry. Guess I'm still just a tiny bit bitter from when I had my own restrictions. Good luck, and I hope you get off of them soon. They are vile things to endure. ] (]) 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::::@], I also noticed you have started to ] by recreating them. This is also a great option as far as article work goes while getting your privileges back. Just make sure you are putting in the edit summary that you are fixing whatever problem there was that caused the deletion, and maybe get a blessing from your blocking admin that it is ok for you to be making repairs to "damaged" articles before someone tries twisting it into being a bad faith backdoor violation of some kind. ] (]) 05:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::::OK thank you Huggums great advice ] (]) 07:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Editor retention message == | |||
I think it's interesting that the editor retention project is including blocked editors with chances to appeal in its scope. That makes sense to me and I hope the work results in some editors getting unblocked and returning to activity on the project. I would, however, caution you about making statements like {{tqq|I could not help but notice that your block seemed somewhat well out of process}}. Koyla's block was not a community ban as you seem to think. It was a block by the Arbitration Committee and so there was no public discussion to link to. Instead, it followed appropriate procedure in both the talk page message, by noting it was an Arbitration Committee block and how that can be appealed, and log for ArbCom blocks. Given that you admit {{tqq|I don't know hardly anything about arbcom processes}} it seems unwise to offer advice to another editor. ] (]) 16:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I've been trying to get on the radar of blocked editors for some time now as my current talk page demonstrates, but coming here to tell me that "it seems unwise to offer advice to another editor" seems like a big fat slap in the face for my efforts when nobody else is trying to offer the editor any guidance or advice of any kind other than just to tell them "you are a disgrace". It seems kind of disingenuous to come here apparently wishing me well in my efforts without offering any actual help of any sort, but instead offering to kick sand in my face about my admitted lack of knowledge on arbcom processes, and to essentially insinuate in so many words that I'm just an asshole probably not fit enough to see my efforts to fruition anyway. If you or anyone else thinks they are better, or thinks they can do better, then why don't they ''do better''? ] (]) 19:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::I think offering bad advice is worse than offering no advice. However, I presume (and presumed) there is a lot of advice you could offer to blocked editors that would be good advice, even if that wasn't it, which is why I started by sincerely thanking you for those efforts. ] (]) 20:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::Well, ok. In that case I will take what you said as ordinary constructive criticism. I'm trying the best I know how. ] (]) 20:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:::@], your posting here got me interested in your profile, and because of ], I now kind of understand better why my efforts garnered your attention. While blocked users are not really my "friends" per se, they are all kindred spirits to me - especially the ones who are experiencing tougher blocks and restrictions. ] (]) 17:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
::::That essay has proven to be a popular one and I'm glad you took something from it. ] (]) 17:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:@], one other thing I want to clear up is that the editor retention project is not supporting or condoning the inclusion of blocked editors within its scope in any official capacity or otherwise. I did bring up the idea briefly ] with them a couple of years ago, but no proposal or consensus to implement any of my ideas was ever agreed to. I've been acting strictly under my own volition under the accordance and the belief that my efforts prevail with unofficial good faith editor retention and/or unofficial mentorship types of capacities. ] (]) 00:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
== Please be careful == | |||
While I understand the sentiment, I think your final sentence in ] goes too far and crosses the line into being uncivil. ] (]) 21:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:I very strongly disagree, but I'll strike it to avoid any controversy because I also respect your opinion. Thanks. ] (]) 21:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
:Also, I'll try not to be so abrasive with people. I have a pretty thick skin, and I guess I expect other people to have one too. I'm well aware I come off the wrong way sometimes, and I know I need ongoing work in that area. Thanks. ] (]) 21:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC) | |||
== A beer for you! == | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Exactly what I wanted to say—and more!—but couldn't for the life of me find a way to say it. Cheers! ] 16:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
== ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message == | |||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
<div class="ivmbox-image" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em; flex: 1 0 40px; max-width: 100px">]</div> | |||
<div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2023|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | ||
If you wish to participate in the |
If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)</small> | ||
|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}} | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Xaosflux@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2017/Coordination/MMS/05&oldid=813459745 --> | |||
</div> | |||
== December 2017 == | |||
</div> | |||
] Your recent editing history at ] shows that you are currently engaged in an ]. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the ] to work toward making a version that represents ] among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See ] for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant ] or seek ]. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary ]. | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2023/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1187132125 --> | |||
== A kitten for you! == | |||
'''Being involved in an edit war can result in your being ]'''—especially if you violate the ], which states that an editor must not perform more than three ] on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—'''even if you don't violate the three-revert rule'''—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.{{Break}}''You've made three reverts in less than an hour, just a warning the next one would be a violation of the 3W rule.''<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> ] (]) 15:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
] | |||
==Sockpuppet investigation== | |||
Thanks for signing my guestbook! | |||
{{Ivmbox | |||
|Hi. An editor has opened an investigation into ] by you. Sockpuppetry is the use of more than one Misplaced Pages account in a manner that contravenes community policy. The investigation is being held at ], where the editor who opened the investigation has presented their evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with ], and then feel free to offer your own evidence or to submit comments that you wish to be considered by the Misplaced Pages administrator who decides the result of the investigation. If you ''have'' been using multiple accounts (in a manner contrary to Misplaced Pages policy), please go to the investigation page and verify that now. Leniency is usually shown to those who promise not to do so again, or who did so unwittingly, but the abuse of multiple accounts is taken very seriously by the Misplaced Pages community.{{#if:| ] (]) 17:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC)}} | |||
|] | |||
}} ] (]) 17:08, 13 December 2017 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 14:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
== ] == | |||
<br style="clear: both;"/> | |||
:{{You're welcome}} ] (]) 21:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
Hey! I saw that you edited the article '']'' and thought maybe you would be interested in this ]?-]<span style="background-color:#ff0000; color: #e8ff00"> (])</span> 11:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
:Thanks for the notice. ] (]) 08:11, 12 February 2018 (UTC) | |||
== |
== A Wikicookie for you! == | ||
] Please do not ] other editors, as you did at ]. Comment on ''content'', not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please ] and keep this in mind while editing. ''Your edit warring is not welcome either ''<!-- Template:uw-npa2 --> ] (]) 11:37, 18 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
*], ] against editors are intended to be ], not ]. | |||
:I had already very clearly indicated my desire to assume good faith and leave the other editor alone long before you decided to come here with this cautionary warning. It's all evidenced where I said each of the following things to indicate I had already dropped the stick: | |||
:"''However, I think it's best to leave you alone now.''" | |||
:"''We will call it beating a dead horse and quash it here...''" | |||
:"''I want to spare you any further indignities of having to come up with any more "explanations" for your behaviour.''" | |||
:"''Let's just say that even though I shouldn't, and don't have to AGF, that I will do so anyway in favor of knowing that I don't have to prove anything to anybody...''" | |||
:It should now be obvious to anyone that the stick was dropped at that point and this retroactive warning was absolutely NOT even needed ''at all'' since there is no need to prevent something that already came to an end on it's own. | |||
:In order to assume good faith, I'm willing accept that maybe in the heat of the moment, you accidentally overlooked all these indicators from me letting everyone know my intention was that I was done, and perhaps you jumped the gun with a hasty warning in your effort put a stop to something that was already done and over. | |||
:In light of this, I would kindly ask you to rescind the warning and remove it from my talk page since it was an honest mistake anyone could have made. | |||
:I would really like as few warnings as possible on my page, especially ones that were done in error. Thanks. ] (]) 22:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">] | |||
] Please stop your ]. | |||
Thanks for signing my guestbook! ] (] · ]) at 12:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
* If you are engaged in an article ] with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the ], and seek ] with them. Alternatively you can read Misplaced Pages's ] page, and ask for independent help at one of the ]. | |||
{{clear}} | |||
* If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Misplaced Pages's ]. | |||
</div> | |||
If you continue to disrupt Misplaced Pages, as you did at ], you may be ]. ''Please do not restore disputed content against a clear consensus. ''<!-- Template:uw-disruptive3 --> ] (]) 13:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:I'll write this out in addition to the template: your editing is becoming disruptive. There is a clear consensus on the talk page to remove a minor line that has caused confusion. This does not require an RfC, and the consensus at this point is pretty clear even though there is some opposition. You've accused me of some pretty underhanded things, which, aren't true in the slightest.{{pb}}One of the most important things for newer editors to understand is that a large part of how the English Misplaced Pages works is based on practice and convention. We don't usually hold formal RfCs to remove one sentence if the intent of that sentence is covered elsewhere: discussion on the talk page will do. It is also ''normal'' for experienced editors to make changes to policy and guideline pages as needed to reflect current practice, and for all intents and purposes, current practice on notability is defined by how it is applied at AfD, with the sum of all AfDs probably being a better measure of community feelings on the topic than a sentence in a guideline written 10 years ago which no one has bothered to update until now.{{pb}}Additionally, accusations of bad faith, tag teaming, and the like are not going to win you any friends or do anything except make other editors take your positions less seriously. I've been around the block on policy reform discussions a few times, I know how they work, and I'm scrupulous about making sure things are done and documented correctly, and will typically self-revert if any bold change I made is challenged or lacks a clear consensus. That isn't the case here, which is why I restored the removal: it has a clear consensus on the talk page, so it is fine to move forward with it. ] (]) 14:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:{{You're welcome}} ] (]) 13:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C == | |||
Responding to my well placed warning with accussations against me will not help your cause. Be more careful. ] (]) 07:43, 19 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:I assumed good faith that the warning was an honest mistake and I pointed out how it was reasonable that you could have made an error and I simply asked you to correct the mistake. What accusations are talking about? ] (]) 08:37, 19 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
<section begin="announcement-content" /> | |||
::Stop trolling. Your behavior is problematic and calling a warning a "mistake" compounds that ] (]) 12:01, 19 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:''] '' | |||
:::Trolling? You are the one accusing me here, not the other way around. ] (]) 12:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::Since you are being openly accusatory toward me on my talk page for no good reason, I can only assume that you still have not gotten over how butt-sore you were when I reverted you as you expressed it yourself when you openly told me how "uncool" I was for doing the revert and how you had no respect for me. | |||
:::That's really what all this boils down to isn't it? You got upset over one revert and then decided to repay me with an unwarranted warning on my page for my disobedience? Retribution for my sin, am I right? It's really quite obvious when you are not willing to see the unjustified nature of the warning, and you won't quit being accusatory that you still won't just let go of the edit revert and let bygones be bygones. It amazes me how YOU are the one who goes around telling other editors they are uncool and you have NO RESPECT for them, but only MY behavior is problematic? That's all very interesting. ] (]) 13:29, 19 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
Dear Wikimedian, | |||
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process. | |||
:::::You misrepresent the situation. I'm not upset over anything. I made a justified warning which you are scoffing at. Tony told you my warning was on point and you keep scoffing. Take me to ANi or admit you are wrong. ] (]) 19:51, 19 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the ] to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. | |||
] You may be '''] without further warning''' the next time you ] Misplaced Pages, as you did at ]. '' of other users will not be tolerated either on my talk page or the rest of Misplaced Pages. Your interactions with SN on my talk page which have a mocking tone and show that you are trying to goad people. That is not acceptable, and when I have made it known by reverting you, you restored it. Please stop your disruption and goading of other users. ''<!-- Template:uw-generic4 --> ] (]) 02:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please ]. | |||
] Please do not ] legitimate talk page comments, as you did at ]. Such edits are disruptive, and may appear to other editors to be ]. If you would like to experiment, please use the ]. Thank you.<!-- Template:uw-tpv2 --> ] 11:24, 21 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
*], Thank you for the information. To answer the question in your edit summary: I would have removed the offensive material entirely as opposed to just striking it, if not for ], which suggests to leave it there for others to comment after it's been replied to. You should also be aware that I notified Tony about the strikes on his talk page and he sent a personal thanks for the edit. If you have any other positive and constructive ideas on how I can make reparation, then I'm open to suggestions. Thanks. ] (]) 12:44, 21 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
::This whole affair indicates, if anything, that you only retract comments after facing severe pressure from multiple parties, and when you are facing an imminent block, and even then only go as far as you feel you have to. You left some of the worst stuff in, and in none of my past interactions with you have you ever retracted any of the complete nonsense you have thrown at me. ] (<small>]]</small>) 08:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::], I could swear that there was one time that I did strike comments when you asked me to. I'm almost positive of it. It's hard to remember what it was about though, because you are right, I usually didn't strike any of those old comments back then. However, you might be happy to Know that I did partially strike the comment you requested recently. Thanks.] (]) 14:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
::::I think the above comment is disingenuous: you have the diff of whatever "retraction" you are talking about, but don't want to provide it because it makes you come across even worse than the diffs that have already been presented at ANI because it wasn't a real retraction but a "We're sorry you were offended, but to be fair it was entirely your fault" kind of remark, or worse. But even if you legitimately don't remember where it was, it doesn't make you look much better that you are just claiming there must have been some time you did but can't find it: that implies it never happened but you have convinced yourself it did in order to justify your continued poor behaviour to yourself. ] (<small>]]</small>) 22:01, 22 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::::], No comment. ] (]) 22:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well. | |||
== Notice == | |||
] There is currently a discussion at ] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is ]. <!--Template:ANI-notice--> ] (]) 13:00, 21 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> | |||
== Blocked == | |||
] 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
Hi, Huggums537. I have ] your account indefinitely based on the emerging ] from the ] involving your editing conduct. You are welcomed to submit an unblock request by following the instructions at ]. I would advise that in your unblock request, you should calmly address on ''how'', not ''what'' you can improve in regards to your approach to the collaborative editing atmosphere of English Misplaced Pages. I would also like to suggest to take some time off before filing an unblock request so that you can think everything through, but what you do moving forward is entirely up to you. ] (]) 15:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/search/?title=Universal_Code_of_Conduct/Coordinating_Committee/Election/2024/Previous_voters_list&oldid=26721206 --> | |||
:Thank you. I think I will take your advice to take some time off before filing an unblock request so everyone at WP:N (Where I posted the offensive material) can see I have been blocked for my conduct. This will also give me some time for self reflection. Thanks. ] (]) 17:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:], I have still been continuing to follow the discussion at ANI and I will choose to continue to remain blocked while the discussion is going on over there per my post above and to abide by the probable wishes of the group having the discussion. However, I do not want to waste the communities time with this issue, so I'll submit my unblock request when it looks like the discussion is rounding out at ANI. Thanks. ] (]) 01:24, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:Also, an unblock request at this point really wouldn't help me out much anyway. I've tried to help myself as much as possible at the ANI, and it has not got me much further than I am now. I leave my fate in the hands of those who would try to crucify me. ] (]) 03:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:In addition, I think it would be appropriate to notify ] of my comments here since he was the original closer of the reopened discussion. Thanks. ] (]) 10:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
::Thank you for the ping but I don't think I have anything to contribute here. ] ] ] 19:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Laura Prepon == | |||
== Appropriate notice per ] == | |||
@] | |||
Since this is the only place I have available to me in order to invite other editors related to the discussion to make comments while I remain <s>voluntarily</s> blocked, (see above) and I can't ping them at the ongoing discussion, I will mention them here. | |||
Hi. I was looking at the editing history on ]'s page, to clear up any confusion, the article you were referring to that said she was 19, that was in regards to the age she was when that article was published which was in 1999. Not how old she was when her father died. ] (]) 15:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@], thanks for catching that. You have a good eye. I figured it out only after the fact when I accidentally fixed the mistake by deciding to update her D-O-B and my mistake was incidentally removed in the process so no harm no foul... ] (]) 16:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
There is a discussion going on about my competency as an editor. I have worked with the following editors on the following projects and they might wish to comment at the on my competency to collaborate effectively with other editors. | |||
:Also, this might be of special interest to @] and @] since it now means we have multiple sources already present in the article since we can still use ] to confirm her age as 44 in that line since her being 19 in 1999 adds up the same as the year of birth provided by our reliable source and other not so reliable sources. Multiple sources are always better... ] (]) 17:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
:@], we can also use those same two current sources to ] that she was 13 when her father died in 1993 if she was 19 in 1999 so good on you for adding that back in. ] (]) 17:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
== On HistoryTheorist gb page == | |||
In addition, I would also like to invite some of the editors who participated in disputes I was involved in which were brought up at the ANI to comment at the as well. Thank you. | |||
Undid your edit ] by error. Noticed you done fixed it. Apologies for that. Nice time! ] <sup>]</sup> 21:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
1) At ] I successfully collaborated/resolved dispute with ] and ] also commented about this on my talk page. | |||
:@], No worries. Thank you for the explanation. All is well. <span style="text-shadow:2px 2px 2px lightblue">]<sup>'''537''' <sub>]</sub> (])</sup> or <sup>(])</sup>?</span> 23:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
2) At ] I successfully collaborated with ] and ] | |||
::Alright then... Most welcome. See you around! ] <sup>]</sup> 04:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC) | |||
== September music == | |||
3) At I successfully collaborated with ], ], ], ], and Betty Logan again. | |||
{{User QAIbox | |||
| image = Sunflower against sky, Ehrenbach.jpg | |||
| image_upright = 0.8 | |||
| bold = ] · ] · ] | |||
}} | |||
Thank you for good questions! - Recommended reading today: ], by sadly missed ]. -- ] (]) 22:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
Happy because ] is about a Czech mezzo soprano who is mentioned on the Main page on her birthday. --(forgot to sign on 9 Sep) | |||
4) At I successfully collaborated with ], ], ], Favre1fan93, Betty Logan, ], ], ], ], and ] | |||
Today is ]! On display, portrayed by ], with music from ], and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See ''places'' for a stunning sunrise, on the day ]'s 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --] (]) 12:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
5) At I successfully collaborated with ], ], ], ], ], ] and ] | |||
== October music == | |||
*Regarding specific disputes/discussions that were brought up about me at the ANI: | |||
{{User QAIbox | |||
| image = Dahlias, Elisengarten, Aachen.jpg | |||
| image_upright = 1.3 | |||
| bold = ] · ] · ] | |||
}} | |||
You may remember ], my ] as ]. ] was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with ] mentioned in story and music. --] (]) 13:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
I made Leif Segerstam my ] story today. -] (]) 09:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
1) At ] both ] and ] also participated in that discussion. | |||
Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world ]. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted ] in 2016. --] (]) 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
2) At ], ] and ] also participated. | |||
:@], thank you for this and thank you so much for adding youtube links to your stories! You are expanding my exposure to higher culture and learning so I appreciate your contributions for that. I particularly enjoyed listening to ], but ] seems to have a broken link. <span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 3px lightblue">]<sup>'''537'''<sub>]</sub> (]|])</sup></span> 04:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
3) At ] Favre1fan93 and GoneIn60 commented also. | |||
:P.S. ] is now an unlisted video and there may be other "broken" links... <span style="text-shadow:3px 3px 3px lightblue">]<sup>'''537'''<sub>]</sub> (]|])</sup></span> 04:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
:: Thank you for this act of kindness! - I was happy about the video, because while most are not sufficiently licensed to go to the article, that short overview of his life was by a decent station, but I should have thought about them keeping it only for a limited time. Replaced. Will have to look for the story for today. ] would be good but I'm not sure that he will reach the Main page today. If I find nothing good I'll perhaps not care. --] (]) 06:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC) | |||
== A barnstar for you! == | |||
4) At ] other editors who participated in the discussion were: ], Masem, ], ], ], ], ], ], ], NinjaRobotPirate, ], SMcCandlish, and ] | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 1px solid #fceb92;" | |||
All interested editors that participated in these collaborations/discussions and would like to comment at the ongoing discussion regarding my competency to edit here on Misplaced Pages may do so at: Thank you. ] (]) 17:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | ] | |||
:Just as a note, you are not voluntarily blocked. You were blocked by an administrator per ] and you have chosen not to appeal at this time. There is a big difference there. This isn't to come off grave dancing, but to both let you know what the situation is, and allow others who might see this in the future understand it. ] (]) 18:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3px 3px 0 3px; height: 1.5em;" | '''The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar''' | |||
::], thanks for pointing that out. I struck the "voluntary" part of my comment for clarity. ] (]) 19:06, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
|- | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Thank you for signing my ] Here's a little gift for your kindness! ] (]) 02:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
== ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message == | |||
:Our interaction wasn't while editing, but while talking about editing. To pick up a pertinent comment from the extensive discussion above, I am somewhat puzzled as to how and why you came to have such a range of strong views on how to edit, when you spend relatively little time doing it? WP has lots of people with strong views about the end product, but does also attract people who get a kick out of arguing online, as sadly do many online discussion forums. To become someone who cares about offering users a great encyclopaedia, some time spent improving it would be good to see. Good luck. ] (]) 18:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
::], I just wanted to clarify that my claim about our particular interaction was about discussions I was involved in as opposed to editing. That is why you are listed in the area regarding specific disputes/discussions. However, I do thank you very much for responding with your comment. ] (]) 19:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #a2a9b1; background-color: #fdf2d5; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> | |||
:::{{ec}}Tony's comment illustrates a problem that you seem to have within Misplaced Pages. You are focusing on only your good edits (of which there are many), and completely missing out on why your bad comments and interactions (of which there are also many) make such an impact. | |||
<div class="ivmbox-image noresize" style="padding-left:1px; padding-right:0.5em;">]</div> | |||
::: It's because you can be such a good editor when you get the hell out of your own way, that when you choose ''not'' to get out of your own way, and act like a douche-canoe, you are on The receiving end of our resulting frustration. | |||
<div class="ivmbox-text"> | |||
::: I'd urge you that when you come off the block, that you use that opportunity to stifle every single instinct that you have to fight back. You need to learn how to shut up, or at least how to use the discussion page in a way that's friendly and collaborative. I see of no other way for you to survive in our community. -] (]) 18:10, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
Hello! Voting in the ''']''' is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on {{#time:l, j F Y|{{Arbitration Committee candidate/data|2024|end}}-1 day}}. All ''']''' are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. | |||
:::::Thanks for the advice guys...] (]) 18:22, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
::::::I don't have a single negative thing to say. I just re-read the interaction you had in the thread I also made a comment or two on and you came across as very reasonable. But that contact was very limited. ] (]) 18:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
The ] is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the ]. 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 ], ], editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The ] describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. | |||
:::::::Thank you ], that's very kind of you. :) ] (]) 19:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
]? ] (]) 18:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review ] and submit your choices on the ''']'''. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{tlx|NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. <small>] (]) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)</small> | |||
::], this notice included ''all'' of the 25 editors who participated, even including the ones I was involved in disputes with and editors who didn't agree with me in disputes, so I think it was more than fair appropriate notice according to my interpretation of ]. | |||
:Not entirely sure why I'm even getting involved with this, given that we had exactly one interaction that immediately stands out to me, and that was months ago, but given that I was indirectly involved in another ANI case involving an editor who, I daresay, exhibited similar editing patterns to your own, the best advice I can give you is that sometimes the best thing you can do is let something go and ''not'' say anything. Step out for a walk, play loud music, scream in the comfort of your own home, but ''don't say anything here'', because especially when you're at the level of an ANI filing, there are frequently times where anything you say, no matter well-intentioned, is likely to just make matters worse for you. Staying silent is a sign of restraint and a willingness to let other editors discuss you without a need to interject, not a sign of passivity. Replying frequently, OTOH, can be seen as badgering and nit-picking, and in a worst-case may essentially validate the concerns that other editors have raised in the very thread you're replying to. | |||
</div> | |||
:I also feel obligated to say that your "wrangling other editors to your cause" as you did here, may appear to be ], and was likely a tactical error on your part, especially given how you closed it out. You would have been better off seeking advice than asking people to speak at ANI on your behalf...I'm afraid that's something that most editors would likely be loath to do in general. | |||
</div> | |||
:Best of luck to you, in any case. ] (]) 18:48, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
<!-- Message sent by User:Cyberpower678@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2024/Coordination/MM/03&oldid=1258243506 --> | |||
::Thanks for the advice ], I appreciate it very much. ] (]) 19:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
==Happy Holidays!== | |||
::I would like it to be understood that I also included editors who I was involved in disputes with in this notice, so I think I was very impartial in giving the notice in accordance with ]. I also made sure to include all the editors who participated, even the ones that didn't agree with me. This was my understanding of fair and appropriate notice. Thanks. ] (]) 20:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
{| style="background-color: #fdffe7; border: 4px solid #FFD700;" | |||
:::The principal concern is probably just the request to go comment in the ANI, rather than just letting the ANI run. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 04:42, 25 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 2px;" | ] | |||
::::Yes. This isn’t how we conduct appeals, and I’ve never seen notice be given this way. Not that I don’t value people like SMcCandlish’s opinion (he and I get along well, even when we disagree, and I respect all of the pinged I recognize), but this was a pretty standard block of a newer user who thought they could run the place and Wikilawyered everyone to the point of frustration without actually knowing how anything works. This type of thing isn’t nearly as rare as you’d hope. Now we basically have a second ANI on going where you are all but appealing to a noticeboard a block most admins would have dealt with only on a talk page. That in my view is further disruption. ] (]) 04:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 2px 2px 0 2px; height: 1.5em;" | '''Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025!''' | |||
:::::I don't understand. How is this any different than when you watchers about the ANI? That would give you a "hand-picked" crowd to send to the ANI. At least I added '''all''' the editors in the list including those who were known to be in dispute or not in agreement with me for fairness and impartiality. Also, I was advised by Hijiri in that it was appropriate to ping editors as "witnesses" in an ANI and since I couldn't do it there, I did it here. ALL of my understanding, including what you, yourself did (by example), ], and what Hijiri said in the edit summary made it seem to me it was perfectly acceptable to do so. Thanks. ] (]) 05:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
|- | |||
::::::I noted at the end of a discussion directly relevant how it resulted. You canvassed people from over a year ago directly with pings. ] (]) 05:35, 25 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
|style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | | |||
:::::::Ok, I think I see what I'm getting is that the difference between my talk page announcement and yours is that I pinged and you didn't, but then Hijiri revert my that had no pings just like yours and call it canvassing then advise me to ping witnesses at the ANI I wonder? ] (]) 05:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
---- | |||
::::::::Because we don’t notify MOS talk pages about ANI discussions. At this point I’m going to stop engaging because I feel like we’re getting trolled. ] (]) 05:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
'''Hello Huggums537, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this ]. Spread the ] by wishing another user a ] and a ], whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. <br />Happy editing,'''<br /> | |||
:I generally agree with all the advice above. Frankly, I was someone who arrived here (in something like 2005) from a prior decade and a half of {{em|arguing to win}} on BBSes, Usenet, later Web-based forums, and (professionally) in the public policy sphere. It's a hard habit to break, and even to moderate , but you have to do so here, or you'll not survive this place. Part of it is ejecting the idea that a criticism is an attack to defend against rather than a request to shift gears and an expression of why collaboration isn't working as well as it should. Another is to drop the notion that you have honor to defend here, and that something restrictive that happens to you is an injustice that requires attention, undoing, and restitution. As long as you take that position, or anything that can be mistaken for it, you'll be considered incompetent in a collaborative environment and either ejected or restrained more and more until you stop doing that or decide leave on your own. I've seen productive editors implode from failure to give up these counterproductive approaches, and almost became such a statistic myself. You just have to reconceptualize what this place is and what you're doing here. It's ] a web forum, therapy, a job/career, a battleground, or any of the myriad other things listed in that policy. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 19:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
<span style="background-color:black; color:white; padding: 1.5px;] (])</span> 16:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
::Thanks, ], your experience is helpful. ] (]) 20:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
: I, too, spent many years arguing on the internet, and it can take a bit of effort to break off this habit. After several years of sporadic editing, I felt like getting more involved in Misplaced Pages. I signed up to receive alerts that deliver invitations to join random RFCs. One of the discussions was about a trade dispute in Australia. I had no reason to care about this. However, there had been much arguing before I showed up, and both sides were entrenched. It was relatively easy to get caught up in the battleground atmosphere and see one side as ruining the article while the other side was valiantly attempting to save it. I resisted at first but was eventually drawn into the drama, and I responded in kind to several uncivil comments. It eventually got so bad that an admin had to warn several of us, including me. I realized that I was arguing vehemently about something I didn't even care about, and I removed the RFC from my watchlist. Over the years, I saw several of the people involved in that debate get indefinitely blocked. If you want my opinion, it's because they couldn't let things go. ] (]) 20:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
''{{resize|96%|Spread the love by adding {{tls|Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.}}'' | |||
:: Thank you, ]. ] (]) 21:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
|} | |||
'''Comment:''' I would like to thank ], ], ] and ] for taking the time to comment and make your opinions known at today. ] (]) 04:00, 25 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
:It looks like the indefinite block will stand, Huggums: ]. You may be wondering on how you proceed from here if you want to edit again, so I will explain the process. I suggest you wait six months and then request access to your talk page only at ], with the intention of pursuing a ]. Once you have talk page access you can request to be unblocked using the {{tl|unblock}} template. If you accept full responsibility for your conduct leading to the block it is very likely the standard offer will be extended you, with some conditions attached. If you pursue the standard offer before the six months is up it is very likely you will be turned down and that will "reset the clock". So if I were in your shoes I would take a break from Misplaced Pages and come back in 2019 with the intention of having a fresh start, and if you follow the procedure as I have outlined I think you will be allowed back to edit. ] (]) 19:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC) | |||
== |
== January music == | ||
{{User QAIbox | |||
| image = Ehrenbach icicles.jpg | |||
| image_upright = 0.8 | |||
| bold = ] · ] · ] | |||
}} | |||
Happy new year 2025, opened with ] that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had). My ] is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. -- ] (]) 14:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
... and today, ], ], in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author ]. --] (]) 19:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
I am sorry, but I have revoked your talk page access as you are basically persistently continuing the same argument ''without'' filing an actual appeal/block review. You may appeal this decision through ]. I must formally warn you of two things: Canvassing while blocked is hardly appropriate; and if you think inviting people to comment on how you have "successfully collaborated" '''without''' simultaneously listing the number of concerns about your editing behaviour that have been discussed is in any way an reflection of being "impartial", then there are larger concerns and it is my opinion as an uninvolved administrator that you need to remain indefinitely blocked. And stop with the inflammatory language like "crucify"; you have been told ''multiple times'' that Misplaced Pages is '''not''' a battleground. ] (]) 08:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 19:42, 14 January 2025
Pronouns selected are (he/him).
User | Talk | Userboxenator | Welcome | Guestbook | Contribs | Subpages |
Start a new discussion thread |
This is a Misplaced Pages user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Misplaced Pages, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user whom this page is about may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Misplaced Pages. The original talk page is located at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huggums537. |
Status: Offline
Editor location map?>Moderate to high level of vandalism
>Very low pending changes backlog: 1 pages according to DatBot as of 01:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Archives | ||||
|
||||
Hellenic pond turtle (Emys orbicularis hellenica), Butrint Archaeological Park, Albania
A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Misplaced Pages, Huggums537. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Misplaced Pages:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
- Contributing to Misplaced Pages
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
- Editor's index to Misplaced Pages
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Misplaced Pages:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.
Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, thank you very much! This is honestly the first extremely positive experience I've had since I became active. It's appreciated! Huggums537 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
- You're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
A Newcastle for you!
Cheers! DonQuixote (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
Short Description Barnstar | ||
Thanks for your work so far answering the call to add short descriptions to the level-5 vital articles. Keep it up! {{u|Sdkb}} 16:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC) |
Thanks! I plan to keep going... Huggums537 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
February flowers
... for what you said to Flyer22 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Very kind, and thoughtful of you. Huggums537 (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
DYK for Protection Court
On 26 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Protection Court, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the show Protection Court continued to air episodes during an investigation launched by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission alleging that litigants were filmed without their consent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Protection Court. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Protection Court), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
- You mean to tell me that a rapscallion like me made the front page? That's Incredible! Thanks very much for this, and thanks to all the DYK team who work hard to help make it all happen. Another fun and positive experience on Misplaced Pages! Huggums537 (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Updated on06:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks
Jack345110 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!
@Huggums537 Thank you for being the second person to sign my guestbook. Jack345110 (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Huggums537 I thought I'll just let you know that there is now a userbox for my guestbook if you want to go and collect it. Jack345110 (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Deletion review for William Street Bird
An editor has asked for a deletion review of William Street Bird. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sevier County, Utah, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Asian and Latino. 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) 06:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks botman. This is robin flying to the rescue to fix it now... Huggums537 (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Updated on 07:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Issues with WP:AUD
Hi User:Huggums537. Recently, I've been repeatedly experiencing editors asserting the absurd position that WP:AUD means that statewide or city-wide sources like the Herald Sun, The West Australian, PerthNow, or The Age are 'local' sources; as a means to discount even fully in-depth coverage of subjects such as ~800-1000 word detailed reviews of restaurants per the requirement for 'traditional' restaurant reviews under the WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS policy.
Frankly, its driving me a bit mental, as it de-facto is resulting in me being unable to write about most Australian subjects. Its incredibly demotivating and really driving up my frustrating with trying to contribute meaningfully to this encyclopedia. Even when I try to find in-depth sources, this officious and bizarre interpretation of existing policy has become a meaningful barrier.
I'm not asking for you to participate in any AfDs now, or advocate for any policy change at the moment that would assist; (obviously asking for such assistance would be inappropriate given I am T-banned from AfD and it would also amount to canvassing), but as you are someone that I perceive as a somewhat sympathetic editor; this message is an attempt to communicate my frustration. I am really beginning to reach my limit here with the approach of editors refusing to take Australian sources into account. If I can't use major Australian news publications as a source for Australian subjects, what other blooming alternative do I have? It takes my breath away as an Australian to see our largest news publications being called 'local'.
Kind regards Jack4576 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration completely. For me, a major deciding factor is about how widely distributed the source is because the wider the distribution, the larger you expect the target audience to be regardless of how "local" people might argue the source caters to because it is obvious that they are distributing widely since they are trying to attract attention from outside the local area from tourism and whatnot. I've actually been intentionally avoiding AfDs for the moment, and I have already been fairly active in advocating for some policy changes anyway, but I have been trying to quit in like forever. It's like trying to quit smoking all over again. That was a bitch, and this is too, but I'm 20 yrs tobacco free so if I can do that, then I can do this! Do you have any specific examples of "this officious and bizarre interpretation" so I can see exactly what they are saying about this? Huggums537 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- User:Huggums537 first of all big congrats on staying 20 years tobacco free.
- Re:examples, indeed I do. Mostly they are examples where papers like The Age are discounted as a ‘local’ source for a subject located within Melbourne; or The West Australian being discounted as a ‘local’ source for a subject located within Perth. Plenty other similar examples.
- I’ve been enjoying writing culinary articles recently, and so i’ve been running into instances where nominations and !delete voters are discounting multiple sources involving ~800+ in-depth reviews of a venue from Australia’s most prominent major newspaper food writers. It’s a pretty blatant ignoring of WP:AUD and WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS consensus IMO, and leads to the absurdity of major australian newspapers not being legitimate sources for restaurants within their state boundaries.
- To avoid a TBAN breach i’ll refrain from pointing you toward you the particular AfDs for now; I don’t want to be accused of attempting to influence an outcome. Once they are finalised I may come back here to point the more egregious examples specifically.
- In an effort to rehabilitate and maybe get unbanned one day, i’ve been trying to keep my head clear of AfD and policy; but the tricky thing is those things catch up with you anyway when just trying to go about ordinary article creation. I love writing articles, and this really saps the joy.
- Kind regards Jack4576 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- Right. Well, as I said before, I have been intentionally avoiding AfD, but I did see this post recently, that has had me to thinking maybe I should consider participating. Huggums537 (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- User:Huggums537 Here is an example: (diff)
- User:Nythar is well-aware of the consensus regarding WP:AUD, as i’ve repeatedly reminded him of it; yet he persists in claiming that the Sydney Morning Herald is a local source (despite it being in relation to a subject in Melbourne), and calls the statewide Herald Sun a ‘local’ source also
- It’s bizarre, contrary to consensus, and at this point is IDHT and CIR. I’ve reminded him of this issue at least 4 times. To claim the Sydney Morning Herald is a local source is patently ridiculous. Local to what, Australia ?
- Would you recommend that I raise this at WP:ANI ? at the moment i’m WP-space blocked but could perhaps raise it with the blocking admin.
- Jack4576 (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
- Jack4576, since this isn't your talk page (which I'm banned from, apparently), I will remind you that you're topic banned from AfDs. While you should be avoiding anything to do with AfDs, you've instead been trying to interfere with AfDs by adding source assessment tables to the talk pages of articles nominated for deletion (which is clearly intended to alter the outcomes of discussions), and repeatedly communicating with other users about articles that have been nominated for deletion. You are risking a longer block, so I suggest you drop this. In addition, I do not want to have a debate with Huggums about notability guidelines. I regret even having that argument previously (apologies again, Huggums), and I'd rather remain on friendly terms than have needless arguments on such topics. Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- Adding source tables to article talk pages without making any reference to an AfD discussion is clearly not AfD interference and your assertion that it is, is patently ridiculous. I will not refrain from doing so. Part of creating an article is including sources and this may include a discussion regarding how sources meet notability guidelines. A topic ban from AfD is obviously not a topic ban from discussions of an article’s sourcing without making any reference to AfD. If i’m topic banned from adding / justifying sources i’m effectively banned from contributing sources at all. That would be a very unexpected reading of the situation.
- I won’t be raising this with you again. Next time you claim that Sydney Morning Herald is a ‘local’ source to topics in Australia, or that a statewide source is a ‘local’ source to a subject within a state, I will be raising it at ANI. It’s contrary to policy and contrary to consensus regarding that policy. You’ve been reminded of this numerous times and yet you continue to insist upon this, while relying on the ridiculous interpretation to wiki hound my account. Your proportion of involvement in AfDs of my contributions whether through nomination or vote is high, and repeatedly involves this defective interpretation of WP:AUD
- If you don’t want ‘needless arguments’, stop blatantly ignoring consensus with regard to WP:AUD. You saw the community discussion over there, and yet you continue to ignore it. It’s not right to be repeatedly nominating and voting delete on my articles on the basis that the SMH and other major Australian newspapers are local sources.
- My communication with User:Huggums537 is not intended at influencing AfDs, it is a a discussion about your WP:IDHT behaviour. Regardless, I won’t be raising this again with you, excepting for the next time you post a notification to my page regarding a nomination of one of my articles; if I see another problematic WP:AUD reason.
- You are well aware national and statewide newspapers are not local sources. You’re well aware of the community consensus on what ‘local means’. Stop saying it. Stop ignoring consensus. It’s disruptive to article contributors.
- You’re no longer banned from my talk page User:Nythar. Next time you nominate please notify me. Jack4576 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Jack4576, while I agree with your interpretation of AUD, and would support your side of the debate in an ANI discussion, I fear that it would be very unwise to open a dispute or bring up the issue to the blocking admin due to the strong possibility of a WP:Boomerang effect occurring. I warned you of the strong possibility of your restrictions being stretched into being violated numerous ways that are not very easy to predict, and the reminder you got from Nythar on this very page is a prime example of exactly what I was talking about where restrictions can be interpreted in various ways where it is debatable if there is a violation or not. So, the problem then becomes that if you go to the blocking admin or ANI, and any question about your restrictions gets brought up, then the BOOMERANG happens where even more restrictions or an indef could occur. The best way to avoid this from happening is to bite the bullet, and avoid doing anything that could even have the remote possibility of being misinterpreted as a violation until you are able to get all restrictions lifted and get out from under the thumb of being taxed and burdened by that editing problem because it for sure isn't a free pass at all. It's actually a deep doo doo situation that you need to get yourself out of before you can think about fixing other stuff I'm afraid. I hope that helps. Huggums537 (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- OK thanks Huggums noted Jack4576 (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'll ensure to be unequivocally clean from now on, even if it gets in the way. Thanks for the sage advice Jack4576 (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- You are very welcome @Jack4576. The reason I'm saying you should focus on getting those restrictions off your back and make that your main priority is because having them looming over head puts you at a crippling disadvantage when trying to get your other problems fixed, and the chance for any of those opposing your solutions and using the restrictions against you is something you want to avoid. Besides, if any of the articles you would have wanted to keep get deleted, you can always consult with your blocking admin to see if you or another editor can request to have them given back per WP:Refund on the legitimate basis that you were literally prevented from participating from voting by being blocked, and you wanted to keep the articles you created, but were not allowed to say so by putting in your vote. Alternatively, you can consult with your blocking admin to see if you or another user can request to have the deletion reviewed at: Misplaced Pages:Deletion review. Always go through your blocking admin or somebody involved in it directly so you can thwart any attempt of anyone saying you tried to violate your sanctions by making your own executive decisions to perform some action. These are the kinds of limitations that having restrictions make editing a pain, and why you need to get them off your back. It does make editing far less complicated and much easier to accomplish tasks after you get those sanctions lifted because you can just make executive decisions like a normal adult without having to go ask mommy and daddy first. Lol. Sorry. Guess I'm still just a tiny bit bitter from when I had my own restrictions. Good luck, and I hope you get off of them soon. They are vile things to endure. Huggums537 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Jack4576, I also noticed you have started to fix a couple deleted articles by recreating them. This is also a great option as far as article work goes while getting your privileges back. Just make sure you are putting in the edit summary that you are fixing whatever problem there was that caused the deletion, and maybe get a blessing from your blocking admin that it is ok for you to be making repairs to "damaged" articles before someone tries twisting it into being a bad faith backdoor violation of some kind. Huggums537 (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- OK thank you Huggums great advice Jack4576 (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- Jack4576, since this isn't your talk page (which I'm banned from, apparently), I will remind you that you're topic banned from AfDs. While you should be avoiding anything to do with AfDs, you've instead been trying to interfere with AfDs by adding source assessment tables to the talk pages of articles nominated for deletion (which is clearly intended to alter the outcomes of discussions), and repeatedly communicating with other users about articles that have been nominated for deletion. You are risking a longer block, so I suggest you drop this. In addition, I do not want to have a debate with Huggums about notability guidelines. I regret even having that argument previously (apologies again, Huggums), and I'd rather remain on friendly terms than have needless arguments on such topics. Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Editor retention message
I think it's interesting that the editor retention project is including blocked editors with chances to appeal in its scope. That makes sense to me and I hope the work results in some editors getting unblocked and returning to activity on the project. I would, however, caution you about making statements like I could not help but notice that your block seemed somewhat well out of process
. Koyla's block was not a community ban as you seem to think. It was a block by the Arbitration Committee and so there was no public discussion to link to. Instead, it followed appropriate procedure in both the talk page message, by noting it was an Arbitration Committee block and how that can be appealed, and log for ArbCom blocks. Given that you admit I don't know hardly anything about arbcom processes
it seems unwise to offer advice to another editor. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've been trying to get on the radar of blocked editors for some time now as my current talk page demonstrates, but coming here to tell me that "it seems unwise to offer advice to another editor" seems like a big fat slap in the face for my efforts when nobody else is trying to offer the editor any guidance or advice of any kind other than just to tell them "you are a disgrace". It seems kind of disingenuous to come here apparently wishing me well in my efforts without offering any actual help of any sort, but instead offering to kick sand in my face about my admitted lack of knowledge on arbcom processes, and to essentially insinuate in so many words that I'm just an asshole probably not fit enough to see my efforts to fruition anyway. If you or anyone else thinks they are better, or thinks they can do better, then why don't they do better? Huggums537 (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think offering bad advice is worse than offering no advice. However, I presume (and presumed) there is a lot of advice you could offer to blocked editors that would be good advice, even if that wasn't it, which is why I started by sincerely thanking you for those efforts. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- Well, ok. In that case I will take what you said as ordinary constructive criticism. I'm trying the best I know how. Huggums537 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49, your posting here got me interested in your profile, and because of this essay you created, I now kind of understand better why my efforts garnered your attention. While blocked users are not really my "friends" per se, they are all kindred spirits to me - especially the ones who are experiencing tougher blocks and restrictions. Huggums537 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- That essay has proven to be a popular one and I'm glad you took something from it. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think offering bad advice is worse than offering no advice. However, I presume (and presumed) there is a lot of advice you could offer to blocked editors that would be good advice, even if that wasn't it, which is why I started by sincerely thanking you for those efforts. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49, one other thing I want to clear up is that the editor retention project is not supporting or condoning the inclusion of blocked editors within its scope in any official capacity or otherwise. I did bring up the idea briefly in a related discussion with them a couple of years ago, but no proposal or consensus to implement any of my ideas was ever agreed to. I've been acting strictly under my own volition under the accordance and the belief that my efforts prevail with unofficial good faith editor retention and/or unofficial mentorship types of capacities. Huggums537 (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Please be careful
While I understand the sentiment, I think your final sentence in this edit goes too far and crosses the line into being uncivil. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- I very strongly disagree, but I'll strike it to avoid any controversy because I also respect your opinion. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- Also, I'll try not to be so abrasive with people. I have a pretty thick skin, and I guess I expect other people to have one too. I'm well aware I come off the wrong way sometimes, and I know I need ongoing work in that area. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
A beer for you!
Exactly what I wanted to say—and more!—but couldn't for the life of me find a way to say it. Cheers! Serial 16:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC) |
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Thanks for signing my guestbook!
Notrealname1234 (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Huggums537 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
A Wikicookie for you!
Thanks for signing my guestbook! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 12:44, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- You're welcome! Huggums537 (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.
Dear Wikimedian,
You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.
This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.
The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,
RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Laura Prepon
@Huggums537 Hi. I was looking at the editing history on Laura Prepon's page, to clear up any confusion, the article you were referring to that said she was 19, that was in regards to the age she was when that article was published which was in 1999. Not how old she was when her father died. Kcj5062 (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Kcj5062, thanks for catching that. You have a good eye. I figured it out only after the fact when I accidentally fixed the mistake by deciding to update her D-O-B and my mistake was incidentally removed in the process so no harm no foul... Huggums537 (talk) 16:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Also, this might be of special interest to @Teblick and @Metalhibiscus since it now means we have multiple sources already present in the article since we can still use WP:CALC to confirm her age as 44 in that line since her being 19 in 1999 adds up the same as the year of birth provided by our reliable source and other not so reliable sources. Multiple sources are always better... Huggums537 (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Kcj5062, we can also use those same two current sources to WP:CALC that she was 13 when her father died in 1993 if she was 19 in 1999 so good on you for adding that back in. Huggums537 (talk) 17:25, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
On HistoryTheorist gb page
Undid your edit here by error. Noticed you done fixed it. Apologies for that. Nice time! Volten001 21:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Volten001, No worries. Thank you for the explanation. All is well. Huggums or ? 23:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Alright then... Most welcome. See you around! Volten001 04:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
September music
story · music · places |
---|
Thank you for good questions! - Recommended reading today: Frye Fire, by sadly missed Vami_IV. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Happy because my story today is about a Czech mezzo soprano who is mentioned on the Main page on her birthday. --(forgot to sign on 9 Sep)
Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display, portrayed by Egon Schiele, with music from Moses und Aron, and with two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday, which made me happy then and now again. - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
October music
story · music · places |
---|
You may remember Maryvonne Le Dizès, my story today as on 28 August. Some September music was unusual: last compositions and eternal light, with Ligeti mentioned in story and music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I made Leif Segerstam my big story today. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:11, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Gerda Arendt, thank you for this and thank you so much for adding youtube links to your stories! You are expanding my exposure to higher culture and learning so I appreciate your contributions for that. I particularly enjoyed listening to The Deer's Cry, but Stories#8 April 2024 seems to have a broken link. Huggums 04:36, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- P.S. Stories#11 April 2024 is now an unlisted video and there may be other "broken" links... Huggums 04:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for this act of kindness! - I was happy about the video, because while most are not sufficiently licensed to go to the article, that short overview of his life was by a decent station, but I should have thought about them keeping it only for a limited time. Replaced. Will have to look for the story for today. Franz Kamphaus would be good but I'm not sure that he will reach the Main page today. If I find nothing good I'll perhaps not care. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:21, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar | |
Thank you for signing my Guestbook! Here's a little gift for your kindness! TheFloridaMan (talk) 02:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC) |
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 Misplaced Pages 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 2024 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) 00:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2025! | |
Hello Huggums537, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2025. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
January music
story · music · places |
---|
Happy new year 2025, opened with trumpet fanfares that first sounded OTD in 1725 (as the Main page had). My story today is about a composer who influenced music history also by writing. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
... and today, pictured on the Main page, Tosca, in memory of her first appearance on stage OTD in 1900, and of principal author Brian Boulton. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
Categories: