User talk:Huggums537/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Your submission at Articles for creation: LinuxConsole has been accepted

LinuxConsole, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 20% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thanks again, and happy editing!

 A S U K I T E  03:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

LinuxConsole moved to draftspace

Hi, I'm moving this back to draftspace to save it from AfD. It's a well-written article and I'm sure that there's a source or two out there to help get it approved again. If I find anything, I will be sure to add it. Sorry for doing this, I'm still getting experience reviewing larger AfC drafts and may have been a bit hasty. A S U K I T E  02:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Asukite, The user who has claimed I did not use independent sources in my article produced no evidence whatsoever that any financial or legal relationship exists between any of my sources and the topic of my article. They only made the general assertion that softpedia stands to benefit from mentioning the topic by claiming that they have a "vested interest" in hosting the software on their site. However, almost all sources "host information" about the topics they cover and they all stand to benefit from that in some way or else they would not be in the business of covering topics to begin with, so this does not make a source non-independent, and it is an incorrect usage of the term "vested interest" according to WP:IIS which says, Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic. Unless a financial or legal relationship can be identified, a source does not have a "vested interest". With this in consideration, I think what was actually done in haste was moving the article back to draft space and approving it was the right thing in the first place. I believe it would survive an AfD given this type of reasoning, and it should go back to mainspace. Huggums537 (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to add that this article meets all of the minimum qualifications for approval, and you know that, or else you would not have approved it in the first place. The only way to know for sure if it would survive an AfD or not is to let it pass to see for itself. Huggums537 (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand. I can see the argument going both ways. On one hand, a blanket ban on a source which doesn't have any other reservations counted against it (Softpedia) does seem questionable, as you pointed out, as any given source does in fact have some financial stake in the topic they write about, doubly-so if we consider that Softpedia in this case doesn't have direct financial stake as LinuxConsole is a free product. The only financial stake I see in this particular case are the ads on the page, but if we are going to start saying ads in online sources are a problem, we might as well just shut down Wikipedia. I agree as to the minimum qualifications as well, which is why I re-submitted the article after draftifying it; I was hoping that another reviewer might have a chance to disagree with me. My main rationale for moving the page back is the disagreement over whether the sources are adequate, a topic I am still learning despite having had the patroller permission for a while - there always seems to be a bit of subjectivity involved in these matters, and I don't want to break with the community. In this case, Robert McClenon's declining of the submission may implicitly answer this for now. I'm not sure if this is something typically done or if it's allowed, so don't directly take my word on it, but if you do feel the article's sources are sufficient, you may be able to remove it from AfC entirely (by removing the afc templates / categories) and moving it to mainspace, allowing a potential AfD discussion (if it even ever goes there) to decide whether Softpedia is acceptable. I don't want to keep rubberbanding my own AfC decisions or it may be seen as disruptive at this point. Hope I helped at least a bit. A S U K I T E  10:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I could be wrong about this, but it doesn't appear to me that Robert reviewed the article or understood your intention to have another reviewer have a chance to disagree with you about it. It seems like he simply recognized it was sent back to draft and automatically marked it as declined as a typical course of action for articles sent back to draft. So,I disagree his action is implicit of anything other than the fact that he performs his work in the typical manner. I would like to hear from him before making any assumptions About what is implicit. Also, I find it extremely difficult not to totally reject the idea introduced here about a "blanket ban" on a source that I have already proven has been accepted by the community. Did you actually go to the link I provided on the draft talk page and check the list to see that softpedia is there? It should be obvious by now that what has happened here is that another user has appeared to present themselves as an expert in this area for the purpose of creating doubt about the good decision you made and making an effort to change your mind about the article by first claiming my sources are not reliable and then that they are not independent. However, I successfully proved this is less than a half truth, and it maybe only applies to one single source in the article, that being Distrowatch. The self-professed expert said that softpedia was not reliable, and I provided a link in our own guidance that says it is. Then, our expert tells us that softpedia is not an independent source, so I provide excellent reasoning as well as more of our own guidance that says it is. It seems to me our self-proclaimed expert is not so much the expert they think they are, as they have provided nothing in the guidance or any other evidence other than their own opinions and and self-professed expertise. Huggums537 (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: LinuxConsole (June 4)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:LinuxConsole and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:LinuxConsole, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I disagree with this decision. I'm not exactly sure what you meant about addressing the comments by the draftifying reviewer, but I responded to this advice by making a reply to the person who sent the article back to draft in the section above this one. If this course of action does not have the expected results of getting the article back into mainspace, then my intentions are to dispute the matter, and I would appreciate any advice you may have to save me a trip to the help desk or teahouse. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Huggums537! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:LinuxConsole

I have now read the discussion between User:Asukite and User:Huggums537. If I understand correctly, Huggums537 disagrees with the decision by Asukite to draftify the article, and wishes to contest it. That is their privilege. In that case, Huggums537 should move the article back into article space. In that case, a next step can be for Asukite or another editor to nominate the article for deletion, because AFD is the procedure for obtaining consensus on whether a page should be in article space.

I have not performed a detailed review. If the page is moved back to article space and is the subject of a deletion debate, I will review it and will offer a policy-based opinion. I hope that this answers the questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I am personally neutral on the article. I felt it may have been a good fit for article space, but did not have complete confidence in my decision as most of my reviews thus far have been on a smaller scale in terms of article length and sources. I probably won't nominate it for AfD, but if Aoidh wishes to, they may, as they were the one to call the sources into question.  A S U K I T E  16:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. Huggums537 (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:LinuxConsole has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:LinuxConsole. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for signing my guestbook! Here is your prize for being the third!

Macadamia of the LeafWings has given you a Mac n' Cheetos (🧀🐆)! Mac n' Cheetos promotes WikiLove (📖💞) and hopefully this one has made your day cheesier. It is dangerously cheesy! Mac n' Cheetos is the combination of both macaroni and cheese and the Frito-Lay snack Cheetos. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Mac n' Cheetos, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the goodness of Mac n' Cheetos by adding {{subst:Mac n' Cheetos}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Macadamia of the LeafWings | HEAR ME ROAR!! | Contribs | My Guestbook📖 13:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Macadamia of the LeafWings, Thanks! Huggums537 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

No, thank you. :)

Macadamia of the LeafWings | HEAR ME ROAR!! | Contribs | My Guestbook📖 20:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Userbox:My boxes live here

Userbox {{User:Huggums537/Userboxes/My boxes live here}} contains superfluous line breaks that preceding the <noinclude> tag(s).
Renders gap:

}}
</noinclude>

{{Userbox
...
}}

<noinclude>

Removes gap:

}}</noinclude>
{{Userbox
...
}}<noinclude>

These line breaks are being transcluded. For example, your userbox is listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userboxes/Use with the comment, <== Link to your own userboxes!, which would normally appear on the same line as the userbox. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

CJDOS, I removed the gaps, but it doesn't seem to make any difference in the way the comment or userbox appears... Huggums537 (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Several line breaks are still there; anything not within the tags are transcluded. Just putting <noinclude> on the next line after }} will cause a gap. I recently racked my brains over this with my own userboxes. I've fixed some userboxes on my own initiative, but I assumed editing yours to be beyond my prerogative without talking to you first. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC) (edited 15:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC))

CJDOS,  Done! I did a little more tweaking and kind of fixed it. Thanks for letting me know about this... Huggums537 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

This:

}}
| info-s   = {{{info-s|9}}}
}}
<noinclude>{{align|

Should look like this:

| info-s   = {{{info-s|9}}}
}}<noinclude>
{{align|

That is what had stumped me with my own userboxes (see discussion). — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I shall keep this on my talk page as a reference to do some future cleanup editing on my boxes... Huggums537 (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

CJDOS, the future is now. I just completed cleaning up the code on all my boxes, and it makes a huge difference in how neat and orderly my User:Huggums537/Userboxes page now looks! So grateful you addressed the problem. I had noticed I was having to rearrange certain userboxes due to the gaps and they would not stack or align properly on my userpage, so I would just rearrange them until there was no more gap, but now that there is a fix, I can arrange them how I want! I too thought it might be a box sizing problem, and made an attempt to correct it on a box or two to no avail. Once again, thanks very much. Huggums537 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't get it. Your userbox (the one under discussion) is still creating a gap on the Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userboxes/Use page. I took it upon myself to remove the extra <noinclude> tags I thought were causing the problem (go ahead and undo the changes if you disagree), but it still gaps. I eventually figured out that the userbox below it in the list had the same problem, but fixing it didn't resolve the gap issue. Now I'm confused. Unrelated, I was wondering if you could help me with a userbox (see next section). — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Update: I figured out what the issue was that started this whole thing with your userbox. Guess what the problem was.
Nothing to do with your userbox itself, the problem was in the comment in the template at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userboxes/Use. The template was taking the double-equals sign as syntax rather than text. I've replaced them with HTML markup for an equals sign, and that fixed it; page looks good now. I am sorry about the changes I made to your userbox, though it may yet help. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

CJDOS, thanks. I changed it on my userbox page as well... Huggums537 (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Userbox user categories

I didn't like the preexisting userbox creator userboxes (not generic enough), so I created {{User:UBX/Userbox-generic}}. Adding the userbox to my userbox page put me into the category (I can see my username in the list), however, It's not displaying the category at the bottom of my userbox page like all the others are doing. Can't figure out why (just look at all my test in the userbox's edit history). — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

CJDOS,  Fixed! Huggums537 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the edit; very similar to how I originally had it (excluding my copyedit errors). It doesn't appear to have added the category to the bottom of my /Userboxes page. I can always re-add myself using hotcat like I had done before I finished creating the userbox. It's just that the userbox is supposed to automatically do it, like the baseball team categories, the fencing and English categories, etc as listed at the bottom of the page. It's the automatic display that's not working (no matter how many times I purge the cache and refresh the page). I'm in the category, it's just not being displayed on the bottom of my User:CJDOS/Userboxes page. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

CJDOS, it appears to be displaying for me... Huggums537 (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

It is, indeed. I doubt that my removing the category from my user page with hotcat before I had completed the userbox would have cause the described issue, but at this point I'm not ruling it out. I'll run a test: I'll remove the userbox from my /Userboxes page, logoff, and then re-add it later today after closing my browser out (sorely needed at this point). The other userboxes don't appear to have an issue being on a user subpage, so it can't be that (what I was getting at). — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I hope it works out for you because I actually misunderstood the problem you were having when I made the edit, so it will be an unexpected pleasantry if it turns out good... Huggums537 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I finally got it working, exactly how it's supposed to be. The coding I had was right, except the <includeonly> tag was unnecessary (see WP:INCLUDEONLY). It wasn't doing any harm, but I had copied it in the process. The problem was a matter of when I put the userbox on my page.

1. Remove the userbox from user page page.
2. Fix the template's categories.
3. Re-add the userbox back onto my userpage later.

I hadn't been doing it in that order. Now, it all looks right.

Template:Statustop

I see you're using two user status indicators. I've tried asking others information that's not in the doc. Do you have to manually update it inline/subpage, and if so, does changing your status increase your edit count? I've seen others manually change theirs by 'undo'ing their edit history, but I don't know if that still increases the edit count. I already have plenty of unnecessary edits as it is. I understand a menu/box template can change it from another page—supposedly with just a click, but instead I've read complaints that such a menu only pulls up the subpage's source for editing. No idea if it is possible to auto-detect when you're signed in/out and change itself. I'm mostly concerned about not artificially bumping my edit count. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

CJDOS, I just realized I didn't properly answer the question. I was on mobile. Anyway, I use a script to change status with one click, but you would otherwise have to do it manually inline/subpage, but you can create links for that also. No matter how you do it, each change counts as an edit, but my thoughts on that are all edits count. I mean if you have an issue that takes you a bunch of edits to sort out, then it was you who spent that time and effort getting that experience to sort it out so you earned it, and if you are just some hooligan trying to do meaningless things to increase your edit count that are not harming anyone, then it was you who spent your valuable time earning those edits. There are probably more productive uses of your time, but if you wanted to spend it earning edits on Wikipedia, I could think of worse things to be spending your time on as well so more power to you. However, if your concern about bumping your edit count is that great you might consider using a banner rather than a status indicator or you could use the status indicator very sparingly such as maybe not showing online and offline every single time you are away from Wikipedia and come back (like I sometimes do) or maybe if you're online a lot just show always online and only offline when you are really away and just can't edit. Huggums537 (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "banner"? Do you mean similar to Template:Busy (already incorporated into the Template:Digital clock and date box on my talk page)? I have considered minimal updates as an option; when I was more active on social media, my status was set to not indicate when I was online, else I'd never get anything done. I consider minimal edits for the purpose of debugging, or correcting occasional editing mistakes/forgets, as meaningful; I consider updating my user status as non-productive (unless I can bundle it with another edit; that would be perfect). There's a page that talks—but not exclusively—about exploiting edits simply for the sake of boosting a user's count, but I don't remember what the title was. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Yep, a banner just like those! Yeah, I think maybe I read a page like that somewhere around here a long time ago too. It was prolly just a user essay from an editor with a different opinion than mine. That was back when I wasn't as sure of myself, and took established editors' opinions over my own. My tendency now is to choose my own opinion and think for myself unless the established editor can manage to convince me otherwise, in which case I'm more than happy to say they have convinced me. Huggums537 (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@CJDOS, I wanted to let you know that Enterprisey did an update to the status changer which fixed my status issues, but the update also apparently made some improvements as well which enable it to be a truly one-click system now! The link is here: User:Enterprisey/StatusChanger.js. Huggums537 (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you got the user box fixed because I honestly thought I was fixing a different problem so when I realized what it was you were actually trying to do, I didn't understand how anything I did could have fixed the problem so it was weird it looked like it was working. I guess the cache needed to purge or something. Anyway, I just started using the second status indicator because I was having trouble with the status updating and I thought using a new indicator might have a different result, but I'm still having the problem and it will only update when I purge the cache or make an edit to the user page. I was making a lot of status changes today trying to figure out the problem and every change counts as an edit. I believe that even I'm doing yet history counts as an edit also, but you will have to check with a more experienced editor to make sure about that. Huggums537 (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving Weekend!

Happy Thanksgiving Weekend!

Happy Thanksgiving weekend to one and all! This year on Wikipedia I'm most thankful for all the editors and admins who took a part to help me get my editing status back so I can contribute, and also have my voice heard on subjects I think are important. I'm equally grateful this year for those who I have had past conflicts with because all of them have allowed me to edit peacefully without incident, so my gratitude goes out to them for making Wikipedia a happy editing environment free of conflict! I think anyone who might be reading this knows who you are, but it doesn't really matter because my thanks goes out to all of you just the same no matter which side of the table you sit on this year, so I will avoid any needless embarrassment by pinging anyone to this comment, even though I'm rather well known for being the ping master! At any rate, blessings to you all... Huggums537 (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа!

Hello, Huggums537! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, and happy holidays to you as well! Huggums537 (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Discussion at MOS:POPCULT

Hi Huggums537,

Since you have previously contributed to the discussion at MOS:POPCULT, including about the most recent substantial changes to the guideline, perhaps you'd also be interested in a discussion we're having on the scope of MOS:POPCULT - whether it only applies to "trivia sections", or also to stand-alone lists and "in popular culture" articles. Pilaz (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Warning: Casting aspersions

Re Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 7 § Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria (permalink): You're welcome to disagree with me on whether IP78 did or did not have experience on Wikipedia. Reasonable minds can differ there, although I think I've made a good case for why I saw reason to listen to their opinion. You're not just saying, "I think they don't have enough experience for their !vote to be given much weight," though. You are saying that they are "suspect". You have provided no evidence for why they are "suspect", other than the fact that they have a low edit count, which is absolutely meaningless for an IP user. Some people's IP addresses change every few minutes. There are a number of IP users who are regulars at SPI, as you must have noticed by now.

"Suspect" is an aspersion and you are casting it baselessly. This is a formal warning, and the only one you will receive for this: Strike or reword that part of your comment, or be prepared to justify it to ANI when the DRV has concluded. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 19:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin, fine. I struck the relevant portion. I have no desire for ongoing "challenges" with you. My only goal was to reopen the discussion you closed. Please understand that. Huggums537 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Protection Court

Hello, Huggums537. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Protection Court, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:LinuxConsole

Hello, Huggums537. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:LinuxConsole, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

An RfC about PBS's status as a TV network...

Because of your involvement in the RfC about PBS's status, not just as a US TV network, but as a major US TV network, I am inviting you to participate in a Request for comment about the status of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) as a TV network. 2600:1700:C960:2270:79B0:F220:B8D8:7E65 (talk) 22:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't get block.....best to self revert

Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards.Moxy- 03:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Moxy, I was not aware of this. Thank you for pointing it out to me. I will immediately cease and desist from performing any more reverts on that page. Huggums537 (talk) 04:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Guestbook

		The Original Barnstar
		Thank you for signing my guestbook! Peter Sam Fan 16:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		I appreciate it. Peter Sam Fan 16:28, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Interpretation of WP:LISTCRITERIA

Re the deletion discussion at the edit notice last week:

To clarify —- I did not say you misinterpreted it. I said your interpretation did not match what many editors thought. I think that’s different. This difference in interpretation cannot be resolved in one edit notice discussion. I suspect you’ll need an RfC about WP:LISTCRITERIA itself —- are the examples meant to be binding (I.e., the only criteria we should use are those listed?) or minimal (editors can always add more criteria) or purely suggestions? I predict you will get some editors who believe each of these. — hike395 (talk) 10:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I will understand a difference between a simple interpretation by one person, or a misinterpretation that is espoused by many other editors, if you will understand that I also never said the examples were meant to be binding in the manner you have suggested (as in limited to only using the examples listed). What I said, (or was trying to say) is that if the examples are going to be used as the actual criteria, then they absolutely should be binding, and if any other criteria is to be used, there should be no conflict between them. I think that's quite different, especially when you consider that the template/article in question did not simply just "add more criteria" or use the criteria examples "purely as a suggestion" since it specifically listed common list selection criterion #1 on the talk page (doesn't sound like just a suggestion), and then directly went against that specific criteria, which specifically allows redlinks, to make a template that bans them. That isn't "adding more criteria". That is flatly contradictory with the stated criteria. Huggums537 (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW, thanks for the idea about an RfC at LISTCRITERIA. I think we made some good progress in the discussion at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists#Should "List of people from place" require blue links? so thanks for your help there. Huggums537 (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Some soda for you!

Thanks for visiting my guest room, I hope you enjoyed your stay.

Here's an ice cold Mexican Coca-Cola as a thank you, complimentary.

Visiting my guest room also means you've gained a new talk page watcher!

––FormalDude (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you my friend! Much appreciated. Huggums537 (talk) 13:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:CR

Hi, could you please strike your accusation of forum-shopping against BilledMammal? You cited that dispute in your post to my user-talk, but for lack of evidence I think it's a personal attack. RAN1 (talk) 20:00, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Ok, if you see it that way, I will strike that part since it is true I don't have any evidence of forum-shopping so that might have been going too far. However, the other actions taken by BilledMammal were by definition stonewalling and campaigning, so I feel like I should leave those parts since the evidence is, well, evident. Huggums537 (talk) 02:22, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Huggums537 (talk) 02:25, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I meant all three accusations. Requesting community-wide discussion for major policy changes is policy per WP:TALKFIRST: Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements similar to the proposal process may be appropriate. I recommend you read the policies page from the content changes section to the end. RAN1 (talk) 03:28, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

I could not possibly disagree with what you are saying more, but I will comply with your request to avoid further argument or drama. Huggums537 (talk) 11:07, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Huggums537 (talk) 11:11, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

people not paying attention

Hey, Huggums! At WT:V you wrote:

I would say absolutely not. How does the Cn tag mean "Prove it or remove it" in the example I gave above? The answer is that it does not. If it does not in that example, then it does not always mean that. If it does not always mean that, then it can not "inherently" be a challenge if it also has the possibility of taking on other meanings such as simply being an indicator of improvements needed to the referencing format of the article. Nowhere does placing a Cn tag mean "prove it or remove it", and nowhere should it ever mean that either. If I place Cn tags in an article that say, "this article has verifiable general references, but they should be moved to inline citations for easier identification", then what part of the placement of that tag is "inherently" a challenge to "prove it" or remove it? I would really like to know because that is a rather extraordinary claim.

Then you said you didn't think anyone was paying attention. It's because you're writing way too long. All that above could have been condensed to: How does the Cn tag mean "Prove it or remove it" in the example I gave above? That is an extraordinary claim.

I agree with you, it's an extraordinary claim. But when you write long, you encourage others to skip your comments. It takes longer to write short, but it's worth it. It means more people will be much more likely to read what you've written and maybe respond. Valereee (talk) 11:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much @Valereee. I do tend to write exceedingly long. I've been told this before by a few other people actually. It's not so much that I don't have the ability to be concise as it has to do with the fact that for some reason I just can't bring myself to do it because I guess I want people to understand more than just the point, but maybe also the thinking behind the point as well. I do thank you for your support and advice though. Maybe a summary of the point and the thinking behind it would be better. Huggums537 (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, what I do is spew it all out, then go back and pull out everything I can. Spewing it all out helps me figure out what I'm trying to say. Then I can edit. :) It helps to tell myself that every extra word loses me a reader. Valereee (talk) 00:04, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Great idea! Huggums537 (talk) 00:32, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Protection Court

Hello, Huggums537. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Protection Court".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. Well, I will do the request. See if an admin thinks it is worth restoring. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't need an admin to move it to article space, nor its that their job. You or I could do it. IMO it's kind of an edge-case right now regarding establishing wp:notability. If you could add a couple more refs and a bit more content and ping me I think I'd be comfortable with moving it to article space. North8000 (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

North8000, I agree it needs more content and refs. I'll ping you when I get around to getting that done. Thank you for your help in getting it moved. I would like to do the move myself since I don't think I've done one of those in mainspace yet, but I'll ping you regardless in case anything runs amok. Huggums537 (talk) 18:57, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

North8000, I think I'm ready to go to mainspace with this now. I'm going to give it the old college try. I'll leave a note on the draft talk page for you also so others will know what we are up to. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 02:20, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Cool. Let me know if you need anything. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Reply to your ping

Responding to your RfA comment here since it no longer has any pertinence to the ongoing request for adminship.

I do not think the quote itself is distasteful, I think Locke Cole's application of the quote was distasteful. I described it as a holocaust quote because it's a quote from a holocaust survivor talking about the holocaust. Indeed, the quote starts with Weisel saying "that is why I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation." For LC to use it here gives the impression that we Wikipedians endure suffering and humiliation at the same levels of the holocaust. I know a lot of Wikipedians think working on the project is of the utmost importance, but to even hint at comparing it to an atrocity like the holocaust is, in my view, distasteful at best. It would be one thing if LC didn't know the history of the quote, but they clearly do, having linked to the article on Wiesel. ––FormalDude (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to understand where you are coming from by investigating into it a little bit more to understand the context better, and what I have found is the quote comes from an acceptance speech for the Nobel peace prize in 1986, decades and decades after the holocaust occurred where Wiesel also continues to say, "Sometimes we must interfere. When human lives are endangered, when human dignity is in jeopardy, national borders and sensitivities become irrelevant. Wherever men or women are persecuted because of their race, religion, or political views, that place must – at that moment – become the center of the universe." The parts about human dignities being in jeopardy, and sensitivities being irrelevant wherever people are persecuted for their political views must - at that moment - become the center of the universe or sometimes we must interfere seem particularly relevant - maybe even more so than what was actually quoted by Locke Cole. I think the speech demonstrates that survivors of the holocaust don't have a monopoly on suffering, and the man dedicated his life to ending the suffering of others as opposed to protecting the virtue of his own suffering. I also think LC had no intention whatsoever of comparing the holocaust to Wikipedia, but was merely making a point from a quote that could unfortunately be easily misunderstood from someone who knows the history of it. I actually didn't know the history, and didn't bother clicking on the link so it looked perfectly fine to me, but even after learning the history I couldn't (and still don't) understand how that makes any difference since the exact same words could have come from anyone else who wasn't a victim of the holocaust and the meaning of them would still be the same. In other words, the quote doesn't hold any more or less meaning for me now that I know it comes from a holocaust victim although I do have a deeper understanding of the context behind it. Your conclusion here seems to be one that supports an idea that we are not allowed to use quotes by holocaust victims on Wikipedia because doing so somehow compares Wikipedia to the holocaust in some way. I would urge you to reconsider that conclusion because I think the editor posted in good faith. Huggums537 (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

@FormalDude, I'd like to also add that we could view this one of many different ways;

1) Neutrally, the way LC presented it as a quote by FIRST NAME and LAST NAME. Very simple with a link to his page which happens to be more about his many awards, degrees, and humanitarian efforts than it does about his holocaust experience.

2) Non neutrally, the way you presented it as a quote from HOLOCAUST SURVIVOR.

3) Also non neutrally, the way I presented it as a quote from NOBEL LAUREATE and HUMANITARIAN.

I think it makes a huge difference how it is being presented, and I firmly believe LC was well within his rights here, and I think you actually might have been the one who went out of bounds for presenting it as a quote that has any connection to the holocaust that could also be traced back to Wikipedia other than the fact that it came from a survivor who also has an article. Other than that, I honestly believe LC was being neutral, and fair. Please reconsider the framework in which you are viewing things and see if these different kinds of presentations don't make you think any differently about things. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to clear up any misunderstanding, but I was replying to FD in the RFA, not to you. I think you understand what I was getting at significantly better then FD did. —Locke Cole • t • c 05:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok. No worries. However, I think FD understood perfectly well what you were getting at, and I also believe he had no problem whatsoever understanding your point. The problem I had with the whole thing is he made this big production about the way you were making your point, not the actual point. As though it were a behavioral issue when it isn't even that big of a deal. The whole thing is just so weird it has me thinking there must be some unknown thing that set him off; like maybe he had family in the Holocaust, or maybe he read a book about those events that made him sentimental about it, but whatever the reason his lack of response here tells me this whole thing did get to him in some way or another, and these issues are very sensitive. So, even though I fully believe you were in the right, and he made an error here, I think we could all stand to pause for some reflection. I was actually enjoying a nice little wiki break when I happened to notice an RFA going on, and I allowed myself to get caught up in some wiki drama. This is exactly why I was on break in the first place. I'm just like an alcoholic because I can't go to the bar and just dance and listen to music without getting drunk. Likewise, I can't go to the RFA and just vote without getting involved in drama. Actually, I can do both, it just requires a greater degree of self-control than for most. 😉 Huggums537 (talk) 14:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:SILENCE

Hi! You wrote in an edit summary that "Breaking WP:SILENCE a decade later on the basis of disruption must be wrong if nobody ever broke silence in all that time."[1] Just to be clear "Breaking WP:SILENCE" is never wrong... Its handled the exact same way whether its been two minutes or twenty years. The implied consensus ends completely and permanently the moment the content is challenged, whether thats two minutes later or twenty years. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back, I understand your point about breaking silence, and I agree that usually once silence is broken, then implied consensus has ended. However, my issue is not with the breaking of silence itself, but the actual reason you are giving for breaking, which is the disruption. It just doesn't make no sense to me for anyone saying something is disruptive if it hasn't been for a decade. I mean no offense but that honestly and truly just sounds ridiculous to me. Huggums537 (talk) 22:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Not usually, always. That part isn't negotiable. I wasn't aware there was a limit for addressing disruptive edits, I've addressed disruptive edits which were closing in on two decades old. A disruptive edit never stops being disruptive, its disruptive two minutes after its made and its disruptive ten years later. Its nature never changed. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I've never seen anything like that before. I'd really like to see the link to that if you have it so I can see an example of it with mine own eyes... Huggums537 (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I can try to find it for you, if I remember correctly it was a page about an obscure catholic saint (to be fair a very different class page from this one in terms of annual eyeballs) but I've been to more than a thousand of those so no promise of quick success. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Not the one I was thinking of but if you look at Sole Satisfier you will note the massive amounts of WP:OR which remained in circulation from 2005 until very recently as well as the WP:COI of the one who added it. That silence lasted more or less 18 years. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok sure. I'm getting your point that silence can be broken after a long time. I've seen that before plenty of times. What I've never seen before is anyone saying that something can be disruptive for such a long time. That's what I'm getting at. Huggums537 (talk) 00:34, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

At any rate, several people so far seem to think the page in question should remain as WP:Status Quo, and you are welcome to add the "under discussion" tag to the passage if you like. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 00:47, 23 March 2023 (UTC)