User talk:FeydHuxtable
Index
|
||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200
And here are several pages on what to avoid:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which are produced by clicking on the
This welcome message was sent by Avi15 at 13:34, August 3, 2008 (UTC) |
Big welcome to the article rescue squadron
[edit]
Hi, FeydHuxtable, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||||||
User:Ikip/89 -- full list of rescuable AfD discussions
FeydHuxtable, if you need any help at all, please let me know. Happy to see you as a new member! Ikip (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome! Im impressed with how you guys operate. ARS seems to be the place to be and to be seen at :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Who are The Editors?
[edit]There's an interesting book launch at Newspeak House today and I plan to attend to see if liberties have been taken with our circle. Hope to see you there. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can't. If only it had been tommorow, I'll be just a few hundred yards away, towards Liverpool St. Been too long though Colonel, we should meet up by Christmas at the latest. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's a shame but I'll take some pictures and let you know what you missed. If you spot some other event that maybe of interest then just let me know. Otherwise there's the monthly Wikimeets and more... Andrew🐉(talk) 16:50, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- By this notification, is it safe to assume that you live in London??? Why do some people get all the Luck? Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 10:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, I'm lucky enough to live within about 10km of the good Colonel. Let us know if ever you're visiting London and have a spare hour or two Buster! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Re: Disruptive edits by user:Lightburst NAC
[edit]But hoping editors who have gone at each other here will reconcile a few weeks or months down line
is a nice thought but it really doesn't seem likely. To my knowledge, the dispute between some of them's been going on for over half a year and has come up on various noticeboards and in several discussions. If others feel the same way, I trust they'll come here and comment (and if no-one replies, take it as a sign I'm wrong), but a premature close feels like kicking the can down the road to me. Sincerely, Dilettante 21:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for sharing your concern. On reflection I'm still happy with the close. It was based partly on having known most of those involved for 5-10+ years and it was a complex thread, so would take way too many words to explain my thinking. That said, I've not been that involved with the community recently. Maybe you're right. If you're confident doing so is in the communitie's best interests you can revert the close. (Huh, at least back in the day, it was fine for any editor in good standing to be able to revert an ANI NAC, with no need to even discuss first with the original closer.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- (ec) Can we talk about the close at that AN? I don't object to it being closed as unlikely to be actionable, but given that multiple admins were involved, why did you decide to close this as NAC after two days with platitudes such as The passion for justice & accuracy shown by several editors here is admirable. The potentially hurtful remarks against fellow good editors is less so (though not meaning to be too judgmental here as cant say as I've never done the same.) But hoping editors who have gone at each other here will reconcile a few weeks or months down line by helping each other out on other discussions or article improvement? Valereee (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd argue those aren't platitudes Valereee. I didn't even know the thread had been going on for two days, having just seen it a few hours before. It seemed the emotional temperature had got quite high, that the editors involved were unlikely to back down, that leaving the thread open would risk further insult adjacent remarks being made that might damage relationships. Also I thought not many would want to close the thread as it seemed impossible to do so in a way that wouldn't displease several participants. For all those reasons closing it seemed the right thing to do, & I thought the wording might be helpful longterm even though obviously risked displeasing some. (Again, my read of the thread was that is was impossible to close without risking that reaction, but that closing was still the lesser of two evils given the potential for escalation.) I hardly every close anything on Wikipedia, but when I do I normally get multiple thanks, even on one occasional offers to give me advanced rights I'd not even asked for. As two editors had concerns with this close, I'll take it as a sign I probably shouldn't close any more. (Unless maybe I get back to sustained active editing and regain a good sense of community pulse.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
- I honestly have no clue if it's normal for NACs to be overturned by other non-admins without discussion, and probably would have come here first if that's the case. However, discussion's splintered and continued over at User_talk:Levivich#ANI and User_talk:Lightburst#false_accusations which indicates the closure was a mistake. I won't reopen just yet because tensions have decreased, if only slightly so and only on one thread.
- Regarding
As two editors had concerns with this close, I'll take it as a sign I probably shouldn't close any more
, Valereee's opinion, should she choose to weigh in on this, should obviously count much more than mine, but IMO this ANI thread was an outlier. Though there were several allusions, to an outside observer it's not immediately clear just how long-running and divisive the argument is and how many people are involved. I'm not against you closing ANI threads due to this one mistake, but I do think you should have taken a bit more care and noticed, for example, that the linked Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1161#AndyTheGrump's (ATG) hostility, editing to favor deletion and canvassing has two indef proposals, four proposals for other sanctions, and two separate subsections about escalating to arbcom. This should indicate, all else aside, that a NAC during an ongoing discussion won't necessarily help resolve the issue. Sincerely, Dilettante 00:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)- Just for what it's worth, as a general matter the opinion of an admin is no more important than the opinion of any other similarly-experienced editor. Valereee (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I should have been more clear that I'm not deferring to you because you're an admin, but because you're more much experienced, both in dispute-resolution and closing.
- As an aside, it looks like the discussion was reopened by LilianaUwU (pinging if you'd like to weigh in on the other concerns about the close raised here, but don't feel forced to do so). Sincerely, Dilettante 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd say you were right first time. While all experienced editors opinions are equally valid in the general case, in the specific case of whether an editor should be doing NACs on ANI, an admin's opinion should carry much more weight like you said. As for the re-open, yes was a mistake on my part not to consider the involved aspect. I closed the threat for the reason's stated above, not as I wanted to protect LB, who no longer seemed at risk of sanction at the time of the close. But should have stopped to consider how it would look to others. FeydHuxtable (talk) 01:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- The only reason I reopened is because it's involved. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 01:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- Just for what it's worth, as a general matter the opinion of an admin is no more important than the opinion of any other similarly-experienced editor. Valereee (talk) 00:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- If there's something at AN/ANI that admins are involved in, and no admin is acting, it probably means no admin thinks it needs action yet. I can pretty much guarantee you that if there's something at AN/ANI that admins are involved in, multiple other admins are watching. Valereee (talk) 00:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
- I'd argue those aren't platitudes Valereee. I didn't even know the thread had been going on for two days, having just seen it a few hours before. It seemed the emotional temperature had got quite high, that the editors involved were unlikely to back down, that leaving the thread open would risk further insult adjacent remarks being made that might damage relationships. Also I thought not many would want to close the thread as it seemed impossible to do so in a way that wouldn't displease several participants. For all those reasons closing it seemed the right thing to do, & I thought the wording might be helpful longterm even though obviously risked displeasing some. (Again, my read of the thread was that is was impossible to close without risking that reaction, but that closing was still the lesser of two evils given the potential for escalation.) I hardly every close anything on Wikipedia, but when I do I normally get multiple thanks, even on one occasional offers to give me advanced rights I'd not even asked for. As two editors had concerns with this close, I'll take it as a sign I probably shouldn't close any more. (Unless maybe I get back to sustained active editing and regain a good sense of community pulse.) FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Aspersions
[edit]Please strike your bad faith aspersion about leeky's motives from LB's talk page. It's fine to disagree with the ANI, but it's not appropriate to make bad faith assumptions about her motives for starting that discussion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see it as remotely bad faith. Successful reform of RfA has long struck me as something that would hugely benefit the community (hence devoting about 20 hours of time in my unsuccessful 2009 & 2015 efforts, and supporting other attempts.) If that's part of her motivation it's admirable in my view. Also, while I'll very much regret the loss of Lightburst, it wouldn't be true to assume I disagree with the ANI. Leaky makes a powerful case. This said, if Leaky wants me to strike for whatever reason, then of course I would. FeydHuxtable (talk)
- Please tell me what other meaning one is supposed to take from "If it helps, Leaky may have decided to take you down... So can understand her being protective, if that's the motivation." You're attempting to comfort LB ("if it helps") by saying that leeky's motivation in creating the ANI discussion was to get Lightburst banned in order to protect what you assume she thinks of as "her" project. It's an aspersion that she's acting in bad faith rather than in the community's interests, plain and simple. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for recognising there was an attempt to comfort LB. He seemned quite upset that it was Leaky who was the one to bring him down. I'd guess that despite their conflict he quite admires her - for the same reason he likes Tamzin. Folk like LB typically have an affinity for those who combine intelligence with integrity & an obvious sense of fairness. I've already expressed my view on why protecting the RfA reform is in the communities interest ("hugely benefit the community") and am not going to further repeat myself. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:41, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
- Please tell me what other meaning one is supposed to take from "If it helps, Leaky may have decided to take you down... So can understand her being protective, if that's the motivation." You're attempting to comfort LB ("if it helps") by saying that leeky's motivation in creating the ANI discussion was to get Lightburst banned in order to protect what you assume she thinks of as "her" project. It's an aspersion that she's acting in bad faith rather than in the community's interests, plain and simple. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message
[edit]
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 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 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) 00:21, 19 November 2024 (UTC)