Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

Prior to Oct 2017, I hand-archived.

These are the old archives:

• Archive 1 (21/9/05 - 13/1/06)
• Archive 2 (13/1/06 - 6/5/06)
• Archive 3 (6/5/06 - 30/6/08)
• Archive 4 (4/7/08 - 24/9/08)
• Archive 5 (24/9/08 - 9/1/09)
• Archive 6 (10/1/09 - 18/4/09)
• Archive 7 (20/4/09 - 18/1/10)
• Archive 8 (25/1/10 - 7/6/10)
• Archive 9 (16/6/10 - 10/10/10)
• Archive 10 (11/10/10 - 19/01/11)
• Archive 11 (23/1/11 - 27/01/12)
• Archive 12 (1/2/12 - 4/9/12)
• Archive 13 (22/10/2012 - 2/9/2015)

Hello and welcome to my talk page. I'll respond to your comments here, unless you ask me to reply on your talk page. If I've left you a message on your talk page and you reply there, there's no need for you to come here and tell me; if I expect a reply I'll be watching your talk page so I'll find out about it anyway. Cheers!

You think I should go for it?[edit]

I self-reverted an ANI report earlier today because I noticed a certain crowd were still at ANI and I didn't want to risk them crowding in to suggest I be site-banned for my anti-Nazi views (or "making up lies about receiving emails" or "trying to out people by revealing their IPs and physical locations" or something like that) again. I then had half a mind to support the current TBAN proposal with the following:

• Support Per everything above, plus this. I have found this editor extremely frustrating to work with, and in three years I haven't seen any evidence of his behaviour improving.

... but I'm still really paranoid that any prose I post on ANI will result in swift reprisals, and I really don't need that. The current count seems to be something like 17-16 mildly in favour of TBANning, and with my support vote it'd be slightly more tilted toward passing, but it's still much too close for comfort. (I know it's not a "vote", but disagreeing with that many editors at ANI feels dangerous, and in my experience it's pretty rare for a closer to actually weigh the arguments when the vote-count is split roughly 50-50 and a policy/argument-based close would result in a backlash.) I also notice that you don't seem to have actually !voted, so... I guess your advice would be to hold my tongue?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no strong feeling on whether this is a good idea or not. On one hand it seems to be heading for a no consensus result with or without your input and, as you say, you'd be opening yourself up to vicious reprisal. On the other hand putting your concerns on record might be a good idea for the next time this comes up; otherwise people might ask why didn't you say anything last time. During this whole long saga the only !vote I put in was for Andrew Davidson's topic ban so my own instincts have been to mostly stay out of it but I don't think I really want to be telling people to do or not do the same. Reyk _YO! 09:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I bit the bullet again. We'll see if I get a similar apology and retraction to what User:William Harris. Whether or not I get such an apology/retraction, I fear I may have now condemned myself to being pinged back in to the next ANI thread on 13 once the current one ultimately gets closed with a slap on the wrist and the next report-worthy incident occurs, as though I haven't already said everything that needs saying. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

++++++

The greater the difficulty, the more glory in surmounting it. Skillful pilots gain their reputation from storms and tempests

— Epictetus

William Harris (talk) 08:21, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suck at explaining things clearly[edit]

Gymnastics qualifying is incredibly complicated, even under current rules. So, hopefully I explained it clear enough. Honestly, most of those articles don’t really seem to pass the notability test, but I’m not an expert.Afheather (talk) 07:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 2022 Good Article Nominations backlog drive[edit]

Good article nominations | June 2022 Backlog Drive

On 1 June, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number and age of articles reviewed. Interested in taking part? Sign up here!

You're receiving this message because you have conducted 5+ good article reviews or participated in previous backlog drives. Click here to opt out of any future messages. (t · c) buidhe 04:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]