User talk:FeydHuxtable/Archive 1

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Hunger in the United Kingdom, FeydHuxtable!

Wikipedia editor Theopolisme just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Looks good, thanks for the new article! Have you considered a WP:DYK?"

To reply, leave a comment on Theopolisme's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Council
Yes, probably a non-starter. OK...maybe no "probably" LOL! Funny thing though. Right after I wrote that I noticed that someone was proposing a "committee" for BLP issues. Who knows what will be accepted or rejected on Wikipedia these days. Just trying to get new editors to understand COI and other more basic concepts of policy and guideline seem wasted on deaf ears these days. So many are here just to make a point or fix a perception of their company or as actual paid marketing staff.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:00, 10 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I never really attended an Occupy GA, until I helped to organize a very short lived version of an OWS demonstration in my own town. Our group considered the fact that we lived in our town and owned homes and worked in the area to be our "occupation". We didn't protest, we demonstrated and we actually worked with the local authorites to insure we were not doing anything that would put a single person in harms way. But...it fell apart because of the very things you mention and all due to a single person that refused to accept the consensus others.--Amadscientist (talk) 20:39, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps its a common feature of quasi anarchist communities. Jimbo's idea to start Wikipedia was so timely, fitting so well with the wider need of internet users, and so well protected by positional factors from rivals,  that the project survives and even thrives despite these issues. Although probably a lot less efficiently and with much more unnecessary distress caused than if we had good old fashioned hierarchy, lol. It might even be better if the community doesnt fix RfA, as it will force the Foundation & Jimbo to act, setting a useful precedent.  Thanks for the chat, its been most interesting! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. One last classical analogy...Rome began as a Monarchy, became a Republic and then went back to singular rule...which then attempted to resurrect a dual leadership that split the empire. Hmmmmmmmmm. Wikipedia I and Wikipedia II perhaps. LOL! (I wonder how close to reality that will turn out to be? I'm no oracle but....)--Amadscientist (talk) 22:38, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe Wikipedia needs a King. Someone to take Jimbo's place. Someone with a far-ranging vision that doesn't get stuck in the mud of drama. Winston Churchill-like. Protective to a fault. A final arbiter. Completely trusted by the Wikipedia Society. Some enemies, sure, but would see them as just a pack of wild un-trained dogs nipping at his/her heals. ```Buster Seven   Talk  13:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Shadow banking system
Hi there, Feyd. I left a reply at Talk:Shadow banking system with a suggestion to add some sources, if you're game. I wish to avoid direct editing, but I'd also like to avoid being annoying! Hope to see you back there when you have a moment. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI)


 * Hey, I appreciate your update on the page over the weekend. I can leave alone the request on which we don't see eye-to-eye, and I've actually got some additional improvements in the works. I've just posted a request to update the first, fourth and fifth paragraphs of the article's first section: mostly adding citations, but also making a few changes for clarity. Would you mind looking at them? Thanks, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 15:37, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for taking the time to participate in my RfA. I hope that I will be able to improve based on the feedback I received and become a better editor. AutomaticStrikeout 22:53, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Andy Haldane
Firstly, for info only, I've plagiarised your wikiotter. Re Haldane, the article needs expanding. Any chance of a good photo? I'm familiar with uploading -as I suspect you are. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Nice work on Credit theory of money
Hi Feyd, Just want to say that you've done a bang up job with Credit theory of money. I've just read through it and am really impressed with what a nice article it's turned into (especially considering the conspiracy theory inspired malarkey that used to be there). Great job! LK (talk) 06:21, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks LK! The kind words are most appreciated, especially coming from your good self. Ive been finding the concept useful, to think Id not have paid it much attention if it hadnt been for the Colonel. Quite a coincidence you should mention this now, have some interesting RL work going down involving this. It might all come to nothing depending on events next week, so wont bother you for now, but if things go as planned I might email you as I suspect youd find it pleasing to know. Thanks again. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:12, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Simone Weil
Thanks for your comment Feyd, I'm glad you found it useful. Whether Weil would have eventually been sent to France is debatable (inevitably some recruits were weeded out during the training courses) but SOE did send some pretty unusual agents into France. (SOE2009 (talk) 17:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!

 * I agree, excellent expansion efforts and quality improvement work. :) &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much
Feyd, thanks very much for your comment about my research, here. It's really most appreciated. Thanks again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 23:14, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Shadow banking system
Hi there, Feyd. It's been awhile since you looked at a previous request of mine for the Shadow banking system article and I've made another couple of requests there, one of which has been resolved and another that has not yet received any reply. I wondered, given your interest in the topic, if you'd be willing to consider the latest change that I've proposed for an update adding citations and further context to the Shadow banks' role in the financial system and their modus operandi section. My request is here on the Shadow banking system Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk &middot; COI) 20:48, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks so much
Feyd, thanks very much for the Barnstar over at Wikimedia Commons, I really appreciate it! I hope you're doing well! Thanks again, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome Cirt, hope all is well with you too. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Chonga
The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Woohoo! Drmies (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Information
I noticed your username commenting at an Arbcom discussion regarding civility. An effort is underway that would likely benifit if your views were included. I hope you will append regards at: Requests for comment/Civility enforcement/Questionnaire Thank you for considering this request. My 76 Strat (talk) 08:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invitation. I'll give it some thought and maybe contribute in the next week or two. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome!
It's great to see how active the community seems to be! Tpafla82 (talk) 18:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas FeydHuxtable


&mdash; иz нίpнόpʜᴇʟᴘ! is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy holidays!
Hello Feyd: Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia and friendly disposition, and have a happy holiday season! Northamerica1000(talk) 12:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you and yours
I've run out of cards and all the stores are closed. Have a very Merry Holiday Season and a wonderful and peaceful New Year. ```Buster Seven   Talk  15:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Feyd
You should drop me an email some time, we should get to know one another. best, —Tim /// MutantPop@aol.com /// Carrite (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at this article
I reviewed your vast experience and wanted to contact you about helping to resolve a dispute. I'm being teamed up against by a group of self-avowed libertarians. I don't care that they are libertarians (or if you are) except for the fact they are using their ideology to skew the Koch Industries article. When I post positive things about Koch, they don't blink an eye, but if I dare put up anything critical, it gets deleted and frowned upon without balance. I'm trying to round up some disinterested third party input so I'm not getting steamrolled by biased editors. My goal is to make the article more informative and encyclopedic and that's it. Here's the current critical part of the Talk Page. Thank you. Cowicide (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I see it's been just yourself versus 4 editors who all seem to be either Libertarians or conservatives. But  from a quick look, wikipedia policy is broadly on their side, and  the articles not too far off from  NPOV (something that can be very different from the truth). So sorry but I'd advise disengaging. I'll try to give you a more detailed and helpful reply later. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I was expecting to post some advice on the advantages of assuming good faith when dealing with Libertarians. But checking your recent interactions, it looks like my advice would be unnecessary. Im not up for getting involved directly with KB articles, but if you wanted to know my general thoughts on the matter I'd be happy to either email or continue this discussion on your talk page. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * (stalker) I was just passing by when I saw this. Sad to say, without looking, I was sure I knew who at least one of the editors was. ......I just looked........I was right. You would be better off trying to "herd cats".```Buster Seven   Talk  01:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Very true Buster. You remind me of an article I've been looking at about honest politicians. If there's a task that makes even coordinating wikipedians look easy, its trying to forge consensus with political activists, who tend to make even the average editor look softly spoken and unopinionated. Any many think politicians are incompetent as they often find it far harder to get things done than say in a well run work place. No wonder many turn into habitual liers, as without that or supernatural charm or force of personality they might as well be farming felines. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) case evidence phase closing
This is a reminder to all parties as well as to those who have submitted evidence, that the evidence phase of this case closes at 00:00 UTC on 23 February 2013, which is in just over seven hours from now. For the Arbitration Committee --Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Homeless kitten
User:Occono just gave me a kitten but, as I'm allergic to cats, perhaps it will be more welcome here :) Warden (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It certainly is Colonel. It wants to watch over my talk for a while, and then it can find a permanent home over at kitten central. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:24, 3 March 2013 (UTC)



April 2, 2013, Kitten award for Kgrad
Thanks for the good words ! It's nice to know that my editing is appreciated. Having grown up in a grammar-conscious house, I enjoy improving any text. Kgrad Kgrad (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Breakfast

 * Thanks North. Im not usually up for joining new projects as you know, but as this one seems to have been created by one of most impressive model editors, I'll probably make an exception.  I'd like to write an article on Breakfast Clubs, to complement our coverage of other food aid facilities like Food Banks and Soup Kitchens. Will join the project once I get a few hours to research and write it. Thanks again for the invite! FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello Feyd: Thanks for the kind words, and for signing on with the project. When your article is published, please feel free to post it at the New articles section at the project page. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 08:40, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
 * is a man of Peace, a WikiOtter. He does not have an abundance of edits but the ones he has are purposeful. He has created half a dozen articles on noted economist John Maynard Keynes and has worked extensively on others. Always respectful to his fellow editors, Editor Huxtable is a true example of what a collaborator should be. This is an editor that obviously works at the hard choice of resisting drama and focuses instead on the article. Insightful, reasonable, and a healthy partner in the editing process. I am proud to nominate him for Editor of the Week. ```Buster Seven   Talk 

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: Thanks again for your efforts! Go  Phightins  !  18:09, 28 April 2013 (UTC)


 * A sincere thank you for the gift of your time here. One of the nice things about the Editor of the Week program is it gives me a chance to go through and check out the contributions of a recognized editor, and what I found was highly constructive edits and sound reasoning in discussion.  It isn't about quantity of edits, it is about quality, something you obviously already "get".  Glad to see you recognized for your dedication over the years.  Dennis Brown - 2¢  © Join WER 23:27, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What I said in my nomination is so very true. I am proud to call you a Wiki-friend. ```Buster Seven   Talk  23:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for being such a great editor to Wikipedia!! :) Congratulations! You deserve it! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ~blushing~ Thanks all! I really appreciate this award.  Buster, thanks especially for the very kind nomination, and I'm equally honored to count you as a wiki friend too. I'm not sure I deserve to be called a man of Peace, but it's nice to hear :-) .  FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I too endorse the finding that He's a Jolly Good Fellow. Kudos!


 * In considering the matter, I notice that Feyd styles himself a WikiOtter, which seems appropriate. Myself, I'm more of a WikiDragon and it is said that "...a WikiDragon and a WikiOtter working in collaboration could potentially form a powerful team that could accomplish nearly any goal".  There's even a meeting place to bring them together.  By coincidence, I have just created a fresh topic which Feyd might wish to playfully explore.  This combines economics with biological insight, rather like the WikiFauna concept.  And IIRC, Feyd is quite tall too — it all makes sense...


 * Warden (talk) 11:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Colonel, it's certainly an honor to have worked together with yourself as a team, saving many valuable articles from destruction. If only I had the heroic character needed to venture into AfD more often. It is quite a conincidence about the your new creation - the Lucy Kellaway piece was one of the first articles I read on Monday, as it was featured on the front page of the FT. I was glad to read that for business success going bald is seen as a positive, lol. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)


 * As a mark of awesomeness, you also get to keep this cool box you see on the right, and have bragging rights to display it anywhere you want :)
 * You also get your own place in our very own Hall of Fame.
 * [Some technical problems with the box still remain, but we promise to sort them out ASAP ;) ]
 * Cheers,
 * TheOriginalSoni (talk) 16:03, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on EOTW! A special note...you are the first recipient to receive this since this went onto the community portal! Thanks for helping out!--Amadscientist (talk) 21:45, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks again all. It's especially good to know about the community portal. I hope it raises awareness of the mighty Article Rescue Squad, a project that contains several editors who are much better model wikipedians than me. This editor of the week initiative has to be the single greatest wiki invention since barnstars, if not since ever! FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Feyd
You mention several editors who are much better model wikipedians than me. Why dont you pick one or two, do a little research, and nominate someone. Take it from me, it is truly a good feeling to acknowledge a behind-the-scenes editor. TRA! ```Buster Seven   Talk  12:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I know it Buster. In fact I couldn't agree more that the behind the scenes / social side of Wikipedia is both very rewarding and vital to our mission. Im glad I come across as a content builder, but I've never been totally focused on it.  One of my first edits back in 2008 was to join the kindness campaign. I was lucky that one of the first editors I encountered was the phenomenal Chris the speller, which set a positive tone at the start of my Wikipedia experience.  I've since been frequently awarding barnstars to good editors, and last year I wrote an essay on the value of positive recognition.  Im not sure about nominating any of my fellow squad members though. The problem would be that while I think they're brilliant, others find them controversial. I not sure how I could write a nom that would be both sincere and non provocative. I'd hate to be the one to bring division to your lovely and peaceful part of Wikipedia!  I do have some ideas about how to ensure ARS heroes receive the recognition they deserve, but I plan to wait until the conditions are right. Dont want to risk doing more harm than good.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree on both counts. I was extrememly lucky to have Alastair Haines as a mentor who set me on a focussed and happy Wiki-career. Early on I tried to create a squad of Wiki-knights that would go around defending the down-trodden masses. ITs still a good idea and I may ask you one day to Join (SHHHHH!. Its a Secret!) Also, my long time WikiFriend Editor Writegeist is a true character that no one else understands. I would love to give him an EotW Aaward but he would not get past the guards at the gate. Controversial and willing to stick his neck into a noose to get a laff.```Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  17:44, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Writegeist certainly seems to be quite a character :-) . FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Talkback
Northamerica1000(talk) 12:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Long time no see...
...hope you're doing well. Drmies (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Oslo breakfast
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :-)
Thank you Feyd, haha, I remember it back when I review the article history and saw Northamerica1000 contribution to rescue it from deletion. You and him are a very great rescuer editors! :-) <span style="font-size:1.0em; font-family:Calibri (Body),serif; font-style:bold;">&mdash; иz нίpнόpʜᴇʟᴘ! 23:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hunger topics
Per your idea creating a Wikipedia portal based upon topics related to hunger, here's some links I located. While you have likely seen some of these, perhaps you haven't seen them all. Wikipedia has a great deal of coverage relating to this important topic, as evidenced below.


 * Action Against Hunger
 * Adventist Development and Relief Agency
 * Afghanistan Relief Organization
 * American Refugee Committee
 * American Relief Administration
 * Australian Freedom From Hunger Campaign
 * CARE (relief agency)
 * Children's Hunger Fund
 * Church World Service
 * Commission for Relief in Belgium
 * Cross International
 * Delhi Food Banking Network (currently nominated for deletion)
 * Episcopal Relief and Development
 * Famine
 * Famines in Ethiopia
 * Feed the Children
 * Feeding America
 * Focus Humanitarian Assistance
 * Food and Agriculture Organization
 * Food bank
 * Food Donation Connection
 * Food First
 * Food Force
 * Food for the Hungry
 * Food security
 * Foodways
 * Freedom from Hunger
 * Global Hunger Alliance
 * Great Famine
 * Hare Krishna Food for Life
 * Hunger in the United Kingdom
 * Hunger in the United States
 * Hunger Prevention Act of 1988
 * Hunger Task Force, Inc.
 * Jewish Relief Agency
 * Kids Against Hunger
 * Kraft Fight Hunger Bowl
 * List of famines
 * Local United Network to Combat Hunger
 * Meals on Wheels
 * National Crusade Against Hunger (Mexico)
 * North Korean famine
 * Oxfam
 * Share Our Strength
 * Society of St. Andrew
 * Soup kitchen
 * Stop Hunger Now
 * Walk the World
 * We Are the World
 * World Food Council
 * World Food Programme
 * World Hunger Relief Week


 * World Hunger Relief
 * World Hunger Year
 * World Relief

It appears that there are many more Wikipedia articles available. Again, as time allows, I can assist in the development of a portal to cover this under-reported and vitally crucial topic. Sincerely, Northamerica1000(talk) 07:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks ever so much for this North, you're right I didn't know about all those articles. Im not expecting to have a clear couple of hours to work on this for the next 7 days, but should do the following weekend. There's no deadline, but Im going to set myself a target of cop June 9th to create the portal, or at minimum, to post on my talk or subpage the full info you advised per this diff. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying! Here's a few more pages that are useful:
 * Category:Hunger relief organizations
 * Category:World Food Programme: has several biography articles that could be used in a selected biography section
 * Category:Food banks
 * Category:Wikipedia Portal templates: vital, and makes portal creation easier and standardized
 * – Northamerica1000(talk) 02:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

KW block length
The discussion at this thread is about a single edit, which, unless I missed something, has nothing to do with RfA. I accept that an editors complete history is relevant to determining the appropriate block length for this edit, but I think it is an abuse of process to propose anything related to RfA in this thread. If someone wants to create an RfC, which can cover the waterfront, they should do so, but using this one edit to propose remedies unrelated to the original incident is not something I think should happen.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  00:04, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * For me there's a strong relationship with RfA. If you read the overall thread, 'Request for Adminship' / RfA was mentioned about 10 times prior to the problematic edit. Although I don't think KW is helpful at RfA, I've no strong desire to see him topic banned, his presence might hasten the radical reform that process needs.  I made the proposal as a sort of compromise solution, as I'd hate to see him remain indeffed. As I implied, KW is an all too rare scholar, and I like him due to our shared interest in topics like Simone Weil,  universal reconciliation,  and his defense of a certain excellent but sometimes misunderstood editor.


 * Maybe I was being pessimistic, but prior to my comment it seemed there was strong endorsement for an indeff. A community consensus for an indeff can be effectively a permaban,  even when some say "indeff doesnt have to mean infinite".  I couldnt defend KW by making light of the comment, as I did think it was extremely OTT,the sort of thing that drives editors away, or at least discourages essential intergenerational collaboration and mentoring. Anyhow, while I can't agree with you at all here, its good some are unequivocally taking KW's side, and thanks for the comment. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You bring up a good point I glossed over, that the block and subsequent block duration discussion was not a standalone thread but a subthread of the iban discussion. I'm not a fan of ibans imposed in this way, so while I looked at the earlier material, I didn't study it, and didn't appreciate that it involved RfA that much. That complicates the situation.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  11:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Im gutted to see the indef its still in place. At least the AN was closed in such a way that Keifer can easily get the block lifted if he makes a commitment to take care to avoid the appearance of making such insinuations again. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Hunger relief
Portal:Hunger relief updated. Scroll down and view the categories and topics sections. It's a start. Cheers, peace, Northamerica1000(talk) 13:27, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much North. Great selection of articles, all of those are either examples of hunger relief or highly relevent. A shame some of them are only stubs or have unsightly tags, but as you say, it's a great start! :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Workmanship
I was musing about barn raising in another discussion recently. Here's a barnstar for yours too:

This week's articles for improvement - 22 July 2013 to 28 July 2013
posted by Northamerica1000(talk) 12:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you!
Just want to say a big thank you for giving Occupy (book) its GA review! Much appreciated! Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject Invention

 * Thanks for your kind reply at my talk page, and happy editing! Northamerica1000(talk) 06:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey FeydHuxtable. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 22:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Clarification
I provided some of the sources cited on Talk:Bradley_Manning/October_2013_move_request, but not all of them. Josh Gorand (talk) 10:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Evidence phase open - Manning naming dispute
Dear FeydHuxtable.

This is just a quick courtesy notice. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by September 19, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Manning naming dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Seddon talk 23:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Re: Simone Weil
Ti ringrazio, ma il merito è soprattutto di MLWatts. È stato lui a capire quali sono i criteri adatti per caricare alcune immagini di Simone Weil su Commons. Speriamo che almeno queste non vengano cancellate. :-) Ciao --Spinoziano (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the barnstar you awarded me! I'm glad the pictures I uploaded to Commons were helpful for many articles in different languages... making sure they were out of copyright took some doing, but it was worth it. Cheers, --M.L.WattsWatts up? 11:34, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Bradley Manning/October 2013 move request
Greetings. Because you participated in the August 2013 move request regarding this subject, you may be interested in participating in the current discussion. This notice is provided pursuant to Canvassing. Cheers! bd2412 T 21:28, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Kinetic architecture
Dear Feyd, I understand your point and will find the best way for Jose Leonidas Mejia's contributions to be included at the article. A blog is not enough and I agree. But I will insert the link on Arkinetic House, that Jose Mejia invented as one of his contributions to kinetic Architecture. Thanks again and see you around. kitaro —Preceding undated comment added 18:01, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Dear respectable Mr. Feyd Huxtable, Please give me a hand on a revised editing at Kinetic Architecture as I added again the following paragraph to the Historical view point, so you can see my grammar and make possible the content of this editing to be part of the whole article.You did a nice change on some words in September 2013 and would like if you approved my suggested editing to that portion: History ..... In 1989, Architect Jose Leonidas Mejia from Columbia, did improved the concept in a deep application. He experimented with multiple displacement of the structure to make the building to transform every day with different shapes. Mr. Mejia is working on an experimental project he called "The Arkinetic House", which is feed by renewable energy sources as Biomimicy is a concept that he says is relevant to imitate nature into architectural designs. http://kinetic-architecture-jose-l-mejia.blogspot.com/2010/02/kinetic-architecture-of-jose-leonidas.html kitaro

Your opinion is valued at WikiProject Breakfast
Please see Want to be a guinea pig for Flow?. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Changes to Energetically Modifed Cement Page
Dear Feyd:

I have been editing the Energetically modified cement page since Jono2013's sad demise. Jono2013 has not returned since he collapsed in May.

I am writing to you because, having read certain entries, you had an insight into "self-healing" so I thought you might find the EMC page interesting. I have spent entire weekend adding a section on pozzolanic chemistry, also with a short sub-section on EMCs' self-healing (autogenous effects). It is all fully-referenced and you may find it interesting.

Also, you may find some of the papers mentioned in the autogenous section regarding Hagia Sofia, very interesting.

On account of Jono2013's work the page was rated a "B" by the Chemistry portal. I have done a lot of work since, and want to drive that rating higher. I think you are the type of person who will "appreciate" the full enormity of the requirements for writing a decent page on applied material sciences, the implications of the subject-matter of article, and also the "multi-disciplinary" approach needed in order to fully capture matters in the article.

I.E., I think it is already a very good page but you may have thoughts.

I also plan to write about EMC Activation itself. This will require a deeper analysis of mechanical activation theories, which are not fully understood. Then again, 200 years since its advent, and Portland Cement's role in concrete formation is not fully understood either.

Kind regards 213.66.81.80 (talk) 08:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

God jul på dig!

Hello Feyd!

Thank you for your message and kind offer. I am sorry I have not been able to respond but I have been very busy especially with xmas approaching. In Sweden we have it one day earlier than in UK and so it has been busy busy busy. I have not been able to contact Jono. I don't know what happened there but if I do manage to hear from him I will be sure to pass on your kind messages.

Regarding your thoughts, well I am going to be away in the mountains here in Sweden (no internet!) for at least until after the New Year so I would not want you to ruin your xmas break working on EMC!

Why don't we "re-convene" in New Year sometime? By all means if you have a suggestion for the intro section to the page, then why not drop it on my talk page and we can have a play with it together before posting it live? I will get back to you as soon as I can but I do not know when that will be as in the new year I must travel to China in first full week back and I do not want to be accused of using multiple addresses and get blocked. So whenever you feel like it -if you feel like it- have a go some time in the New Year and let's take it from there!

Thank you to you once again and kind thoughts with you and your family during the festive period.

God jul och ett gott nytt år! mvh 213.66.81.80 (talk) 22:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you and yours. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  19:13, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Injustice, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Boilerplate (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Hunger in the United Kingdom
Thank you for creating this article. I've added the "Europe topics" template at Hunger_in_the_United_Kingdom; can you believe your article is the first article on famines in a European country? Through I wonder if the Category:Hunger and Category:Famines may not overlap; I've written Famines in Austrian Galicia a while ago. I wonder if articles discussing hungers and famines in a given country shouldn't be renamed to a certain standard, i.e. what do you think about renaming your article to Famines in the United Kingdom? (If you reply here please WP:ECHO me, thanks). --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 13:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
 * @User:Piotrus I might have supported your RfA again if I could have got a nice kitten like everyone else. The rename you suggest is out of the question, over 95% of the article, and over 95% of the sources, are about hunger not famines. I shouldn't have to explain the difference between hunger and famine to a professor of your obvious talents and knowledge. If someone like you rushes about the wiki making random suggestions without taking the time to assess  situations first, you run the risk of being annoying or even coming across as a troll, as per some of the diffs on your RfA. A shame as to me you come across as someone of the highest potential ( I don't just mean on Wikipedia). Many would respond to the hazing you've had at RfA by becoming more cynical and perhaps embittered. But perhaps you'll be courageous enough for a little painful introspection, and come out with less ego and so much more ability to read (and change) situations. FeydHuxtable (talk) 00:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Your thoughtful hazing here is noted, and added to my ongoing introspection. Thank you for the constructive elements found within. Cheers, --<sub style="border:1px solid #228B22;padding:1px;">Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 11:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

New article
Hello Feyd: Here's a new one I created today, feel free to improve it if interested: List of public house topics. Cheers, Northamerica1000(talk) 13:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for that North, it looks great. I was just checking in and don't have time for any more wiki work for a while, so just pinging pub loving editors @User:Andrew Davidson and @User:Edwardx as they might like to appreciate/ work on it too. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's all good. Thanks for taking a look, and hope all's going well for you and yours in your part of the world. Northamerica1000(talk) 13:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Citadel spread
Hello there Feyd! – Per your interest in hunger relief topics, check out and feel free to improve the new Citadel spread article. NorthAmerica1000 13:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Data doubling
I was interested in your 12 hours quote. The ref you gave in turn referred to an IBM document, designed to sell IBM services, written in 2006, that said "it is predicted that" data will double every 11 hours, with no reference (or mention of the Internet of things). Of course, as you will be aware, doubling every 12 hours is an increase of a thousand fold every 5 days, or a billion-billion-fold every month, so the claim is ludicrous on its face. If you have any further information on where this claim originated, though, I'd be interested to know. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC).


 * Hi Rich. No, I don't have further info on the IBM claim. I agree it seems unlikely the 12 hour rate could be sustained, on reflection perhaps I should have not have included that claim as it's not necessary to the main point about exponential growth.  Was a little excited to see Idot had finally (IMO) cracked the riddle about the forces driving the death spiral across all the different language wikipedias. If you're interested in this sort of thing, then in case you didn't already see it, the recent cicso report about data growth over the next few years is much more believable. Here's a nice summary with reference to Internet of things. All the best to you too. FeydHuxtable (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed an old comment of yours...
...at an AfD someone linked to, and I just wanted to drop by and say that I admire your position regarding BLPs of folks who don't want one. I don't know how popular a position it is, but IMO it's a kind and decent one, and I just wanted to tip my hat to you. Cheers, 28bytes (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't believe Im being thanked for a delete vote! For what it's worth it's still my view that the subject's preference should be decisive in case of borderline and even intermediate notability. Some very moral editors seem to take the opposite view, so I guess there must be complexities Im not seeing. Thanks for the appreciation! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:53, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

We're back baby
shall we rework the article? (for other stuff too)Lihaas (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep it comings.Lihaas (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you seeing the yen? talk about a currency war..From 79 to 113 in about less than 5 years? that's almost a 40% depreciation!Lihaas (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


 * WE AINT don't yet...Lihaas (talk) 10:35, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000; background-color:#FFB924; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Happy Halloween!

Hello FeydHuxtable: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  NorthAmerica1000 04:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

RfA
Hi Feyd: Since you're interested in the RfA process, a matter of note is that several people who contributed to my first RfA (RfA1) in early November 2012 were later blocked for various reasons or even banned from Wikipedia. I'm interested in learning your opinion/perspective regarding all of this.


 * User:BarkingFish – Indefinitely blocked. Asked question #9 in the Questions for the candidate section at RfA1
 * User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz – Site banned
 * User:Qworty – Site banned
 * User:Intoronto1125 – Indefinitely blocked
 * User talk:Northern Antarctica – previously edited as User:AutomaticStrikeout, this person was my nominator at RfA1. Indefinitely blocked per a self-requested block.

Meantime, I continue to perform in the management of AfD discussions, including closing discussions, relisting discussions, adding deletion sorting, managing AfD logs, etc. with absolute objectivity and precision, and have never been blocked. I find the irony of some of this to be slightly humorous, but only ever so slightly (e.g. being opposed by some as not being competent by those who were later found to be incompetent per Wikipedia processes). What would you think? NorthAmerica1000 12:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey North. I find it much too tragic to see much comedy value - as said before I think you have the qualities to be one of the best admins ever. (This is not to say I think you'd be good in the even more advanced roles. You're too peaceful a person to be much of a tactician, and an Arbritator needs good tactical awareness.)


 * Other than KW and Automatic, Im not familiar with those accounts, but in the general case I did say even five years ago that serial opposers seem to especially despise friendly and helpful candidates. So for that reason it was not a big surprise your first RfA had so much opposition.  I especially exempt good Kiefer from this criticism. We had quite a few things in common, I think he was an excellent chap for the most part, we even talked off wiki about a possible meetup in Sweden, as I sometimes visit there.  Must admit though he could sometimes be rather aggressive, and did have high standards for RfA. I remember he always used to label even Kudpung's very moderate reform project as "RfA deform". AutomaticStrikeout  is quite different - Id say he is a very good natured person, but way too young to have the tactical awareness to understand RfA. Not a good nominator for you at all. Spartaz on the other hand would be perfect, and now is still a good opportunity if you wanted to take the risk.  Bit of a shame you don't want anyone talking to TParis, although you did give good reasons not to to Stalwart. I was thinking months back that if it was possible to talk to TParis face to face, he could probably be talked out of any false perceptions he might have about you. So I kept checking the wikimania attendance list to see if he was coming, as then I'd have made a point of going. Ah well that's in the past now. I think there is a chance a 2nd RfA would succeed even if Paris decides to attack. And he may decide not to on his own. I've never understood why he attacked your first, before that I'd perceived him to be a man of honor. And on paper you should in many ways be an ideal candidate by his standards - he makes a big deal of liking folk who are open minded, and good at recognizing others point of view, a quality you have in abundance.  Btw I emailed you a week back to advise on RfA tactics. You are only the second person I've ever offered my free services  as a campaign manager! Not sure if you didn't reply as you only like to talk on wiki. Anyway hope this is of some help. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:36, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Feyd. A brief note: As I stated here, I don't mind if anyone else notifies TParis ("Do however you please outside of this talk page"), but I'd rather not because that user has stated in the past that he prefers to limit communications between ourselves (diff). See additional diffs I provided at the discussion linked above for more context. I remain neutral, so if that user changes their mind about the matter, then so be it. However, commentary at the end of the discussion here (second post from the last), appears likely be about me (although not certainly), and doesn't inspire confidence. NorthAmerica1000 01:44, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're right North. I'd seen that thread before, but not the comment near the end, as I was focusing on the reasons folk were declining to run. Based on this up to date info, probably best to not to say anything. On the bright side, if the person in question appreciates they're not objective where you're concerned, it's more likely they'd not involve themselves in any 2nd RfA, or at least not attack it too forcefully. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:04, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:Stalwart111 here per the above. NorthAmerica1000 22:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Appreciated. As on NA1K's own talk page - I'd be keen to see him run again and would happily put myself forward as a nominator or co-nominator. My only concern is that I spend plenty of time around here in contentious AFDs and subsequent ANI discussions. There are plenty of people who dislike me for reasons completely unrelated to my desire to see NA1K given the mop. I'd hate to have that process (the "campaign" as Feyd nicely puts it) derailed because of irrelevancies. In the same regard, I'm familiar with most of those accounts but none of their reasons for leaving (forced or voluntary) had anything to do with NA1K as far as I'm aware. I'd object strongly to any suggestion that NA1K isn't suitable for adminship because he was previously supported by those no longer part of the community. Spartaz would be an outstanding nominator if you could get him on board.  St ★ lwart 1 1 1 23:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed that Spartaz would be ideal. Unless Im totally misreading, he has already said he's up for nominating North: I have reviewed your closes and for this reason I'm suggesting we make this official  following on from his previous statement "If you are interested in being nominated please let me know.....".
 * North as your co campaign manager with Stalwart, I recommend if you're up for taking the risk, you post on Spartaz's talk saying you're ready to stand if he's still willing to nom. And ask Spartaz if he thinks a co nom from Stalwart would help. I personally think it would, but Spartaz can write a very powerful solo nom, and there are a few that think having more than one nominator is over baking. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Data... please.
Hey there. I'm a very visual person. Could you give me a table with active editors, failed RfAs, Passes RfAs, failed RfBs, & Passed RfBs per month? I could turn these numbers into predictive graphs showing a few things that might help your case. Thanks. — &#123;&#123;U&#124;Technical 13&#125;&#125; (e • t • c) 17:02, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Some thoughts on your RfA proposal
I know this discussion has only just opened, but with the flurry of activity so far, I've been reflecting on it and my own stance since I've opined there. It's pretty clearly met with some serious disagreement, but at the very least, there are some ideas on the table that I hope can be productive takeaways so far based on my read of things: This is all to say, there is a lot of work ahead, as I'm sure you expected no matter what the outcome of this discussion was. <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 14:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Many editors who want RfA to be maintained still recognize where you're coming from in this proposal. I certainly do.  Even though they disagree with this approach, I think these are editors you want to seriously consider working together with on the other side of this proposal if you want to see something happen.
 * Many editors are flat out not going to accept abandoning the process without some alternative done or in the works. This point can be debated based on the premises you laid out in your proposal (perhaps another waste of time), but I don't think this is unreasonable even in consideration of past failures to arrive at a new model for RfA.
 * and many others agreed that they aren't convinced there are significant problems with how RfA works. This is fair, since claims for declining participation in RfAs lack evidence outside of personal observations and self-reporting, which, speaking as someone with research experience, are not the greatest methods of data gathering for the kind of claims being made.  (I saw you note there was "non anecdotal evidence" somewhere-- but looking WP:RFA2011 and its associated pages, I didn't see anything like that.)  It might be good to consider identifying folks who might consider running an appropriate study, like a factor analysis, perhaps through an Individual Engagement Grant.
 * The decline worries many of us. It is the cause that is in dispute. Being certain about the reasons for the drop in numbers seems like the best place to start. I asked for views here. What are your thoughts? A study? A simple poll? A survey? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry this has spilled onto a couple of pages. Let me express a couple of thoughts on methodology:
 * One approach is to conduct an exploratory factor analysis. We've advanced ideas about why adminship has been declined already:  Some of these factors deal with the specific editor (attitude, preparation, interpersonal factors), some of them deal with the system (instances of behavior that disrupts the process, that bad questions are permissible, degrees of harshness in opinions, general expectations).  Some deal with the behavior of other admins and editors (the degree to which they invite and nominate).  There is also the case that some of these factors interact with each other (i.e. problematic factors in the system might create bad attitudes about RfA), which is fine, because I doubt any of these factors are completely independent from other ones.  Researchers would need to think hard about what things go into what factor and how to measure them, but this approach might allow us to look at what factors were most responsible for the decline.
 * If we do a survey asking folks about why they chose not to engage in RfA, I think a hugely important thing needs to happen is that editors needs to avoiding reading into responses or conclusions as though they mean something else entirely. That comment about how someone says "RFA is too hostile" really means "I don't actually want to take on that job" just isn't a valid unless there is context suggesting it.  (There are, of course, responses that can be multiply interpreted, e.g. "I am afraid to do an RfA" could be because it's hostile, or because they simply don't like being visible, or because they feel like their chances are slim because no one will nominate them, or whatever).
 * <font color="green" face="Candara">I, JethroBT drop me a line 16:53, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with all you say, except the possible implication that I might be taking part in the future hard work. IMO if you play a prominent role in a reform effort and it fails, then especially if you're a fairly low profile editor like myself, you become a liability to future attempts. So the best thing you can do is get out of the way, at least for several years. This is why I took no part in RFA2011 even though I've long strongly felt the brokenness of RfA is one of the biggest reasons our community is less collegial than it could be, and doesn't achieve it's full potential. (Id previously took a big part in the sept 2009 reform efforts. ) So no more serious RFA reform work for me until at least 2019.

Thanks though for the message and for supporting the proposal, it's good to know there's others who see the RfA beast as a serious issue. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Thank so much Yunshui, I love the barnstar. Although editor Townlake deserves one much more than me. I lack the imagination to conceive such a genuinely new approach to the RfA problem - it was Townlake who originally made the proposal on the RfA talk page, Im just his point man. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RfA Talk
Reading of the RfA proposal at the Village pump and elsewhere caused me to revisit my failed administrator attempt and to re-live a rather painful period in my WP-life. Since then I have been silent on many important issues that concerned me before I withdrew. I think I was thrown under the bus by the first oppose and never was able to recover. In hindsight I'm glad I didn't make it. I know I thanked you at the time for your support and your rebuttal to some of the opposes, but let me thank you again. I know there are good editors that suffer the bad results of a failed attempt at "adminship". The support is easily forgotten but the sting of the opposes lingers on. ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  19:03, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for inadvertently being the cause of painful memories Buster! I hope you're also able to see the marks left by some of those stings as badges of honor? The brightest light casts the darkest shadow. c.f. John 3:20, John 15:18 . At least you're still here and remain a positive presence. As you'll know several good editors savaged at RfA just withdrew completely. It's not just candidates that suffer due to the current system, it's the existing admin corps, the wider community, even the serial opposers themselves. On the bright side, no harmful thing lasts forever, and only Love endures in Eternity.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

RfA
Hi Feyd: After significant consideration, I have decided to move forward with another request for adminship. Per your previous input regarding this matter, please see the Request for adminship discussion I have started on my user talk page. Thanks for all of your input, and I look forward to hearing from you. NorthAmerica1000 12:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Feyd, this seems like a nice place to say hey, I got nothing against NA1000; I like them a lot better then I did three years ago, in the Occupy time and all. But to vote for them in RfA takes more than that. Since the admin tool has so many applications I simply need to see more experience in all kinds of areas--and such experience often follows from the creation and discussion of different kinds of articles. AfD is an important area, but it's not the only one--just look at all the "civility" and admin abuse cases on ANI. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * It's always nice to see you here Drmies. I think I see what you're saying, and I agree.  Like you I know of no evidence North would be good at making the touger admin calls such as distinguishing tool misuse from firm but useful adminship,  or dealing with our talented but sometimes uncivil FA writers.  If anything, I'd guess they'd struggle with that sort of thing. But that's by the by, North just wouldn't be the type to try muscling in on the more challenging sort of admin work.  They're mostly a cautious person, who'd stick to the mop and bucket side of adminship, like backlogs, maybe some anti vandal work, and  mainly deletion processes where they clearly do have the experience and communication skills to satisfy the vast majority of editors who might take issue with their closes - one of many examples.  Granted, there's an element of faith in trusting that North will stick to the things they're good at, but if there's one thing RfA stats these last few years show, it's that there simply aren't enough good candidates who posses the qualities to be an ideal all rounder.


 * To address the other reason you gave for opposing, North did actually reflect on the lessons of their first RfA in detail and ask for further input on lessons to be learned. As many have noted they've changed their behavior based on feedback from they first RfA. I can see why you suggested North may lean towards recentism, but they sometimes show a good feel for history in their article work too, for example  History of breakfast.  Which brings us back to cookery. Another reason North's fave topic could be seen as non trivial is that pleasure from eating becomes an essential sex substitute for those older people not lucky enough to stay active in the bedroom. We all need regular doses of pleasure in one form or another to stay sane in this wicked world.  Im not sure if this is enough for you to support, but perhaps you could consider withdrawing your oppose?  Adminship is too important to the health of our project for us to miss out on good new additions to the corps. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Feyd. (Did you just call me old???) I looked at those notes and they make me think that NA won't break the project if he gets the tool. But I can't withdraw my oppose, though I appreciate your asking, because of--well, the things I've mentioned before. If I had seen more of NA in other venues (not just ANI, though that would have been helpful) I might well have felt differently, but again, in their note to Stalwart, nothing but deletion is brought up, and there are so many other things to do. As far as I can tell, we don't need more admins to clear up AfD and CSD and all that. We need admins to settle disputes, to close contentious RfCs, to block and unblock, to monitor and patrol SPI, to keep an eye on ArbCom pages and AN/ANI, to make decisions in light of the ever-increasing list of articles that fall under discretionary and general sanctions, to (semi-)protect articles, to deal with BLP matters... And like it or not, NA will be installed, if it happens, with a complete set of tools, not just deletion, and I have no idea if they'll put that block tool, for instance, to good and not excessive use. (Not using it at all is also not helpful.) I simply want to see more. Let's not stare ourselves blind on my comment about some food article or other; I think too many people misread that, and in the end that's not where it's at. NA, if you're reading this, good luck. Drmies (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Certainly was not meaning to call anyone old, after seeing yourself and Andrew discuss the various sex articles I just thought I'd add another reason why cookery can be of increasing interest to some of our readers. I hear what you're saying about North's fave topic not being your main reason for opposing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Sorry for the horrid delay. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:17, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Time_to_replace_RfA
Hi Feyd. Just reading through your proposal at Village_pump_(proposals) and it appears that there has been a good discussion but the time has passed beyond when the vote should be closed, the majority view seems against the proposal and the turnout has also been insufficient to justify such a significant change. For these three reasons do you agree to close the debate? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:35, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Andrew. I agree with your first two points. Im surprised it hasn't been closed already. I'd be up for closing it once Im able to give the debate a good 40 mins attention so I can sum up the outcome. Obviously the consensus is clearly against the original proposal, but a sizable proportion of the 'Maintain' votes are open to changing RfA if an alternative was decided upon first. The current debate is not well structured to produce consensus for such an outcome - much as I respect <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b>'s good intentions, their counter proposal would have had a much better chance if they had closed the other two options first . It's probably too late for that now and would be best to close the whole debate, possibly re-presenting TopGun's plan in fall 2015, assuming our net decline of active admin continues. It would be tomorrow evening at the earliest that I'd close the debate - it's obvious the debate has produced no consensus for any sort of change, but I think whoever closes should carefully read everyone's input first so they briefly sum up the balance of views.  No objection at all if yourself or anyone else wants to close before I get round to it. FeydHuxtable (talk) 23:37, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the ping. I guess I was a little late to observe the impromptu structuring of the proposals (and start a dedicated section for something that was being supported); I admit it would have given some steady course of action if it was even better structured. With that said, I am confident that it will still be taken into account regardless of the fact that many old comments that would have been in this subsection still lay in the old one(s) as they express their intent per se. I'm not an admin, so didn't think an NAC was appropriate as the discussion seemed to be atleast a bit contentious. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 08:11, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome <b style="color:#060">TopGun</b>. I hope you don't mind too much that I've close the whole discussion. With hindsight, I agree your proposal would have had a vastly bigger chance of success than mine & Townlake's. But as we made ours first, for now most of the oxygen available for RfA reform has been used up, and IMO leaving the discussion in place would do more harm than good. If you're not happy with this, you're welcome to revert my close. I'd love for some kind of direct change to come out of the discussion, I just feel that time for that has passed.  If you wait for the current recruitment efforts to run out of steam and relauch your proposal, I think you might be onto a winner. FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:21, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The discussion wasn't structured well for a clear consensus, so it was the right thing to close it. the linked proposals are already independently being worked on. Hopefully they'll get consensus given that this discussion did conclude that another parallel was needed. Cheers. -- <b style="color:#060">lTopGunl</b> (<b style="color:#000">talk</b>) 11:52, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of &#123;&#123;U&#124;&#125;&#125; to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Happy New Year FeydHuxtable!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em;border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! FeydHuxtable, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. NorthAmerica1000 01:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
 * Yappy nu Hear frum me two, ```<em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  01:51, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
<div style="background:orange; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid yellow; border-left: 3px solid yellow; border-right: 3px solid yellow; border-bottom: 3px solid yellow 8px; font-size: 110%; font-family:Tahoma; text-align: center;"> Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Wiki Loves Pride!
<div style="padding:3em; font-family:'Helvetica Neue',sans-serif; font-size:110%; line-height:1.75;"> You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride!


 * What? Wiki Loves Pride, a campaign to document and photograph LGBT culture and history, including pride events
 * When? June 2015
 * How can you help?
 * 1.) Create or improve LGBT-related articles and showcase the results of your work here
 * 2.) Upload photographs or other media related to LGBT culture and history, including pride events, and add images to relevant Wikipedia articles; feel free to create a subpage with a gallery of your images (see examples from last year)
 * 3.) Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Or, view or update the current list of Tasks. This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. Visit the group's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's main talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing!

User:Another Believer and User:OR drohowa

Thanks
Thanks for the barnstar! I've put it on my userpage. Eating Nicely (talk) 14:36, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#000; background-color:#FFB924; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Happy Halloween!

Hello FeydHuxtable: Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!   –  North America1000 23:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message. Sent to users on my mailing list. To opt-out forever, just remove your name.


 * Ah thanks North, it's nice to feel remembered by old friends. Hope all is going well for you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:47, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

for your Seasons Greetings mantle....

 * This card was designed by User:Samtar. I see this is where your cards are collecting. Hope all is well for you and yours. B7

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello FeydHuxtable: Enjoy the holiday season and upcoming winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 18:22, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Almost New Year (UTC)

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

Editor of the Week&thinsp;: nominations needed!
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

Sent on behalf of <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black">Buster Seven  <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:black"> Talk  for the Editor of the Week initiative by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:18, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Technological unemployment, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bank of Italy. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Pride 2016
As a participant of WikiProject LGBT studies, you are invited to participate in the third annual Wiki Loves Pride campaign, which runs through the month of June. The purpose of the campaign is to create and improve content related to LGBT culture and history. How can you help?
 * Create or improve LGBT-related Wikipedia pages and showcase the results of your work here
 * Document local LGBT culture and history by taking pictures at pride events and uploading your images to Wikimedia Commons
 * Contribute to an LGBT-related task force at another Wikimedia project (Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons, Wikivoyage, etc.)

Looking for topics? The Tasks page, which you are welcome to update, offers some ideas and wanted articles.

This campaign is supported by the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group, an officially recognized affiliate of the Wikimedia Foundation. The group's mission is to develop LGBT-related content across all Wikimedia projects, in all languages. Visit the affiliate's page at Meta-Wiki for more information, or follow Wikimedia LGBT+ on Facebook. Remember, Wiki Loves Pride is about creating and improving LGBT-related content at Wikimedia projects, and content should have a neutral point of view. One does not need to identify as LGBT or any other gender or sexual minority to participate. This campaign is about adding accurate, reliable information to Wikipedia, plain and simple, and all are welcome! If you have any questions, please leave a message on the campaign's talk page.

Thanks, and happy editing! --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 20:03, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The Challenge Series
The Challenge Series is a current drive on English Wikipedia to encourage article improvements and creations globally through a series of 50,000/10,000/1000 Challenges for different regions, countries and topics. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are invited to participate.


 * Use   to invite others using this template.
 * Sent to users at Northamerica1000/Mailing list using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC).

Season's Greetings
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello FeydHuxtable: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 15:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Editor of the Week seeking nominations (and a new facilitator)
The Editor of the Week initiative has been recognizing editors since 2013 for their hard work and dedication. Editing Wikipedia can be disheartening and tedious at times; the weekly Editor of the Week award lets its recipients know that their positive behaviour and collaborative spirit is appreciated. The response from the honorees has been enthusiastic and thankful.

The list of nominees is running short, and so new nominations are needed for consideration. Have you come across someone in your editing circle who deserves a pat on the back for improving article prose regularly, making it easier to understand? Or perhaps someone has stepped in to mediate a contentious dispute, and did an excellent job. Do you know someone who hasn't received many accolades and is deserving of greater renown? Is there an editor who does lots of little tasks well, such as cleaning up citations?

Please help us thank editors who display sustained patterns of excellence, working tirelessly in the background out of the spotlight, by submitting your nomination for Editor of the Week today!

In addition, the WikiProject is seeking a new facilitator/coordinator to handle the logistics of the award. Please contact if you are interested in helping with the logistics of running the award in any capacity. Remove your name from here to unsubscribe from further EotW-related messages. Thanks, Kevin ( aka L235 ·&#32; t ·&#32; c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

"another editor living in Japan (強斗武 ) also questions your views on the matter"
That's not unusual: professional scholars never agree on everything, and virtually everything they publish relates primarily to those details on which they disagree, even if there is a general "consensus" view to which they all adhere, and Wikipedians are no different -- we agree on a general principal like "articles should be based on reliable sources", and to those who don't hold this view this can look like we agree on everything. If you look at our discussions of content minutiae, you'll find that User:Curly Turkey, User:Nishidani, User:Sturmgewehr88 (whom you mentioned -- no idea why you copied the kanji string from his sig) and I hardly ever agree; we usually agree to disagree. The reason it looks like we agree is that we all hold the view that Wikipedia should summarize the scholarly consensus and generally not give special weight to any of our more idiosyncratic views.

There are some things virtually everyone who knows anything about Japanese culture and society agree upon ("modern Japanese are not descendants of Chinese horseriding invaders who arrived 4,000 years ago and wiped out the indigenous population", for example), and when we are forced by circumstance to spend time on such questions it looks like we are all friends who hold the same point of view, but we're not necessarily going to agree on more controversial points like whether Clarke or Arudou is a better voice for Euro-Australio-American ex-pats in Japan, or whether it would be more in Wikipedia's interests to avoid systemic bias by putting too much emphasis on World War II in our History of Japan article by potentially risking going too far in the other direction by making it look like a Japanese second-level social studies textbook that whitewashes Japanese war crimes in China while placing a peculiar emphasis on the Sengoku period. We have had cordial disagreements on these matters quite frequently, but if Sturmgewehr88 knew you were essentially citing his cordial disagreements with me to justify editors I criticize for adding content equivalent to the "Chinese horseriding invaders" stuff, he would probably be aghast.

(In case you are wondering, the above two cordial disagreements are oversimplified versions of things over which I actually argued with CT and SG88 back in 2015, while the "Chinese horseriders" thing is something a friend of mine back in Dublin told me a university professor in Akita had told him when he studied abroad here; it is just silly-enough-sounding that I think any educated layman who read my slightly caricatured form of it would realize it is gibberish, though, and it bears a reasonable similarity to the view several of Andrew's non-specialist sources in the "Korean influence" AFD were pushing. To be clear, I don't think Andrew actually holds to the "horserider theory" or the Covells' or Diamond's variations thereof: I just think he didn't read the sources before saying at AFD that they looked reliable.)

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, the above content equivalent to the "Chinese horseriding invaders" stuff refers to the claim that Mottainai Grandma was a novel and other similarly disastrous content claims added to the article space out of sheer clumsiness, not to AFD arguments. In the past few days you have justified both Andrew and the editor who did that, so they both seem relevant. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * A link to what is being referred to here, or indeed Andrew's discussion re the "horserider theory" would be helpful for those who follow this up.Nishidani (talk) 13:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I mistakenly thought you had been pinged in the relevant discussion; both you and Gordon were named. Andrew didn't discuss the "horserider theory" specifically. The discussion, which is already closed (hence my coming here) was at WP:ANI. The discussion where he cited both the Covells and Diamond, who each present a version of the theory that Japan was "invaded" in the Yayoi period, is Articles for deletion/Korean influence on Japanese culture. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 14:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note and the clarification Hijiri88. I think I understand the gist of your message. The sort of disagreements yourself, Sturmgewehr88, Nishidani etc sometimes have are the sort of respectable differences of opinion that inevitably arise between scholars. I didn’t appreciate this before, but I now see that in your view the disagreements with the Colonel were of a different nature. In your view, he may have been pushing views that no one with even a half decent grasp of the topic class could possibly hold. I do understand that sort of thing can be come across as an annoying waste of time. I may have made a few such edits myself in the past, and got a slap for it. Hopefully though you can understand why I don't want to come to a swift opinion when it comes to the Colonel. On the one hand, you come across as having good specialist knowledge, though this isn't something I can be 100% confident about as its outside my field. On the other hand, as said I've known the Colonel for 10 year, and am completely confident he has a good command of a wide range of topics, and a generally meticulous approach to assessing sources, even though he may conceivably be over confident when it comes to Japan & India related topics. I've had a quick further look at the discussion and some of your links, and I couldn't identify any mistakes the Colonel was making. (This may be due to my ignorance of the topic.) If /when I next have the privilege of meeting up with the Colonel, I'll try to remember to ask him about this. In the mean time I think I'll bow out of this discussion as I lack both the time and expertise to contribute usefully. If others want to continue to discuss here then no worries.  Hopefully we can maybe have a good discussion about Japan or other parts of SE Asia  sometime later,  a most interesting part of the world. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I read Hijiri's link: there is nothing personal in this and I found Andrew's approach far more intelligent than the other interlocutors whose position he was, independently, endorsing. There is no doubt he put in a genuine effort to grasp some complexities: the problem is that the topic is, like the I/P area it reminds me of, a minefield of POV obsessions, and even a polymath can easily miss things. No one would doubt A Toynbee's magisterial command of many fields, yet he completely misread the intentions of the leader of Sōka Gakkai when inveigled by its leader to spend time working on a book length exchange of views on religion, Hijiri is correct in his insistence that the several people he mentions should not be bundled together as a clique (the same thing happens in the I/P area with myself and a few other 'pro-Palestinian' stalwarts, whose only common trait is an insistence on a high RS bar, scholarly methods for assessment of claims or facts, etc., something which means, operatively, that we appear to agree with each other, whereas were we to meet up, each being strongheaded, the probability is that we would disagree on numerous I/P issues): I have been, often, harsh with him, rightly or wrongly, and reverted by the others at times, but we do respect each other's work here. Regards Nishidani (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Apologies Nish for, as I said on your talk page, getting the link wrong again. The recent discussion that brought this on was at AN, not ANI.
 * Feyd: Yeah, that all seems reasonable. Honestly, I think if I had time to put together all the diffs with clear commentary, I could probably convince you that Andrew needs to at least have his recent cautioning regarding Indian articles expanded to all articles at AFD; I would be happy with a warning that further comments of the kind he has been making could result in a TBAN, but I didn't expect even that to come of the mess of an AN thread that that was. As I've said a few times, I'm more inclined to place the blame on Zxcvbnm's carelessness and haste than any of the people who opposed any action, even Andrew's "friends" such as yourself. I don't expect you or anyone else to "come to a swift opinion", and I apologize if my comments on the Andrew Davidson AN thread or the Dream Focus ANI thread came across as assuming bad faith on your part. (That said, I linked AFDs where Andrew's errors were specifically pointed out by myself or other users, so I don't understand how you couldn't identify any mistakes he was making.)
 * On an only loosely related note, what do you make of these edits by Dream Focus? This would be the second time he has mistakenly described a book that was not a novel as a "novel", and essentially argued with me that it actually is a novel when I've pointed it out. The last time was here but this time there was no direct interaction; I, not wanting to directly revert him under the circumstances, asked User:Curly Turkey on his talk page to take a look at it, since he was involved in the previous incident, and DF, apparently noticing my comment, responded by amending his "novel" to say "non-fiction novel", which is still inaccurate as the latter term describes a genre of narrative prose that purports to accurately portray factual events, whereas the book under discussion is apparently pure non-fiction. But all that said, I think the revert would perhaps come better from a "friend" than someone DF has previously conflicted with, and you seem to be a good-faith editor who can perhaps be more effective in explaining to him the difference between a "novel" and a "book". The text I think would fit best is here.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:55, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, CT apparently went ahead and made the fix while I was writing the above. I guess you could still take a stab at explaining to him what a novel is. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:08, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I do in fact know what a non-fiction novel is. If you want to change it to "book" instead, I honestly don't care.  It'd be great if your edit history didn't show that most of your edits involve you still going around talking about me and others you don't like, but instead you found something else to do.   D r e a m Focus  02:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you know what a non-fiction novel is, then why did you call Washington's Spies one? It seems much more likely this ties into your having previously claimed (in the that novels and books were interchangeable.
 * Anyway, I was editing happily in my Manyoshu hole until February, and I would love nothing more than to just go back to it. You are on notice about harassment and personal attacks. You should be very careful about how you interact with me and other editors going forward. Your recent activity (the change of "novel" to "non-fiction novel" and your showing up here when you hadn't otherwise edited this page in six years) indicates you are monitoring my edits; I would ask you to stop. Yes, I was talking about you, and yes, you are entitled to know when people are talking about you, but you are not allowed monitor my edits for harassment purposes: if you have a legitimate concern about my edits long-term (say, for example, I routinely make content errors of a particular type, leave poor grammar in the article space, etc.) then you should raise it on my talk page.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You talk about me, I can respond. You don't like it, then don't mention me at all.  And you don't control FeydHuxtable's talk page.  Anyone can monitor the contributions of others, its only harassment when they follow you around to edit wherever you do, or ask someone else to do that for them.    D r e a m Focus  05:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @Nishidani, thanks so much for the balanced post, and the reminder of how rewarding Toynbee can be. (My guilty pleasure is Spengler, I know there are massive problems with him, he certainly was one to make over confident assertions about cultures he didn't really know, but for me he succeeds in bringing certain mysteries to light in a way no one else ever has.)
 * Spengler is certainly more apt, perhaps, for out present age, but I must confess I prefer other pathologists of history. As to Toynbee, he has been for 50 years regular bedtime rereading. His son Philip once, with some cause, complained that his father's poring over weighty tomes made his son's childhood unduly solitary, but, when I think of that I recall Evelyn Waugh's wolfing down a rare packet of bananas, destined for his kids, shipped to England, before the hungry eyes of his children. Auberon never quite got over that, and by comparison, Philip had it easy. Noting the banana incident doesn't detract from Waugh's novelistic brilliance: but it does remind one, as one giggles, to recall that satirists trading on human follies shouldn't leave a dense paper trail of their own inhumane foibles. Best regards.Nishidani (talk) 08:45, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed. On the other hand, my mistress Simone Weil had this to say: If one looks at the actions of the great authors in seperation from their works it "neccessarilty ends up revealing their pettiness above all, because it is in their work that they have poured the best of themselves".  FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mention of her name always saddens me. I read her Attente de Dieu as a boy. Browsing through my old copy, I note something that resonates with your quote: 'Je crois qu'il ne sert à rien de combattre directement les faiblesses naturelles' (Fayard 1966 p.24) Regards Nishidani (talk) 10:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * @ Dream & Hijiri, please give me a chance to compose a comment on this before continuing this argument - might take me a few hours.
 * @ Hijiri - it might be an assumption that Dream followed you here, perhaps he has this page on his watchlist. For my part, Dream is one of only 3 editors who I watchlist. Dream & I almost never talk, but that is because there is nothing to say, I typically find myself in complete agreement with him. There's always exceptions of course. I think Dream may have made some incorrect assumptions about you, which got your relationship off to a bad start, and is why he's been so uncharacteristically unfriendly towards you. This is a shame as you've clearly several rare qualities, you’re definetly not the sort the project can afford to have driven away. Always important we editors don't demotivate each other. Secondly, I would agree on the general point that when it comes to SE Asia topics, it's often a better for generalists like myself or Dream to give way to specialists, and not force them to explain in laymans terms. (Some would say the generalist should always give way to the specialist, but that's not the wiki way, yet IMO it does make sense for SE Asian topics.)
 * On the Novel / Book distinction though, Im 100% confident Dream understands it. Huh, he obviously knows more about it than me, I didn't know non-fiction novels could be seen as a formally recognised thing until I clicked Dream's link. Any apparent misunderstands were probably due to hasty editing, the sort of mistake everyone occasionally makes.
 * I've got a bit more to say on this which you might find interesting, may take me a few hours though. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:23, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * See thing is, the assumptions about me he made were incorrect, but his user page makes it look like he routinely makes the same assumptions about other editors; I haven't examined his past interactions with others, but when his user page says things like The deletionist have finally had their way, in each battle more and more people began quoting these deletionist guidelines and using that as an excuse to destroy ever more articles, an organized cabal of deletionists did appear, the deletionists have taken over Wikipedia, Inclusionist are good, and Deletionist are bad, The insanity of deletionist (this in particular really should be blanked now that DF has been explicitly told he is not allowed question other editors' sanity -- actually "insan-" appears eight times on the page, and all but one -- "insanely popular" -- of those are malignant), the deletionists grow in power and destroy more articles, Deletionists often don't like to think for themselves, etc., it's difficult to believe that his unfriendly behaviour toward me was "uncharacteristic"; is it possible that you just agree with him on the stuff you happen to have looked at, and so have never seen how he interacts with anyone who has any conflict with him? Because I find it hard to believe that you could agree with the above "non-fiction novel" edit, his similar edits to the Mottainai Grandma article (which have all been revdelled, but descriptions of them were linked both above and on the recent ANI thread), etc., and honestly I'm hoping that you can talk to him and make him consider not making edits like this anymore. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I too had never heard of "non-fiction novels" until yesterday, but it seems to refer to a subset of historical fiction novels that purport to portray purely historical events. It's not a widely used category, as such works are classified as "fiction" in every library/bookshop I've ever visited. It does not appear to be synonymous with "non-fiction book that tells a narrative", and would not apply to Washington's Spies. The distinction doesn't really matter, though, as DF's comment on CT's talk page implies he synthesized some reliable sources describing it as though it were a work of historical scholarship with less reliable tertiary sources that, probably inadvertently, assumed it to be a novel. And your explanation doesn't explain how he said here that books and novels were interchangeable. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 09:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, I just did a bit of digging: our article's lead, which defines it as a sub-genre of historical fiction, is apparently total bull, as the cited sources seem to take both "non-fiction novel" and "creative non-fiction" as euphemisms created by Glenn Boyer to describe his hoax books. Describing a work of apparently legitimate historical scholarship in this matter, if it was done intentionally, would border on defamatory, but I doubt it was intentional; DF apparently just Googled some keyword, our article came up, he assumed its lead was accurate, and linked it as though it proved his point that non-fiction can be described as "novels". Those sources that aren't primarily about Boyer, such as this one, also don't seem to mention "non-fiction novels". Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * And a Googling indicated that our sources are also ... not bull, but not representative, as the phrase appears to be associated more with Capote than Boyer. That said, the scare-quotes Nuttall puts on "non-fiction" indicates that it is still inappropriate to describe a work of pure non-fiction in this manner. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 11:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * You are quoting things, out of context, from my user page from 7 and 8 years ago. The "Inclusionist are good, and Deletionist are bad. ;)" comment clearly had a winky smiley face after it.  You also quote various parts of a section  User:Dream_Focus which clearly says as it starts Note: the following is a bit of humor. Just in case you didn't notice.  You are also misrepresenting how I used the word insane or commented on the insanity of the situation at that time.  In AFDs people would ignore the notability guidelines quite often back then.  As time went by, things changed.  Countless thousands of articles that had been around for years were suddenly wiped out in a nonstop purge.  But there was the wikia, and you could use Wikipedia:export to send entire edit histories of articles, or large number of articles at once to your hard drive then upload there through the import option they had at the time, so things could be preserved.  So less reason to fight about it anymore, for certain types of articles anyway.  Anyway, the television show is historical fiction, but the book is a history book.  Simple mistake, no need for all this drama.    D r e a m Focus  13:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you maintain content on your user page (even after consensus on an MFD was to remove it, despite the "no consensus" result on deleting the page entirely) you continue to "own" it, so defending it with the fact that you wrote it "7 and 8 years ago" is nonsense. The context I removed was no better; basically I quoted a random string of standalone clauses that include the word "deletionist", and every single one of the twenty or so that I checked displayed a battleground mentality (the ones I didn't quote were not "better" but rather just wouldn't make sense as quotes out of their original context). Given this context, it's difficult to take the winking emoticon as indicating tongue-in-cheek facetiousness, but rather that it is your sincerely held belief and you are amused that others don't seem to share it. Anyway, it is good to know that you have finally accepted that the book is not a novel: do you know what a "novel" is and promise to make a sincere effort not to make the same mistake again? Because of the five or six book articles I've seen you edit in the last four months, you made the same mistake on two of them. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There was no consensus to remove anything. It ended in "no consensus" plenty of people saying KEEP.  Previous deletion discussion was KEEP.  Don't care how you read it, most understood it.   D r e a m Focus  23:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Take the personal attacks and battleground polemic off your user page. This is a warning. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No rule was violated, so you can't really give out any "warnings" about it. Going to try my best to ignore you now.   D r e a m Focus  00:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * So, you're not going to remove, for example, the unambiguous personal attack If it was an article they liked, they would've protested, but all those who said this was fine didn't like the article anyway, that their reasoning. The insanity of deletionist. If they can change the rules to be what they want, they just ignore them entirely and do what they want anyway.? (And yes, I did read through Deletion review/Log/2010 July 6: editors on both sides had reasonable arguments, and your referring to the ones on the side you disagree with as "deletionists" and "insane" is highly inappropriate.) Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 08:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * When you things out of context, it paints a false narrative. My complain was when an article was closed one way, another administrator could ignore that and come along and just delete it.

==If one administrator closes something, another can then change it to delete==
 * Took the case to deletion review. And apparently they ruled that it doesn't matter what an administrator closes an AFD as, any other administrator can come along a day later and change it to delete.  If it was an article they liked, they would've protested, but all those who said this was fine didn't like the article anyway, that their reasoning.  The insanity of deletionist.  If they can change the rules to be what they want, they just ignore them entirely and do what they want anyway.  D r e a m Focus  14:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Now kindly stop this pointless arguing about something I wrote 8 years ago about a problem that happened there. I don't think anyone wants you filling up their talk page with this sort of nonsense. FeydHuxtable, feel free to hat all of this.  D r e a m Focus  09:26, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Dream. I too am hoping this discussion will close soon, though there may be some value in me trying to lay out some of the overall context first, and then see if H has any closing remarks. Just trying think of what not to say - I could easilly write a lenghty tomb once I get started on the Inc/Del conflict. To be fair, while H is clearly missing an awful lot of context, they do have a point about the The insanity of deletionist.  Even in context, it could be viewed as pointing to specific people. So while most of your user page is fine - indeed I've read it several times, I think it's brilliant -  it might be good to cut out just that one line as it could cause offense to good faith editors, or at least be the cause of future time wasting drama. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Makes sense, you convinced me. Got rid of that one line.   D r e a m Focus  10:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good. Now I guess I'll just have to ask Feyd to deal with the rest; basically any time you label editors you disagree with "deletionists", except in cases where they self-identify thus, it is a personal attack -- I should know, as it was the first personal attack you subjected me to. It is not as clear-cut as "you are mentally deficient", but it is still not allowed under policy. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever calling you that. And I never said anyone was mentally deficient in my entire life.   D r e a m Focus  10:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * DF, please refrain from communicating via edit summary. I had to justify modifying your comment in the edit summary, but you didn't need to respond to some peripheral aspect of said justification as though it were an argument. Anyway, not quoting text that I don't consider to be a personal attack that needs blanking doesn't mean I am doing so to remove the context to make the personal attacks seem worse. Please never make this accusation against me again, as you have done so probably well over a dozen times in the last week, and it is very frustrating. And calling someone "insane" is calling them mentally deficient. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You make a comment like that in the summary, I'm going to reply to it there as well. Kindly stop doing that.  As for what the word insane means in context, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insane it can mean "unable to think in a clear or sensible way".  You need to stop trying to rewrite what I say and making it sound like something far worse.   D r e a m Focus  11:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

{very long and hopefully now redundant comment not related to Japan removed - see talk page history if curious}
 * What’s all this about horserider theory and disagreements? (There’s a lot of text and I’m a week behind on the ping)   ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 15:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's complicated. Basically the owner of this talk page made a comment on an AN thread that appeared to amount to saying it was okay for another editor to pretend to be familiar with the scholarly literature related to one of several hundred AFDs they have !voted in, because you are apparently familiar with Japanese topics and have also disagreed with me at some point in the past. The editor in question has a habit of !voting down AFDs on scholarly topics with the assertion that he has checked the literature, but in that particular case the literature he was citing was fringe stuff supporting some version of the unpopular horserider theory, but they probably didn't even know that because they had clearly not read (or at least not understood) the sources in question. The argument that because you and I have disagreed on stuff that makes it okay for other editors to push remote fringe content didn't make much sense on its face, but the AN thread was going nowhere to begin with. Most of the content of this thread actually relates to a completely different problem. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 00:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think we’re on the same page now. Ironically, I’m actually a supporter of the horserider theory ;)  ミーラー強斗武   (StG88ぬ会話) 16:49, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, to each his own, man. Honestly, I first came across the horserider theory through Ledyard; or more specifically, through Keene citing Ledyard thusly: For an up-to-date, brilliantly reasoned study of this period, see Gari Ledyard, "Galloping Along with the Horseriders." Mostly to get a thorough grounding in the history of continental influences on archaic Japan, but also because the title really intrigued me, I tracked Ledyard's piece down; I didn't find it especially convincing (whenever a mainstream scholar has to preface an argument with "I don't think it's fair to compare proponents of this theory to Ancient Astronaut theorists" it's a giveaway that, whether or not the theory actually is equivalent to Sitchin-Nibiru stuff, it is at best not required knowledge), but it was definitely interesting. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 10:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

please look at
I think you remember me, you gave me "The Original Barnstar" for critics of deleters. please look at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants_talk:IdeaLab/Identify_and_quantify_toxic_users#What_is_wrong_with_this_idea? (Idot (talk) 06:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC))
 * да, брат, Idot. I'd already have never forgot you after your stunningly perceptive analyses back in 2014. And I'm deeply grateful to you for drawing my attention to the page on meta. Interesting how you appeared in my orbit after 4 years, on the same day another rare light has dimmned.


 * Were it not for you, I might not have learnt that the WWF has since at least 2016 been running a project to analyse user interactions with big data & AI techniques, as per m:Research:Detox.  A shame they seem to be focusing on "toxic" behaviour rather than a broader range of metrics including the positive, such as community happiness.  At least their quantitative approach could potentially identify the truly "negative" users, and make it impossible for the usual suspects to game the system and falsely paint good editors as toxic.  It's impressive the Foudation started such a project well before it became fashionable.  The story here has not been told in any source AFAIK, so it may be interesting if I elaborate.


 * Our Cambridge Analytica article comically claims that CA's little tricks were "broke" by the media this March. In fact, their use of big data techniques to influence Brexit and help Trump had been reported by Indy Media even back in 2016. In the first half of 2017, it was also reported on by the Guardian, the BBC and the Observer. Across London, Brussels and New York, at least at the more informed dinner parties, it was the single hottest topic of last summer - and it launched a thousand projects. Behind closed doors, political parties of all cloths began looking at how they could use similar techniques themselves. A good many enterprises set up their own social media analytics divisions around Q3 2017, as did most of the top PR agencies. While similar techniques have been quite widely used in social science from around 2010, many accademics didn't seem to be aware of them until after CA made them famous.  So impressive that the WWF started using similar techniques back in 2016. (I obviously mean just the analytics side, WMF would never stoop to using the manipulation side like CA did) On the other hand, said PR agencies have began to deliver results for their clients in less than two months, whereas the foundation seem to be taking years. But hey, they have to start somewhere, and it is a greater challenge to quantify something like toxicity, compared to the more well studied positive sentiments like brand loyalty or happiness


 * I see your own concern was about permabanners. Again, something I've been thinking about recently. The old ban hammer seems to be seeing more frequent use of late. Like you I don't think it should be used lightly. Some editors have been on wiki for over a decade, devoting to it the greater part of their energies. Being an editor here can become a part of their identity, and a major source of their social interaction. I don't consider it far fetched to think that for some, being permabanned has similar RL impact to a bereavement. Then there's the loss their ban inflicts on the rest of the Wiki - in terms of a lost contributor, and the effect on others wiki morale, especially if the ban was perceived as unfair.  There's even the concern about the effect on the permabanners themselves.  It would be quite normal for a young man to gain great satisfaction from inflicting such a blow on his opponent. Also quite normal for a certain bloodlust to take hold, driving them to seek to permaban more and more frequently. But while it may be superficially thrilling to clock up a string of banned foes, in a deeper sense they are hurting themselves most of all. Sadly, many never learn this until it's too late. And it's no use telling them, they have to experience it themselves. Only a fool trusts to the surface. With some exceptions, MSM news dosen't tell the whole story. Behind every protracted drama here on Wikipedia, there's a whole slew of off wiki messages being sent. You can rarely fully understand  what happens on wiki unless you know (or can guess) what's been said via channels. And more generally, what on the surface seems to be a flawless victory, is sometimes in reality the most crushing defeat.


 * btw, does your user name allude to that most perfect of positive literary figures? You know, Joachim of Fiore long ago prophesised the coming of the third great Age, the age of the Holy Spirit, which would see the world bathed in universal love. A brotherly love that in at least one circle, we still see as set to emanate from mother Russia, with the limitless plain as its prime symbol, where doing good will at last be freed from our western tendency to mix it with satisfying our own ego. This may not chime with deleters apparently being an even bigger problem in Russia than elsewhere, but again, appearances and reality are sometimes two different things. "Tolstoy's Christianity was a misunderstanding. He spoke of Christ and he meant Marx. To Dostoyevsky's Christianity will the next thousand years belong." FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Similar AFD to Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks
You have participated at Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks. Therefore, you might be interested in the the 2nd nomination of the article Articles for deletion/List of breakfast drinks (2nd nomination) --<i style="font-family:'Rock salt','Comic Sans MS'; color: Green;">Tyw7</i> (🗣️ Talk • ✍️ Contributions) Please ping me if you had replied 11:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

DM discussion
LOL at the editors objecting to the RfC not being "neutrally presented". we're literally discussing a review of an RfC that began "the paper is trash, pure and simple"FOARP (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I cannot see in the OP of that RFC where it says this, care to provide the Diff?Slatersteven (talk) 14:19, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * First support vote, directly under the proposal (you know, in the same place where the supposedly non-neutral arguments in favour of the proposal in the present RfC are) FOARP (talk) 14:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * A vote and an argument are not the same thing. Look at the structure of the other RFC.Slatersteven (talk) 14:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "A vote and an argument are not the same thing" - in this case they are, quite literally, exactly the same thing with a different name. In the 2017 RfC the proposer wrote their reasons for making the proposal right under the proposal, and in the present RfC the proposer wrote their reasons for making the proposal under the proposal (but separated by a section about the conduct of the RfC). Seriously. FOARP (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It was a vote in the survey section, not the opening statement. The difference is that the section immediately following on form the proposition is not ta vote, it is a statement that can be read as part of the RFC opening statement (maybe incorrectly, but still possible).Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The reasoning in the present RfC is separated by an intervening section and clearly labelled "arguments in favour". Are you really saying that proposers should explain their reasons for proposing, or that doing so in a support vote posted right after the proposal by the proposer is somehow different? FOARP (talk) 15:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, as one is clearly a vote (and thus can be seen as a vote) the other is not a vote and thus has the advantage of putting its case (as opposed to a vote) first, as the OP acknowledges, going first gives you an advantage). A vote carries less weight then a statement,.Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The argument in favour is always counted as a !vote, so it even functions as a !vote. !Votes, on the other hand, include arguments. Honestly, what's the difference? FOARP (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well it should not, as in the past I have lunched RFC's I do not agree with in order to get it started and to solve an impasse. RFC's should be neutral when launched, that is why you make your vote separate.Slatersteven (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

RFC
Please read WP:RFCST, it will help you the next time you try to launch an RFC to follow this advice.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I had already read that, but I appreaciate the thought. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Honestly this debate is probably one of the most disappointing ones I've seen on Wiki. It's just degenerated into personal attacks and implications of bad faith. The attempt to close the debate right from the get-go, for the apparent crime of arguing in favour of the proposal, is pure abuse of process and par for the whole. EDIT: though the debate about the Sun appears to be headed for no consensus which is heartening. FOARP (talk) 19:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we may even get to no consensus on the DM RfC as well, so long as it avoids being procedurally closed. Puts a good peg in the ground for a 3rd RfC late in the new year. FOARP (talk) 22:39, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Possibly. At the start I thought we might even lift the ban on first go; the evidence based case seemned overwhelming, even from a fair minded left wing perspective. Sadly it doesn't seem to have been an evidence based debate, despite the excellent contributions of yourself, Dom, Andy etc. Having to wait a whole year for a 3rd RfC rather seems like adding insult to injury, but I agree that's starting to look adviseable. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2018 (UTC)


 * For info the questions about signing the opening statement are pretty much the direct result of the discussion being posted to the centralized discussion template. ^^ (sorry if that is an annoyance, it has indeed seemed to attract new voters) :-| &mdash; 🍣  SashiRolls t ·  c 01:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It's no problem. It says in WP:RFCST that you can sign the opening question with , so it doesnt display your name, which was my preference. But no big deal if others prefer a regular sig.  Thanks for the good editing on yellow vests btw. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Peace Dove Christmas
Happy Holidays. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   23:43, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Xmas

 * 2018 XMAS.pdf FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:25, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
<div style="border: 3.5px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAE0; padding: 0.1em 0.2em; height: auto; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">



 FeydHuxtable , Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! North America1000 14:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

Potential new article
Hi Feyd: Kensington Soup Society has potential to be created, if you're interested. Here's some background from an (unreliable per Wikipedia's purposes) source. North America1000 16:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks North. It looks a most interesting soup kitchen collective. I'll add it to my (long) wiki todo list. Let me know if you cant wait and I'll bump it up my priority list. Always happy to return a favour to a good wiki friend like yourself.


 * Generally speaking though, I'm the last person that needs telling about our missing hunger relief articles. I'm already painfully aware of said coverage gap. I'd guess I've added more content on central topics in this field than possibly any other editor. There's over 3,000 food pantries and soup kitchens currently operating in GB alone that don't have articles. Here's the thing though,  it's not lack of coverage that's the underlying problem.


 * Hunger is something that's getting more prevalent across the world, and in both the US & GB. Here in GB it's been increasing at an especially alarming rate. UK goverment isn't even collecting official stats on these things until later in the year, but from non gov sources it looks like we now have a greater prevalence of children going hungry than on your side of the pond, or in the less developed EU countries like Romania. Like Gandi says, judge a society by how it treats it's most vulnerable members. Brits used to be role models for the world in this regard. Now we're world leaders only in cruelty.


 * In the past, it always used to be possible to build support for tackling this problem with awareness raising - whether by good NPOV factual articles, or by emotionally affective images and narratives. At least here in GB, something has changed in the political unconscious these past few years that makes much of this awareness raising counter productive. This may seem extraordinary, but it isn't just my opinion, its shared by many working in the field, including our all party group of MPs. For the last 18 months one of my side projects has to prep a socially media campaign with psychographically targeted micro nudges. I'm now starting to see that even that is likely to fail. Strange that I have my buddy Dream to thank for that. It's a non trivial problem to solve. I don't think you're the religious type North, but maybe you could pray that society will decide to stop the problem getting worse. Extreme hunger is a condition that even all decent right wingers should hate as it can destroy all possibility of self reliance. Yet as the UN says, both our countries have made the political choice to inflict the condition on a rising share of our populations. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:09, 9 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Wow, great response. Regarding the new article idea, it's just an idea, and you came to mind when I stumbled upon the topic while performing some sort of search. Some sources are out there, but there could be wiki-notability issues. Regarding hunger, a big problem is that there is a stigma which occurs once a person or group of people have reached a point of needing assistance. People make assumptions about the person in need, and then may ascribe their situation to personal traits (e.g. laziness, not willing to work, mental illness, drug problems, etc.) Once a person is on the street, it's rough, because people make these assumptions unconsciously, ultimately unknowingly committing the common fundamental attribution error. I've met homeless before who were in their situation simply because they were laid off from work and were living from check-to-check. When the income ran out, they had no choice. Regarding food, fact is, there's no shortage of food, and we need better distribution models that get food to those who need it most. Capitalist societies may not value this notion at times, though. Ever notice how around the holidays (and here in the U.S. Thanksgiving too), everyone is all concerned with hunger relief, but after the holidays end, it's back to the status quo. Also, restaurants throw away literal tons of food that could be used. Some organizations here work with restaurants to prevent this from occurring, enabled in part by allowing restaurateurs to not have any liability in the matter. They pick up the food at close time and then bring it to soup kitchens, etc. This liability waiver is a good thing, because restaurateurs are already busy and don't want to worry about being sued if someone gets sick from food they were just going to throw away. Blemished produce is antoher matter, whereby some supermarkets and stores just throw away perfectly edible food because consumers prefer blemish-free foods. North America1000 02:28, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks again North. The soup society has dedicated press articles and an entire book on it published by Arcadia Publishing so hopefully noteability won't be a problem once someone gets round to creating its article. How right you are about the tendency to blame the hungry for their condition being a big part of the issue. In GB at least, social historians say that's an attitude that largely vanished after WWI, but it seems to have made a come back these past few years. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again
As you and my best mate say who basically supervises my wiki edits and tells me when I get too intense, my writing is very very difficult to understand. With Prof you know who I've gone from incoherent maniac to "interesting what data do you have, what is happening on wiki?". I'm quite serious about the words thing though. Do I make absolutely any sense here? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#%22Deletion%22_-%3E_%22Removal%22_and_%22Warning%22_-%3E_%22Notice_of_policy_violation%22 E.3 (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

HTML tags
Please be careful to close the  tag correctly. Glrx (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

The Sustainability Initiative
Hello : An invitation for you to check out the Sustainability Initiative, which aims to reduce the environmental impact of the Wikimedia projects. If you're interested, please consider adding your name to the list of supporters, which serves to express and denote the community's support of the initiative. Thanks for your consideration! North America1000 09:48, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Your comment in the MfD for the Signpost Humour
Wow. I hadn't expected to read a comment in an MfD that would make me both smile and tear up at the same time, but your recounting of the Chelsea Manning naming issue struck me. Honestly and sincerely, thank you. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome, and your kind words are most appreaciated. FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!
Yum! Thank you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

AE
A request has been opened involving you at WP:AE. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:49, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration
The Arbitration Committee has declined the request for arbitration "Mainstream science and possible pro-corporate POV editing" as premature. You and the other involved parties are encouraged to pursue other dispute resolution methods if required. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv 🍁  17:36, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
Thank you for the barnstar. After looking more detail at the recent controversies around the issue, I am inclined to take your advice. One question: Why do you always call Andrew Davidson "Colonel"? EllenCT (talk) 04:51, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You're most welcome Ellen. There's lot of reasons; mainly as he was known as the Colonel when I first encountered him back in 2008, and as he reminds me of Colonel House. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:31, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well now I am even more confused. Colonel Warden is a different user, clearly. What am I missing? EllenCT (talk) 22:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Ellen, hope all is going well. If you look at the Colonel Warden user page, it says it's an alernative account. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Decline in insect populations
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Excellent analysis
What you posted here was stunning in its insight (if true). Loved the edit summary reference to this. I suspect it is true, given the 'deep dive' comment. I would encourage you to post it in full, in its own section, even in a subpage of your userspace maybe? It really needs more attention than it will get collapsed. May I point to what you said over at the arbitration request? If this is the coming paradigm, ArbCom can be disbanded (I am only half-joking here). Spotted a typo: 'shear' -> 'sheer'. And I didn't know 'extortionary' was a word... Carcharoth (talk) 13:52, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'd be a little reluctant to post it more prominently if it's comeing across as scary (per your reply on Fram page).  I thought  Wikipedia's key early role in the applicability of AI to online life might be a source of pride. And from a Christian scientist perspective, the coming age of AI is deeply comforting, the closest to a realisable utopia some of us may ever see, per the fact God so rarely intervenes if all the grief down here.  Thousands of young people make suicide attempts every year due to online bullying, and there's evidence to believe this does sometimes include harassment on wikipedia. That AI is beginning to used to create a kinder online world undeniably has an upside. That said, I'm thinking your reaction of it being scary might be the more common one. Certainly it ought to be rolled out in consultation with the effected online communities, at a pace they're comfortable with. And it seems especially objectionable to associate it with an unfair ban of someone who appears to have been following policy to the letter.  Agree it would be interesting if the WMF confirms whether or not their deep dive was augmented by AI - it may be they plan to be much more cautious with it than I'm guessing, so it's not something that deserves the communities attention. PS thanks  also for the typo spotting, I spent more time checking for them than typing out the post, but I always miss loads in a long post or article edit.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Signpost case
Hello FeydHuxtable, as we have commented on similar topics in the ArbCom case (whether Fram was given the chance to respond), I invite you to read paragraph 4 of my statement, where I provided some evidence. This is because I expect to leave Wikipedia shortly, and I may not be involved in the ArbCom case further.  starship .paint  (talk) 01:05, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi there
How are you? Thanks again for your help in January with the articles and discussions. Interesting comment in Framgate you tagged me in, thank you I guess. I should note that I don't quite understand it, but fascinating regardless. I do plan to stop being an activist editor, and work on Infectious Diseases. If you're interested after a long peer review I'll be aiming to get digital media use and mental health to FA status if you have any comments. My question to you is what do you think of the primary studies in it at present? Have comments from Cas Liber and Doc James which have been very helpful, as well as the amazingly patient work from Farang Rak Tham. Anything you need help with? Oh, I also joined article rescue squadron. --E.3 (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey buddy! That's great news that you've joined the rescue squad. By chance I was just thinking yesterday maybe I should invite yourself, FOARP & Britishfinance to the ARS, as you guys seem to be kindred spirits.


 * Yeah I wasn't expecting you to fully understand my long Framgate message, few will, just mentioned you as I thought you deserved a tiny bit of recognition per your real world work in getting platform operators to take the issue of mental health more seriously. Congrats on getting the article to GA. I'd already scanned it briefly & didn't have any concerns with the various primary sources (albeit I didn't give all of them close attention, and obvsiously some are likely to interpret MEDS guidelines more stringently than I do.)


 * Taking an article to FA is a bit beyond my pay grade – I was slightly involved with the FA process for a few years as I wanted to take Lord Keynes to that level, but then abandoned the aspiration as decided it was too difficult. The views of James & Cas will be much more valuable than mine as like yourself they're actual doctors. I'd guess both, especially James, will be extra busy until Framgate blows over. So if the peer review closes out soon, it might be worth waiting a bit before noming for FA. Sorry that's all the advise I have right now, am feeling a little stretched at the moment.
 * Thanks for the offer. Rare are the times I ask a friend for help, especially a wiki friend, I normally prefer to be the one who helps out. I forsee there is a chance I might need the assistance of someone with your rather unique capabilities, but not for a few years down the line. Hopefully our paths will cross again soon, perhaps saving articles from destruction with the ARS. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:26, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries at all, no need to stretch, others have come! Your help was invaluable in January, especially with the title and the politics, which has allowed me to form the article as envisioned with especially 's help. Going to work slowly on the related articles in the template, very very slowly, I seem to be finally getting it, WP:NODEADLINE is probably the most important policy for me, when I get passionate about things.
 * And then I'll be switching to infectious diseases.
 * I did put a village pump proposal through about deletion terminology today, will be interesting to see how it goes! I think with Framgate there's a lot of heat around, so maybe it might get off the ground. Maybe. --E.3 (talk) 14:59, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Community health
Regarding [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Community_response_to_the_Wikimedia_Foundation%27s_ban_of_Fram&diff=905316410&oldid=905316144&diffmode=source this edit]: did you mean Re-architecting a global community's health? isaacl (talk) 10:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I sure did. Already corrected, (except the missing apostrophe) and in the same edit linked to the more promising thread on the Arb board by your good self. :-) I might chime in on your thread later, if time allows. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * "The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe"... (More...). North America1000 06:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Precious
You are recipient no. 2246 of Precious, a prize of QAI. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Old good article edits
Hey there, I think you took Currency war to good article back in 2011. There's been some activity on the page, and the edits look a little suspicious to me, particularly in the Currency_war section. I was about to cleanup the refs and typos in there, but it is probably best to check the legitimacy of the edits first. Would you be able to make time for that?  Kees08  (Talk)   06:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure thing Kess08. While not without merit, the new edits have issues on a number of levels. Many would probably just blanket revert the new section you mention.  I tend to the view it's often better to let a new users edits stick for at least a few months, even if they are reducing the quality of the article, as haveing your attempts to contribute reverted can be dis-heartening. Another thing giving me pause is that my understanding of the topic has slipped quite a bit since 2011. Up to the early naughties I worked in investment banks & up to 2010 I did some minor consulting on public policy in the area. But nothing really since then, and since becoming middle aged I've started to forget things I no longer work on.  That said,  please expect me to start talking to the new editor & editing the article some time this weekend. Thanks for the note. FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, that was why I looked for alternatives to blanking. I can cleanup the section if you want, unless you want to use that for training the new user. Let me know if you need any help with it.  Kees08  (Talk)   16:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Idea gathering for fostering collaborative behaviour
In case you missed it, I have started a discussion to collect ideas on changing our procedures and processes so that poor behaviour is a losing strategy, thereby reducing the need to enforce desirable behaviour: see User:Isaacl/Community/Fostering collaborative behaviour.

By any chance, would you be interested in driving a discussion on defining behavioural norms, as had been discussed at Community response to the Wikimedia Foundation's ban of Fram? As it is not something I feel passionately about and I am currently involved in the aforementioned discussion, it's not something I want to drive. However I hate to see the community's momentum dissipating, day after day. I can help with setting up the discussion. isaacl (talk) 23:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry but have to decline for now, partly due to lack of wiki-time, and partly as I'm not the best for the job. The way I read momentum slipped below the change threshold back in mid July. It would need an individual or group with much more energy & wiki-clout than me to get things going again. It might not be a bad thing if the remaining momentum dissipates, per the risk of changes being made that seem good but which have bad outcomes. I might chime in as a regular editor, if inspiration strikes.  Otherwise a better time to re-launch might be after the Fram case concludes, though that depends on what the Arbs find to say.  Just my opinion - would be delighted if prove me wrong by finding some quicker way to get productive discussions going.  FeydHuxtable (talk) 07:56, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries; I completely understand the constraints of time availability and energy. On the one hand, it's regrettable that the attention of the various loud contributors can dissipate so quickly; on the other hand, I am hopeful that those who remain interested in participating would represent a sober second-thought group. It's unavoidable that it takes time to enact change in a volunteer organization that spans the entire globe. Unfortunately this means a lot of initiatives fall by the wayside as potential participants lose focus. Nonetheless, I still am attempting to have a low-burner discussion on ideas for process change, to lay some groundwork for possible future initiatives. Thanks for your feedback! isaacl (talk) 16:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Portals
I read your comments elsewhere about recent interactions concerning portals. The issue is broader than a disagreement between two editors. It's the most protracted and least civil discussion I have seen in my twelve years here, and I am one of many editors who have not emerged covered in glory. Some of us have concluded that we are unable to match the enthusiasm of those with differing views and have simply given up. (For me, the tipping point was the tone of WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Grenada, although I have since resumed editing in non-portal areas at a reduced level.) That particular project may be beyond salvation but I applaud your efforts in fostering collaborative behaviour and I hope that they can prevent similar occurrences in future. Certes (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind words. Yes it's dis-heartening what's been happening with Portals, and I fear you're likely correct that it may be a lost cause. Hopefully it won't take too much longer to fully recover your enthusiasm for editing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:57, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Feyd, it is indeed deeply dis-heartening that the portals project allowed most of the portalspace to rot for a decade with almost no readers. The portals project had no monitoring in place, no systematic cleanup, and no plan or even credible proposals to remedy the decay. Instead, even the deletion of the worst abandoned junk was repeatedly opposed, often very angrily, by editors who were overwhelmingly focused on portals rather than on the topic of the portal concerned. In other words, the support for keeping an abandoned portal almost always came overwhelmingly from a narrow set of portal-focused editors, while the editors who contribute substantively to the topic area stayed away.  Those repeated objections to upholding the project's own longstanding guidelines were what prompted me to pre-emptively summarise those objections in WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Grenada.
 * I had hoped the deletions of abandoned junk portals would have finished months ago, because I thought that the abandoned junk would long since have been deleted, and that we'd be left with over 1200 portals out of the 1500 which existed before TTH began his automated portal-spamming. Instead, as each wave is cleared, more abandonment is found.  So now we have a little over 700 portals, and there's more abandoned stuff still in the queue, some of it in truly abysmal sate.
 * Everyone of us is a volunteer here, and I don't like seeing anyone disheartened. But the dogged pursuit of counter-factuals tends to have that effect. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 02:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

My kitten for you
How are you anyways? Random wiki advice question, I am doing a masters of public health which has heaps of natural synthesis. doctors write with lots of synthesis. do you think that contributing to wiki without synthesis, - do you learn how to separate the two styles of writing, or does one effect the other in a self destructive never never? -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   14:53, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm good thanks buddy. And honoured to add Treo to my kitten collection. How's you?


 * It might be helpful to be clear that we do do a lot of synth on wiki - at least those who write complex articles like yourself do. It's near impossible to create a moderately sized article from a single source while complying with WP:Plagiarism & NPOV. So there's such a thing as 'good synth', where we synthesise material from different sources to build an article. This is fine as long as we avoid drawing novel synthetic conclusions, as diss-allowed by WP:OR.  I once  suggested it would be good to point this out more explicitly in our policy, but the editor most responsible for creating policy disagreed, so I soon dropped the point.


 * As you say, you'll sometimes engage in OR type synth in your non wiki work. I think it's just a case of being conscious that what's bad on wiki is sometimes good elsewhere, & vise versa. Obviously there are a good many, including successful academics, who find our policies oppressive & frustrating.  Personally I've found the discipline of being forced to comply with the various policies has helped my non wiki writing.  Maybe it's a little bit like the cognitive benefits some are said to have from being bilingual?  Hopefully you'll find it a positive too. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh! that makes sense, very good ways to think about it! -- [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   08:12, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

A salute
Hello Feyd: I salute you in your efforts to inform the public about the ongoing problems that occur with hunger, as well as efforts regarding hunger relief. Regarding portals, please take note of some information I collected, denoted and added opinion upon below some while back. North America1000 11:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

At its inception, WP:POG never received actual formal discussion to be enacted as a real English Wikipedia guideline page. Instead, label Portal/Guidelines as an information page using the information page template. There are many reasons why.
 * The gist of the lead for the portal was added subjectively and unilaterally by one user in 2006 (diff), and no discussion appears to have actually occurred about it until relatively recently. Guidelines should be decided upon via consensus, not by a unilateral addition of content from one user. Meantime, the page has been treated as an actual guideline, despite the content being based solely upon one person's opinion, which furthermore, was added to the page at its infancy.
 * Furthermore, the page was shortly thereafter marked as historical (diff), with an edit summary stating, ", not an active proposal per lack of talk page activity; suspect lack of advertisement".
 * After this, and importantly, the historical template was removed (diff), with an edit summary stating , "removed historical tag; this was not intended as a proposed Wikipedia Guideline , but merely guidelines as in advice for portal creators." (Underline emphasis mine).
 * Per the diffs, the page was not even intended as a proposed guideline from the start, and no consensus was ever formed for the content therein. The page was intended from the start as an information page. It's actually rather a farce that the page was somehow converted to a guideline page, because there doesn't appear to be any meaningful discussion leading to that change. It's like someone just slapped the Guideline page template page on it and it just simply stuck thereafter, sans any consensus.
 * Furthermore, the lead of the present WP:POG page is worded as an illogical and bizarre syllogism. Some users have been stating that if a portal does not receive what they deem to be adequate page views or maintenance, then the topic itself is somehow not broad enough. Of course, this standard could not be used anywhere else on Wikipedia, because people would reject this as absurd. For example, the Physics article does not receive a great deal of page maintenance, yet the topic itself is obviously broad in scope, both in terms of the topic itself and in terms of the amount of related content available on English Wikipedia. The manner in which this syllogism is worded on the page is subjective and inferior, and has been misused to define topical scope as based upon page views and page maintainers, rather than upon the actual scope of a given topic.

What do you think? North America1000 11:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks North, this is much appreciated.
 * I don't know enough about what's been going down to have a strong opinion. But this looks like a well presented & powerful argument. I don't disagree with a word; the apparent promotion to guideline status absent consensus seems an especially strong point.


 * On the other hand there may be risks in advancing the above argument anytime soon. There seems to be some very determined & capable opposition. Who don't seem to want to resolve disagreements in a friendly manner, even when approached by exceptionally collaborative & peaceful editors like your good self. On the one hand, some of their personalisation was rather despicable, and its galling to let that sort of tactic carry the day. But they don't seem the sort to pull their punches, so to prevail the pro portal side might have to go all out too. It's unpredictable what would happen, it might turn into the sort of cyber brawl where even winning leaves one feeling like a bully.  (I'm not sure, but my intuition is that much of the opposition is good faith.)  I understand the fate of many potentially valuable portals is at issue, but the anti portalists do seem correct about low page views,  so they can't be giving as much value to readers as we'd once hoped. It may not be functional to risk the drama.


 * Just to be clear I'm not advising you to drop this if you don't want to - you know 1000x more about portals than me. Just saying what I think as requested. If I see any meta discussions for sensible adjustments to WP:POG I'll probably make a drive by comment in support.FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Just curious about your perception of matters. I'm actually tidying up some portals, but planning on possibly taking a break from working on them soon. North America1000 14:23, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
 * As an additional note, the WP:POG page has been downgraded to an information page (diff). Per WP:POG2019RFC, it was determined that "there is clear consensus that the "Portal guidelines" are not, in fact, official guidelines." North America1000 16:27, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Renaming and retiring E.3, did I do it right?
How are you wikifriend? Just felt like a fresh start after digital media use and mental health and it historicity. Did I do it right? Cheers for any advice --CharterAction (talk) 13:51, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey there. I'm good thanks for asking. Always a pleasure to see you around. I'm not a policy expert, but it's looks to me like you've done this imperfectly.


 * Rename & fresh start are different things. If you wanted a rename - you should have asked a global renamer to do it, as per WP:Rename - but I believe this would still leave your early editing history linked to the renamed account.


 * If you want to edit without the link to early edits, then what you need is a WP:CLEANSTART. To be fair, with a generous interpretation you've mainly complied with that.   But ideally, you shouldn't edit the FA for a while. Recently I don't think there's been any real hint of a dispute there, but there was a while back.  Also, the spirit of cleanstart is that youre not supposed to link the new account with the old. So from that point of view even your message to my talk may be a mistake. Would have been better to email me.


 * You may not be ready for an ideal cleanstart yet, unless you're ready to walk away from the FA. So my advice would be, retire the CharterAction account,  and go back to E.3.  Give it a few months, maybe with a wiki break or two,  and then if you still want to, have another go at a cleanstart, this time being more careful to comply with the policy.


 * I'm not sure why you want to avoid association with the early history, but there is a case there is no need to. Wikipedians are very forgiving of early good faith mistakes, as long as the person learns from them.  For someone with exceptional skills like yourself, some clear mistakes in your record can be a good thing.  Some online users want to feel equal with others,  so if someones going to outshine them creating FAs on complex topics, it's useful if the person also has compensating flaws. It's different with say a modest gnome for example, who can afford to be perfect and still well liked.


 * All just my opinion, ignore me if you like. Btw, huge congrats on the promotion. It's a big achievement to get a FA on a topic like this especially considering the early history. In fairness, you did have folk like the Colonel & Dream helping pitching in right from start, it's not surprising it's ended well with those guys involved. Still, the vast bulk of the credit is deserved by yourself, so well done! FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah I came into it as an arrogant "don't trust wikipedia" type and I learnt a lot! but it was a little embarrassing, perhaps from my first wiki experiences a decade ago I took it to be horrifically argumentative place where the person who wins shouts the loudest. Obviously not. But I think I made my point a few times and got the FA on the issue I cared about. I took your advice and switched back. thanks for the kudos, I did keep at it for a year, I think  deserves the most credit as does everyone else who helped. But I do want to switch usernames as E.3 feels like wrong for me as a professional, so I just requested a name change to CחA. thats what I want more than a "clean start" I think it was a year ago I think the community trusts me now! Or somehow as you said even back then when I was breaking every unwritten and written rule in the book! --  [E.3]  [chat2]  [me]   14:36, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process
Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Case Opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL <sup style="font-size: 5pt;color:#999">Query me!  20:37, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

TTD?
You wrote "TTD". Typo?

at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence Thank you for your post. Though, with the impressive research effort you put in, I was surprised you missed BHG's smear campaign.

The context is set forth in POV railroad, which is an extension of the WikiBullying,

which is an explanatory supplement of Civility policy.

Note, that BHG's arguments for deletion of portals also fall apart when scrutiny is applied. For example, she calls the tech ones redundant content forks, but they use transclusion and therefore do not fall under the content forking guideline. Content forking is a problem because you have 2 versions of text covering the same subject which diverge over time, and that is not the case with transclusion. To clarify, all navigation footers postings, fall under her use of the term "redundant content fork". Transcluded nav footers are indeed redundant, but they are not content forks, with each transclusion being read only. Likewise, content in the new portal design is also read only.

I stayed out of the MfDs, and left the portal project, because she had turned them into a toxic environment (especially for me), and my MO is to build. Where there is resistance, I move onto other areas. In this case, mostly to the WWW at large (it needs navigation aids more than Wikipedia does). I tried the other approach (stay and fight, and learned that it is extremely costly)... I had gone through an excruciating war to save outlines from a one-year barrage of attacks, back in 2009, and on retrospect, the time would have been better spent developing something else off-pedia. The portals I created didn't warrant such defense, because they were intended for gathering feedback or the next phase of development. Unfortunately, that feedback came predominantly in a destructive rather than constructive form from a single editor, apparently looking for something and/or someone to take her agressions out on. See WP:Bully.

I believe the way forward for portals, or more accurately, the data they present, is automation. I expect portals themselves will eventually be outmoded by software browsing solutions. The new portal design was/is a browsing interface, and only 1st generation. If the team had been left to continue development, we'd probably be on generation 4 or 5 by now.

The portals I created were temporary, to eventually be replaced by quantum portals (zero-page portals, with no saved content, generated with the click of a button or menu item), which I silently estimated to be about a year or two. It's already been a year, and so we may have had quantum portals by now if the portal project hadn't been disrupted.

Since then, it has become apparent that one can acquire the same benefits provided by the new portal design and its hypothetical successors by (read only) processing of articles directly (push a button, get enhanced portal-like views of the subject). Hypothetically, this can be done by script (and I say "hypothetically", only because there aren't any such scripts yet), but would be more effective if the functionality were built right into the software.

I hope the above refs and comments help. &mdash; The Transhumanist  15:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the typo, and thanks for this useful info. This has changed my mind a little about the case for automated portals, I might have more to say once I thought about it some more. Quantum portals are an intriguing idea. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I knew I should have left the stuff off about quantum portals. The concept can be quite distracting, but will unlikely be implemented, due to the lack of an implementer. Getting back to the main reasons I wrote the post...
 * Thanks for fixing the TTD typo. I should have mentioned earlier that I prefer the knickname "TT". I don't know who started "TTH", but I don't care for it.


 * During your research, did you notice BGH's smear campaign and the rules concerning such?  &mdash; The Transhumanist   09:41, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Yes I did notice multiple WP:POVRAILROAD violations. I can see why many would think I should have highlighted that in my evidence. I'm not doing that as IMO it wouldn’t be in the encyclopaedia’s best interests for BHG to receive severe sanctions. Maybe I'm wrong in this, I appreciate that for most, being told you must be a liar or incompetent can be deeply hurtful, and could discourage further participation here by many good contributors. I guess it's that I see a lot of quality in other parts of her editing that balances out this concern. Also, the "you must be lying or stupid" attack was used so widely against different folk I feel its less of a problem that if just one or two people were being singled out.  (It was even used against myself  here)  Anyhow, my take on the situation is only going to have a very small influence on the outcome of the case.  Sorry this probably wasn't what you wanted to hear. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals
Hi FeydHuxtable, I'm and I am one of the Arbitration Committee Clerks. Please stop posting additional evidence to the talk page of the Portals case. I'll be hatting your comments that are actually evidence shortly, any further evidence posted to the talk page in an attempt to skirt the word count will be removed by a clerk. If you'd like an extension to your word count you can send an email to Clerks-l@undefinedlists.wikimedia.org. Feel free to follow up with me if you have any questions. --Cameron11598 (Talk) 18:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's greetings
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:0.5em 0.5em 0 0.5em; ;" class="plainlinks"> Hello : Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, North America1000 13:36, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays text.png
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#1D4E89; background-color:#0f4c81; border-width:2px; text-align:left; color:white; padding:3px; max-width:750px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);>

FeydHuxtable, Have a great 2020 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

– 2020 is a leap year   – news article. – Background color is Classic Blue (#0F4C81), Pantone's 2020 Color of the year '' Send New Year cheer by adding     to user talk pages.

–  North America1000 21:28, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year, FeydHuxtable!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius: 1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! FeydHuxtable, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– Davey 2010 Talk 00:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hello!
Whats news wikifriend? I'm so dramatic. What u been up too? what do you think of my current wikiskills (I'm proud of my diplomacy, srsly) --Almaty (talk) 08:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * ngl matey, my own diplomatic skills are being tested these days. Even SM & MH is a walk in the park compared to when you try consulting on the intersection between platforms, loneliness & sex. Been taken a break from that sort of thing today, knocking on doors to try and get a friend elected for a councillor bi-election that's came up here in London. We've called it a day early due to storm Dennis. The last woman I was talking is desperate for my girl to win. The Tory councillors are ignoring all her complaints - they've authorised a building site to create more flats on one of the few remaining bits of nearby green space. Lorries are driving into the narrow street at all hours, which she says is an extra concern as apparently there are lots of autistic boys living nearby. Sometimes it's like you can't get away from it...


 * Don't put much weight on my opinion as this is just from a quick check. Your diplomacy looks good, you're becoming much more wikipedian. I'd say you're only about half way to your full potential though. Not something to rush, I think it's cute, but may be good to cut back on the 4chan style a bit. Several of the editors your're talking with are in their 40s or older, and may find it grating, even if they're too polite to say...  I like the changes you've just made to the outbreak articles, they should have an anxiety reducing effect. Good to know you're getting involved with the DC efforts off wiki too.FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hey buddy, I was out canvassing again all day yesterday. As said, when the boss wants you to look at a problem, it's like you can't get away from it. Part of our "script" is to ask folk if they have any local issues or concerns they want to tell Labour about. Several of us were finding multiple people who's main problem was loneliness. I was out with J.C., who told me that just after finishing a conversation with one of these lonely people, the pain of it hit him like a wave and almost brought him to tears. Studies on loneliness often find that women suffer slightly more from it than men. Yet for perhaps the most deeply affecting type, romantic loneliness, a common finding seems to be that men are more adversely affected. This is possibly a result of male pushiness & the fact that some of the studies on loneliness don't control for self selection bias. Due to my political work I sometimes ask over 1,000 people a year about what their main concerns are, where I'm the one who initiates contact so they don't self select, and it's overwhelmingly females that raise all kinds of loneliness as a problem, including romantic loneliness as happened with one of the women I talking to yesterday, who's been unhappy since her husband died. Christine and the Queens have just released a track that expresses the emotional pain quite perfectly. Sorry if this is a bit sad, but you did ask, and there's not many who understand these things. FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:13, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow thats intense. I didn't actually see this until just now. COVID defintiely got my attention spent very thinly. Its a good thing to rest even months later though. HOw are u going nowabouts? --Almaty (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, important to rest & have breaks, especially with things like trying to help with MH out of a formal setting. I still see one of those lonely women in the context of food runs in my local area, so just short visits. Mostly things are going good. At least lockdown means less time wasting travel. Strangely, quite a few in my circles actually prefer Covid life. Was just talking to an x this morning who's a nurse and she said she's never enjoyed going to work so much, the atmosphere is brilliant, with much of the bitchiness that normally exists on the wards having gone. Had a great session playing poker with the lads last night, downing gooseberry gin & hooked up on Cam with Jitsi. Do you mean you're getting a chance to have a rest now yourself?  How've you been? FeydHuxtable (talk) 12:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah its a weird situation in the hospitals here too, they're oddly quiet though, we've cancelled many things and people aren't presenting. Lots of huge discussions and people acting strangely in terms of decision making in our forums, and its odd with our state based system, the rules are counterintuitive. But in Sydney youre allowed to have two people over at your house now! so was great to have someone over, sick of the screens haha. --Almaty (talk) 13:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello Old Friend
I hope this finds you in good health and cheer in this "Time of Covid". I need some assistance with a EotW Nomination. When you have the time, please see WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Nominations and the recent nomination. Ive run across the editor BHG many times and she is a superb candidate. In reading her talk page and recent archives I see that she has experienced a most disheartening dreadful experience in an RFA. I am constructing a DRAFT for her nomination at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/todo/backlog by lifting comments to describe what its is that she does to benefit WP and our readers. I don't know the history of the RFA incident. When I saw your input on her talk page, having fun with her about Music and a desert island (??) I thought you might be able to add some back-story and, perhaps, act as the Nominator. TC &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   13:34, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If any friendly stalker wishes to add a comment, please do so. I'm in a quandry as to IF the desysopping or any related information should even be mentioned. Checking her Contributions page, she seems to be back to work. She deserves the highest praise and thanks. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   13:57, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey buddy. 'desert island' alluded to Desert Island Discs - one of the most famous radio shows here in the UK.  It's best not to mention the Arb case IMO. If no one else steps up for the nom,  I'll probably write it for you tomorrow if that's ok? Yeah I'm doing good thanks.  Very exciting times here in UK for anyone interested in politics. In about 40 mins from now, perhaps the most skilled political operator of our age (Classic Dom) is about to face off against one of the most ferocious witch hunts that GB has ever seen...    I hope you're doing well too old friend. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:21, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for your quick response. No sweat about the ping. Ive been doing the reward for 7/8 years and I messed up by using her name in the thread title. AH! Forgetfullness. It makes me mad and then I forget why I'm mad. Be Safe. See you on the other side of this Covid mess. &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   13:03, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Solar Foods
As an editor of Solar Foods please go and read its talk page:. Thank you! Jjanhone (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
How are you doing in these troubled times?

LK (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC) <br style="clear: both;"/>
 * Exhausted. Been trying to do something about said times, but the folk on the other side of the table were several levels above my pay grade. There's only so much that celtic ploys and 20 hour days can achieve... At least the current round is over now, and happier for seeing that pic! Hope you're doing better? FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:54, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened
The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL ( aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#01902a; background-color:darkred; border-width:3px; text-align:center; padding:3px; height:262px; width:800px;" class="plainlinks"> 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! Hello, FeydHuxtable! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! <b style="color:orange">Linguist111</b><sup style="color:purple">talk 23:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

Happy Holidays
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:#FF4646; background-color:#F6F0F7; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks">Happy Holidays text.png Hello FeydHuxtable: Enjoy the holiday season&#32;and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, &#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   18:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy New Year!

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

= Happy New Year, FeydHuxtable! == <div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! FeydHuxtable, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

– Davey 2010 Talk 00:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

= Happy New Year, FeydHuxtable! == <div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! FeydHuxtable, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

North America1000 05:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

DYK for Dog & Bull
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Nikocado Avocado
Hey! This is a request for outside comments on an article I created which may be of interest to you, Nikocado Avocado. If you have any feedback or edits you could give the article, these would be greatly appreciated. --Bangalamania (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion
An article you created or have significantly contributed to has been nominated for deletion. The article is being discussed at the deletion discussion, located here. North America1000 11:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Close of Requests for comment/Desysop Policy (2021)
FeydHuxtable, I had grave concerns about who might step up to the plate to close this RfC. In the end, there were 146 pages worth of printed material. That's a very large amount of work for anyone to do to close an RfC. I doubted many would be willing to do it, much less with the careful consideration you applied to your work in doing this. I wasn't in favor of this process, but please understand I am not giving you kudos here because you closed as no consensus. I'm giving kudos because you did the close justice, with appropriate care and consideration of the views presented by everyone. This was a job very, very well done! Thank you for taking the significant time it took to close this RfC! --Hammersoft (talk) 23:02, 17 April 2021 (UTC) I've been busy and only just noticed the close, but I wanted to thank you for it as well. It's a great close, and hopefully others appreciate the work that went into it. At the very least your work will be a great help to future readers of the page. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * — Ched (talk) 20:42, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I feel like I might have taken the lazy way out with the +1. Like others, I was really impressed with the work you put into that close.  It was difficult enough to just read through it without trying to find any closure on the thread.  So many tangents headed this way and that.  It took a lot of focus, patience, understanding, and objectivity to even attempt it.  I can't even imagine the time you put into something that really needed to be done, and I appreciate all your hard work.  I've seen your name around the 'pedia for a long time, and always had a positive impression, so Officially it's a pleasure to meet you.  Thank you for all you do here. — Ched (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A pleasure to officially meet you too Ched. Likewise Ive seen you about many times over the years, often most impressed with what you had to say. Thanks for all you do too! I might be getting a bit over praised for the Close. It only took four hours, which were enjoyable as it was a nice sized job for me to do in a flow state. Like many apparently impressive but actually easy tasks, its all about using a suitable method. So, in case its of interest to yourself or others:

1)	Ideally chose a discussion where you've no strong opinion on the ideal outcome (hence helping with objectivity) but at the same time is interesting enough that you'll enjoy engaging in it (so a chance of getting in the zone while you do the work.)

2)	 Have a method to help weigh up what everyones saying – don't relay on memory when it's > 4 dimensional with hundreds of voices. I used Excel, adding a row for each of the ~ 300 votes. From my initial 30 minute skim read to verify it looked a clear enough result not to need a panel, I already knew what the useful columns would be. Thinks like Theme (I used single letter codes to signify re-occuring themes), Editor (which I only filled in for those who really stood out with a consensus shifting rationale), subjective strength of argument, etc. For the Supports I had a Y/N column for those who expressed reservations. For the Opposes I had a too easy / too hard column. (which was left blank for some, but most expressed a view on this dimension) . After filling out the rows as I read through each vote, I used the basic Autosum function to help me aggregate the opinions.

3)	Point 1 is maybe the most important for aiding objectivity, but this would be incomplete if I didn't mention I've long been working on my facility for objective attention - the ability to see the world as it really is, rather than how we'd like it to be, or in a way that coheres with our identity. I use methods from the writings of Simone Weil, whose work I was lucky enough to first encounter as a boy. Even atheists sometimes love her work, but she's perhaps most suited to fellow believing mystics. Many editors seem to lean more agnostic / rationalist. For such editors, Julia Galef's just published book The Scout Mindset , may be the perfect guide on how to see the world as it really is. (I should point out while objective attention can be hugely beneficial to oneself and others, being too enthusiastic about developing this facility can lead to what mystic Christians call the Dark night of the soul, what the alchemists call Nigredo, or what even rationalists sometimes call [https://putanumonit.com/2020/10/08/path-to-reason/ the Valley of Disintegration. ] So maybe something just for the risk takers... As implied, point 1 & 2 are probably more than most would need.

FeydHuxtable (talk) 22:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Queering Wikipedia 2021 User Group Working Days: May 14–16
The Wikimedia LGBTQ+ User Group is holding online working days in May. As a member of WikiProject LGBT studies, editing on LGBTQ+ issues or if you identify as part of the LGBTQ+ community, come help us set goals, develop our organisation and structures, consider how to respond to issues faced by Queer editors, and plan for the next 12 months.

We will be meeting online for 3 half-days, 14–16 May at 1400–1730 UTC. While our working language is English, we are looking to accommodate users who would prefer to participate in other languages, including translation facilities.

More information, and registration details, at QW2021 .--Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group 02:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021
After looking at some of your history, I've decided to add a couple user rights. I've added Rollback and Autopatrolled to your user groups. If you don't care to have these, feel free to ping me and I'll remove them at your request. Rollback would be a good thing to read before using, just because it's so easy to use in a way that gets some folks upset. Just thought these couple things might make your editing a bit easier. — Ched (talk) 05:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I really appreciate the thought. But I'd prefer not to have any advanced rights.  I almost never notice vandalism so rollback is just a risk of missclick. Having autopatrolled would be a pain as then I'd feel I'd have to check any new page I look at for policy errors.  I've long been interested in RfA reform, but more as I'm interested in social dynamics & feel easier promotions would be good for the community. Not expecting to want to be an admin myself, at least not for 10-15 years. As per my power post, many of us prefer the secondary role :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 08:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * OK - done. And I do understand the why too. :-) — Ched (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, that's a first for me, seeing an admin kick down permissions sans any request for them. Seriously, never seen this before. At any rate, Feyd, rather than waiting for 10-15 years to consider adminship, you should instead wait just 10-15 months, if that. Wikipedia needs more admins, and your level-headed judgment and positive manner makes you well suited. North America1000 19:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That means a lot comming from you North. While I still don't see myself requesting adminship before the 2030s, I'll give it some thought. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hey man, it's up to you. Just saying. In my view, you're a natural. Wow, the 2030s; not sure what I'll be doing then. North America1000 09:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Bidden report
Hello friend. You mention a coronavirus origins Bidden report coming out in August. Sounds interesting, but I'm having trouble finding it on google. Do you have any links I could read to educate myself about it? Thanks for your time. – Novem Linguae (talk) 14:24, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * It had been my plan to just make the one statement and let things play out, as this is a somewhat delicate matter. But not going to decline to answer a friend of the good Commander, so while I dont normally believe in discussing such things off wiki, I'll email you. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)