User talk:HandThatFeeds/Archive 2018

Sig repair
Please fix your sig; you have invalidly nested HTML elements in it, and it is breaking the syntax highlighting (and option many of us use, under the Preferences menu) on every page where your user signature appears. The fix is to change this: to this: Thank you in advance. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh crap, I didn't realize that was wrong. Thanks! Hopefully this has it fixed. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 15:54, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Inconsiderate
Not sure why you're interested in this, but it would help if you looked more carefully at the record.

In brief: SV removed without discussion material that formed the basis of the thread I had started and then did not revert when outvoted on that removal. That is what I deem, at minimum, inconsiderate.

In longer form, so you have it at hand:

On Aug 20 19:34, I started this talk § — hereafter §1, which focused on the Auto, Pigden, and Coady cites.

On Aug 28 00:36, SV, without yet commenting on my thread, removed the Pigden cite with edit summary: "mving source; will explain on talk". (Note also that the summary says "mving", not removing.)

On Aug 28, 00:44 SV started the this other talk § — hereafter §2.

On Aug 28, 01:00 SV moved the Coady cite out of the lede para with edit summary: "parking Coady here for now, other ce"

On Aug 28 03:20, SV responded to me [in §1]: "This isn't an article about conspiracies, which of course are real. It's about conspiracy theories, a different idea entirely."

On Aug 30 18:46, after a 2-day discussion [in §2] between MjolnirPants and tronvillain where both concluded Pigden is a good and relevant (my characterization) cite, I offered additional points in support.

On Aug 30 23:59, Seeing no response by SV to the above, I asked [in §2]: "Given the above, would you kindly revert your removal of the Pigden cite? Thank you."

On Sep 1 00:40 In response to a question by MjolnirPants [in §1], I discussed SV's 1/2/2016 edit.

On Sep 6 04:31, and after several invitations addressed to all who had not yet responded to my request for clarification of positions, I replied to SV [in §1] "Kindly clarify — by your comment, 'It's about conspiracy theories, a different idea entirely', are you saying 'No conspiracy theories are real'?"

On Sep 7 21:49, after a week with no response in §2, I wrote SV: "I find your behavior here — of 1) making changes to a section while discussion is ongoing, and 2) not reverting on the issue in this section when the consensus here is against you — at minimum, inconsiderate. Kindly revert."

Humanengr (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Nice name!
NIN right? Love that band. You must get comments like these a lot. Rock on. Wikiemirati (talk) 23:55, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup! Been a big fan of them since the 90s. Actually, most folks don't get it. You're one of the few who did! &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 18:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Redemption movement
What's the big problem with a few "redundant" words for the sake of leading between paragraphs? Wikipedia is supposed to be read, not just written. 24.7.14.87 (talk) 05:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not a "big problem," but it reads poorly when repeating the same fact. I won't edit war over it, but I don't think it's a useful change. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 13:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)