User talk:Hexhand

Be nice or begone. :)

The magician is In. Please take a seat. The performance will begin shortly.

Thank you for your kind comment (on July 31, it has been a long time since I logged in) on my micro-edit in the contaminated currency article. I now realize I should have put a note in the history about the edit, but it was my first wikipedia-edit, and I forgot. I love wikipedia, and I'm glad to be able to make a minuscule contribution from time to time. Keep up the good work! Bartdeb (talk) 19:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Been away for a while
Editing a bit here and there under an anon IP: 207.181.229.217, but think that returning to the fold might be nifty. - Hexhand (talk) 04:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Welcome back! Using your name is a good plan because then I know that I don't have to check your edits carefully like I would for an IP.  Royal broil  14:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Reply
The criterion for promotion to sysop is consensus, not majority. I can't think of any case where someone has been promoted with a 57% S/(S+O) ratio. -- Pakaran 08:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * To say that (even if you're right about this case, which I have no opinion on) the decision of bureaucrats should be based on what the community "should have done", rather than on the !vote total, even in cases where that total is clearly over the line, is a significant breach with policy. If the !vote total had been more marginal, I (and I suspect all crats) would certainly have considered the factors you mention).  As for whether current admins would pass the same level of scrutiny, quite possibly many would not pass RFA today.  Again, I don't feel that's relevant, and I think it's quite clear that the community consensus agrees with me.  -- Pakaran 21:10, 16 December 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I didn't think it was relevant in this case, except to wag the finger at some admins who decry the user's lack of experience when quite a few of them have so quickly forgotten how little experience they had when handed the mop. And let's be blunt, calling for all admins to be periodically reviewed by the editorship is like folk in LA standing up and yelling about police brutality; they usually end up falling down flights of stairs 27 times in a row. The metaphorical equivalent of payback would be scrutinizing every single edit the user makes and stomping him or her if they so much as color outside the lines. I've seen it happen at least twice after an ArbCom, and too many times to mention after a noticeboard complaint against an admin.
 * Simply survey: compare how may complaints admins receive versus those on registered (non-admin) editors. The numbers would likely be higher on admins, as they are exposed more to complaints, some of them specious at best. However, the resulting punitive actions on regular, established users is likely 50-70% higher. That tells me that admins are protected by each other (in a completely, non-cabal way), and that few admins are going to risk a wheel war to go after one of their own who's screwed the pooch.
 * Just sayin'. - Hexhand (talk) 04:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Cashcoke.jpg missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as: is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.
 * File:Cashcoke.jpg

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 08:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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) 13:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject United States/The 50,000 Challenge
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:40, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Cashcoke.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cashcoke.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Wikiacc (¶) 01:20, 16 June 2019 (UTC)