User talk:HandThatFeeds/Archive 2021


Göbekli Tepe

Plz do not add anything other than official given name unless you have sources to prove your claim like a map or official documents. Thanks 104.250.87.233 (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

See Talk:Göbekli Tepe, where there is currently consensus for including that source. Edit-warring to remove it will simply result in you being blocked. Try discussing it first. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Let It Go

I let it go. I disappointed that I am not allowed to have a conversation. I will remember that. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:24 on February 16, 2021 (UTC)

Neutralhomer - There's a massive difference between having a conversation with fellow editors and replying to every single Oppose in an RFC you started. Sometimes saying nothing at all is better than replying. It's always best not to reply especially in RFCs you've started - Just let it pan out and let consensus form on its own - If it goes in your favour = fantastic, if it doesn't = Oh well, the world carries on turning. –Davey2010Talk 18:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, when it comes to something like this and we have users saying that our policies and conventions some how take precedent over common knowledge and what people in other countries say (ie: the UK and Australia) dates as, it's moronic. Plain and simple moronic. There is no common sense being used right now. So, yes, I am responding to everyone. It is how a conversation is started. Being quiet is kind of the definition of not how a conversation is started.
Davey2010 decided that I'm not allowed to let it go, so I'm not going to withdraw, but I'm not going to stop what I'm doing either. This is moronic and disrespectful in the highest. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:54 on February 16, 2021 (UTC)
neutralhomer Did you seriously think it was a good idea to delete an entire Requested Move? That's not how you let it go, and the idea you either get to do that or get to continue browbeating people is not going to end well for you. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:58, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I really like how you all think I am badgering and now browbeating people, but when I try to disengage, I am pulled back into the conversation. I'm also told my signature is "not working properly", when it has never been an issue. So, who is being badgered now? Maybe you all need to "let it go"? Hmmm. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:29 on February 16, 2021 (UTC)
The ability to stop responding is entirely yours. I suggest you take advantage of it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:32, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
When it's on my talk page, what should I do? Hmmm? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 00:44 on February 17, 2021 (UTC)
... the exact same thing. This isn't a difficult concept. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:08, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
You and I have a very different concept of "let it go" and "badgering". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 15:43 on February 17, 2021 (UTC)
Obviously. Especially since you're complaining about being "pulled back in" on your own talk page, yet come to my page (when I have not pinged you the last several messages) to continue arguing. Take my page off your Watch List and just stop. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
You aren't even on my watchlist and I gave up arguing a long time ago. I'm just seeing how long you can go by having to have the last word in this conversation. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:58 on February 17, 2021 (UTC)
So, you're deliberately trolling then? Glad you admitted it in public, so it will reflect poorly on you next time you're dragged to ANI. As for this: I am formally stating do not post on my Talk page again. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 21:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

I referred to some old comments you made

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Delfield's harrassement. Thank you. Just letting you know as I referred in agreement with some old comments you made back in January in a thread that has been semi revived. Nil Einne (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, sorry, I took the week off from Wikipedia for a bit of a mental health break. Glad to see that issue has effectively been resolved, since it looks like XIII is going to wind up indeffed for just plain not listening. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Uh

Why? --Oblio4 (talk) 20:39, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Oblio4 Most of the edits didn't seem to improve anything, or made less grammatical sense. Changing the single-character ellipses (…) to three periods (...) for instance, or Tarrio had previously served as an informant both to federal and to local law enforcement. just adds a redundant "to" in there.
I will say I'm not up to date on best use of hyphenation, so I don't know if {{snd}} is preferred over the direct symbol or not. I won't object if you revert, but I don't think all of those were good changes. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
This and this and this might help. (Tarrio [did it] to [a single word] and to [a three-word phrase]). Please, self‑revert and carry on. --Oblio4 (talk) 23:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
"Federal and local law enforcement" is a single phrase, so you only need one "to" in there. "Law enforcement" is the operative target of the "to," the other words are just clarifying.
Thanks for the links, I was unware of those other stylistic changes. Though your second one doesn't really support changing to a specific style of dash, I won't argue your choice. Again, if you'd like to revert, feel free. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
I did it to 'em. [Unto whom?] Bofubm. preach ate chew --Oblio4 (talk) 15:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Username

Damn I wish you didn't have that username....every time I see your posts that song jumps into my head! (It's a good song though.) :) But I appreciate your posts nonetheless. Cheers.Rja13ww33 (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Ha, thanks! — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Personal Interpretation

Article? Why are you stating that a direct quote and citation from the Declaration of Independence is a personal interpretation? Furthermore, the Declaration literally spells out, at the beginning, that people are free from government as per their natural rights! Not to mention that on the wiki page itself, a "not born in the territory" and "not tied to any us parents" individual is defined by the Maryland assembly in the 1700s as a "natural born citizen." If you scroll down, look for "Lafayette." This isn't a personal interpretation. It's very literally written about at the start of the document and another use has in-fact cited a direct example of it being a term that was used in the 1700s to talk about people claiming their ("nature's god-given")natural rights.-151.196.126.78 (talk) 12:00pm, 21 April

151.196.126.78 I've tried to respond twice now, but each time you edit it's causing a conflict with what I'm writing. Please try to avoid changing your posts multiple times.
What you're doing is novel synthesis, taking two things and then asserting they mean something together. That is not allowed on Wikipedia. What you need is to find a source which makes the same assertion and cite it. It might be best to start a discussion on the Talk page of the article so we can hash this out. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:10, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

but the text is written by the same source at about the same time and it's about the same subject. i did quote what they wrote about natural rights. there's a whole paragraph about nature's god's (and our natural rights)rights prior to that, but it's longer and i'm trying to keep it smaller for an easy read.-151.196.126.78 (talk) 12:27pm, 21 April — Preceding undated comment added 16:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

151.196.126.78 You're drawing a conclusion from two separate things. You as an editor cannot do that on Wikipedia. You need a source that's already made that conclusion so you can cite it. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

what two sources are you refering to? i'm using the preamble of the constitution, which is often ignored to explain the later constitution body language, because that language is used in the preamble very clearly (in talking about natural rights and all of us being born free of governments in nature). that's why we have the preamble: to begin explaining ourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, this should really be taking place on the article Talk page. I'm not going to hash this out further on this page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

i've added a preamble section to the talk page since you don't wish to speak to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.126.78 (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I never said I did not wish to speak to you, just that the discussion should take place on the article Talk page. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:07, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:PROPSPLIT for Pentagon UFO videos?

Since Luis Elizondo is a redirect to Pentagon UFO videos, it might make more sense to open a Talk page section for WP:PROPSPLIT with the rationale that one element of an existing article has gained substantial notoriety in its own right. I initially thought that coverage of Elizondo might be a passing fancy and limited to passing mentions, however it seems that coverage is only increasing and becoming more focused. Thoughts? @Sgerbic: - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:45, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's even a need for a split per se. Once Elizondo's article is good enough to go live, it can. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Someone has installed a version with criticism stripped out, which is live at the moment. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
sigh Guess it's time to do some work... — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

About hatting versus removing trollish comments

I don't really disagree with this edit of yours at Talk:White privilege, where you removed some flamebait posted by a registered user that I had previously hatted. This is just an fyi to let you know why I usually hat and refrain from removing such posts: unless they have legal consequences or violate policy so egregiously that even leaving them hatted could damage the encyclopedia, I generally don't remove them. For one thing, it gives other users something to point to, if they need diffs for a warning on the troll's user page, or a case to be provided down the road at a noticeboard. Secondly, if hatted it will ultimately end up in the TP archive, where it can be pointed to when needed more easily than finding a revision history diff for a post that you might never have seen in the first place. (Another alternative to removal, is just immediate archival rather than waiting for the inactivity period; maybe that would have been the best alternative here, instead of hatting it.)

There's even another reason to hat: sometimes, a confirmed troll will just come back to a hatted conversation, and either unhat, or add to the hatted discussion, thus providing even more evidence which will make it easier for them to be blocked down the road if that's where they're ultimately headed anyway. In that sense, hatting is reverse bait; sort of a, 'Go ahead, make my day' response hidden in a smile. The sooner they bite, the sooner we don't have to deal with them anymore. Finally, I don't know about you, but I'm usually curious about hatted convos, and I often click them to find out who the dubious characters are and what they're up to. This is valuable information going forward, and I file it away in the back of my mind for later. I realize that different people have different approaches to stuff like this, and there's nothing wrong with your approach; I just wanted to let you know a bit more about mine. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 23:33, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Just wanted to say thank you for this edit - taking small steps to stand up for people in this way are really important and appreciated ~TNT (she/they • talk) 10:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@TheresNoTime: Aww, thank you! — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:09, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Un-retiring other editors

I'm curious, why did you revert GoodDay here? [1]. SQLQuery Me! 22:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

@SQL: The user was blocked, rather than retired. I get that GoodDay was fed up with the user going back and forth, but clearly the user was trolling everyone. I won't object if you want to revert my change, but I personally dislike when someone who is jonesing for a ban slaps a "retired" marker on their user page to deflect from their behavior. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:30, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
They're already indef'ed without email or talkpage, so I wasn't sure what the point was, so I figured I'd ask. Thanks! SQLQuery Me! 10:49, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

The retirement template is misleading. But, whatever yas decide. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:19, 23 November 2021 (UTC)