Default pronouns selected. (they/them)

User home

Talk

Userboxes I made!

Guestbook

Email me!

Subpages

Start a new discussion thread

Huggums537 is currently wikibonked and is operating at a lower edit level than usual. Hitting the wall is a temporary condition, and the user should return to normal edit levels in time.

	Released into public domain
	I agree to release my text and image contributions, unless otherwise stated, into the public domain. Please be aware that other contributors might not do the same, so if you want to use my contributions under public domain terms, please check the multi-licensing guide.

Status: Offline

Editor location map? >Low to moderate level of vandalism

Sign my guestbook!

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Commons picture of the day
Mekong bank with stilt dwellings, trees and clouds at golden hour, seen from the bridge between Don Det and Don Khon, Si Phan Don, Laos. Don Det, Eastern side.

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Huggums537. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! BilCat (talk) 17:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thank you very much! This is honestly the first extremely positive experience I've had since I became active. It's appreciated! Huggums537 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. - BilCat (talk) 18:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! DonQuixote (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		Short Description Barnstar
		Thanks for your work so far answering the call to add short descriptions to the level-5 vital articles. Keep it up! ((u|Sdkb)) talk 16:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I plan to keep going... Huggums537 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... for what you said to Flyer22 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Very kind, and thoughtful of you. Huggums537 (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On 26 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Protection Court, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the show Protection Court continued to air episodes during an investigation launched by the Florida Judicial Qualifications Commission alleging that litigants were filmed without their consent? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Protection Court. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Protection Court), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Kusma (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mean to tell me that a cooter [rapscallion] like me made the front page? Incredible! Thanks very much for this, and thanks to all the DYK team who work hard to help make it all happen. Another fun and positive experience on Wikipedia! Huggums537 (talk) 06:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)Updated on06:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack345110 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add ((subst:Cookie)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munch))!

@Huggums537 Thank you for being the second person to sign my guestbook. Jack345110 (talk) 12:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Huggums537 I thought I'll just let you know that there is now a userbox for my guestbook if you want to go and collect it. Jack345110 (talk) 22:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of William Street Bird. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. JML1148 (talk | contribs) 00:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sevier County, Utah, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Asian and Latino. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[Holy ethnic chaos botman!] Thanks botman. This is robin flying to the rescue to fix it now... Huggums537 (talk) 06:09, 11 June 2023 (UTC) Updated on 07:21, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Huggums537. Recently, I've been repeatedly experiencing editors asserting the absurd position that WP:AUD means that statewide or city-wide sources like the Herald Sun, The West Australian, PerthNow, or The Age are 'local' sources; as a means to discount even fully in-depth coverage of subjects such as ~800-1000 word detailed reviews of restaurants per the requirement for 'traditional' restaurant reviews under the WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS policy.

Frankly, its driving me a bit mental, as it de-facto is resulting in me being unable to write about most Australian subjects. Its incredibly demotivating and really driving up my frustrating with trying to contribute meaningfully to this encyclopedia. Even when I try to find in-depth sources, this officious and bizarre interpretation of existing policy has become a meaningful barrier.

I'm not asking for you to participate in any AfDs now, or advocate for any policy change at the moment that would assist; (obviously asking for such assistance would be inappropriate given I am T-banned from AfD and it would also amount to canvassing), but as you are someone that I perceive as a somewhat sympathetic editor; this message is an attempt to communicate my frustration. I am really beginning to reach my limit here with the approach of editors refusing to take Australian sources into account. If I can't use major Australian news publications as a source for Australian subjects, what other blooming alternative do I have? It takes my breath away as an Australian to see our largest news publications being called 'local'.

Kind regards Jack4576 (talk) 16:25, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration completely. For me, a major deciding factor is about how widely distributed the source is because the wider the distribution, the larger you expect the target audience to be regardless of how "local" people might argue the source caters to because it is obvious that they are distributing widely since they are trying to attract attention from outside the local area from tourism and whatnot. I've actually been intentionally avoiding AfDs for the moment, and I have already been fairly active in advocating for some policy changes anyway, but I have been trying to quit in like forever. It's like trying to quit smoking all over again. That was a bitch, and this is too, but I'm 20 yrs tobacco free so if I can do that, then I can do this! Do you have any specific examples of "this officious and bizarre interpretation" so I can see exactly what they are saying about this? Huggums537 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huggums537 first of all big congrats on staying 20 years tobacco free.

Re:examples, indeed I do. Mostly they are examples where papers like The Age are discounted as a ‘local’ source for a subject located within Melbourne; or The West Australian being discounted as a ‘local’ source for a subject located within Perth. Plenty other similar examples.

I’ve been enjoying writing culinary articles recently, and so i’ve been running into instances where nominations and !delete voters are discounting multiple sources involving ~800+ in-depth reviews of a venue from Australia’s most prominent major newspaper food writers. It’s a pretty blatant ignoring of WP:AUD and WP:RESTAURANTREVIEWS consensus IMO, and leads to the absurdity of major australian newspapers not being legitimate sources for restaurants within their state boundaries.

To avoid a TBAN breach i’ll refrain from pointing you toward you the particular AfDs for now; I don’t want to be accused of attempting to influence an outcome. Once they are finalised I may come back here to point the more egregious examples specifically.

In an effort to rehabilitate and maybe get unbanned one day, i’ve been trying to keep my head clear of AfD and policy; but the tricky thing is those things catch up with you anyway when just trying to go about ordinary article creation. I love writing articles, and this really saps the joy.

Kind regards Jack4576 (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Well, as I said before, I have been intentionally avoiding AfD, but I did see this post recently, that has had me to thinking maybe I should consider participating. Huggums537 (talk) 18:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:Huggums537 Here is an example: (diff)

User:Nythar is well-aware of the consensus regarding WP:AUD, as i’ve repeatedly reminded him of it; yet he persists in claiming that the Sydney Morning Herald is a local source (despite it being in relation to a subject in Melbourne), and calls the statewide Herald Sun a ‘local’ source also

It’s bizarre, contrary to consensus, and at this point is IDHT and CIR. I’ve reminded him of this issue at least 4 times. To claim the Sydney Morning Herald is a local source is patently ridiculous. Local to what, Australia ?

Would you recommend that I raise this at WP:ANI ? at the moment i’m WP-space blocked but could perhaps raise it with the blocking admin.

Jack4576 (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jack4576, since this isn't your talk page (which I'm banned from, apparently), I will remind you that you're topic banned from AfDs. While you should be avoiding anything to do with AfDs, you've instead been trying to interfere with AfDs by adding source assessment tables to the talk pages of articles nominated for deletion (which is clearly intended to alter the outcomes of discussions), and repeatedly communicating with other users about articles that have been nominated for deletion. You are risking a longer block, so I suggest you drop this. In addition, I do not want to have a debate with Huggums about notability guidelines. I regret even having that argument previously (apologies again, Huggums), and I'd rather remain on friendly terms than have needless arguments on such topics. Nythar (💬-🍀) 00:20, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adding source tables to article talk pages without making any reference to an AfD discussion is clearly not AfD interference and your assertion that it is, is patently ridiculous. I will not refrain from doing so. Part of creating an article is including sources and this may include a discussion regarding how sources meet notability guidelines. A topic ban from AfD is obviously not a topic ban from discussions of an article’s sourcing without making any reference to AfD. If i’m topic banned from adding / justifying sources i’m effectively banned from contributing sources at all. That would be a very unexpected reading of the situation.

I won’t be raising this with you again. Next time you claim that Sydney Morning Herald is a ‘local’ source to topics in Australia, or that a statewide source is a ‘local’ source to a subject within a state, I will be raising it at ANI. It’s contrary to policy and contrary to consensus regarding that policy. You’ve been reminded of this numerous times and yet you continue to insist upon this, while relying on the ridiculous interpretation to wiki hound my account. Your proportion of involvement in AfDs of my contributions whether through nomination or vote is high, and repeatedly involves this defective interpretation of WP:AUD

If you don’t want ‘needless arguments’, stop blatantly ignoring consensus with regard to WP:AUD. You saw the community discussion over there, and yet you continue to ignore it. It’s not right to be repeatedly nominating and voting delete on my articles on the basis that the SMH and other major Australian newspapers are local sources.

My communication with User:Huggums537 is not intended at influencing AfDs, it is a a discussion about your WP:IDHT behaviour. Regardless, I won’t be raising this again with you, excepting for the next time you post a notification to my page regarding a nomination of one of my articles; if I see another problematic WP:AUD reason.

You are well aware national and statewide newspapers are not local sources. You’re well aware of the community consensus on what ‘local means’. Stop saying it. Stop ignoring consensus. It’s disruptive to article contributors.

You’re no longer banned from my talk page User:Nythar. Next time you nominate please notify me. Jack4576 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack4576, while I agree with your interpretation of AUD, and would support your side of the debate in an ANI discussion, I fear that it would be very unwise to open a dispute or bring up the issue to the blocking admin due to the strong possibility of a WP:Boomerang effect occurring. I warned you of the strong possibility of your restrictions being stretched into being violated numerous ways that are not very easy to predict, and the reminder you got from Nythar on this very page is a prime example of exactly what I was talking about where restrictions can be interpreted in various ways where it is debatable if there is a violation or not. So, the problem then becomes that if you go to the blocking admin or ANI, and any question about your restrictions gets brought up, then the BOOMERANG happens where even more restrictions or an indef could occur. The best way to avoid this from happening is to bite the bullet, and avoid doing anything that could even have the remote possibility of being misinterpreted as a violation until you are able to get all restrictions lifted and get out from under the thumb of being taxed and burdened by that editing problem because it for sure isn't a free pass at all. It's actually a deep doo doo situation that you need to get yourself out of before you can think about fixing other stuff I'm afraid. I hope that helps. Huggums537 (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks Huggums noted Jack4576 (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll ensure to be unequivocally clean from now on, even if it gets in the way. Thanks for the sage advice Jack4576 (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome @Jack4576. The reason I'm saying you should focus on getting those restrictions off your back and make that your main priority is because having them looming over head puts you at a crippling disadvantage when trying to get your other problems fixed, and the chance for any of those opposing your solutions and using the restrictions against you is something you want to avoid. Besides, if any of the articles you would have wanted to keep get deleted, you can always consult with your blocking admin to see if you or another editor can request to have them given back per WP:Refund on the legitimate basis that you were literally prevented from participating from voting by being blocked, and you wanted to keep the articles you created, but were not allowed to say so by putting in your vote. Alternatively, you can consult with your blocking admin to see if you or another user can request to have the deletion reviewed at: Wikipedia:Deletion review. Always go through your blocking admin or somebody involved in it directly so you can thwart any attempt of anyone saying you tried to violate your sanctions by making your own executive decisions to perform some action. These are the kinds of limitations that having restrictions make editing a pain, and why you need to get them off your back. It does make editing far less complicated and much easier to accomplish tasks after you get those sanctions lifted because you can just make executive decisions like a normal adult without having to go ask mommy and daddy first. Lol. Sorry. Guess I'm still just a tiny bit bitter from when I had my own restrictions. Good luck, and I hope you get off of them soon. They are vile things to endure. Huggums537 (talk) 21:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jack4576, I also noticed you have started to fix a couple deleted articles by recreating them. This is also a great option as far as article work goes while getting your privileges back. Just make sure you are putting in the edit summary that you are fixing whatever problem there was that caused the deletion, and maybe get a blessing from your blocking admin that it is ok for you to be making repairs to "damaged" articles before someone tries twisting it into being a bad faith backdoor violation of some kind. Huggums537 (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK thank you Huggums great advice Jack4576 (talk) 07:26, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's interesting that the editor retention project is including blocked editors with chances to appeal in its scope. That makes sense to me and I hope the work results in some editors getting unblocked and returning to activity on the project. I would, however, caution you about making statements like I could not help but notice that your block seemed somewhat well out of process. Koyla's block was not a community ban as you seem to think. It was a block by the Arbitration Committee and so there was no public discussion to link to. Instead, it followed appropriate procedure in both the talk page message, by noting it was an Arbitration Committee block and how that can be appealed, and log for ArbCom blocks. Given that you admit I don't know hardly anything about arbcom processes it seems unwise to offer advice to another editor. Barkeep49 (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to get on the radar of blocked editors for some time now as my current talk page demonstrates, but coming here to tell me that "it seems unwise to offer advice to another editor" seems like a big fat slap in the face for my efforts when nobody else is trying to offer the editor any guidance or advice of any kind other than just to tell them "you are a disgrace". It seems kind of disingenuous to come here apparently wishing me well in my efforts without offering any actual help of any sort, but instead offering to kick sand in my face about my admitted lack of knowledge on arbcom processes, and to essentially insinuate in so many words that I'm just an asshole probably not fit enough to see my efforts to fruition anyway. If you or anyone else thinks they are better, or thinks they can do better, then why don't they do better? Huggums537 (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think offering bad advice is worse than offering no advice. However, I presume (and presumed) there is a lot of advice you could offer to blocked editors that would be good advice, even if that wasn't it, which is why I started by sincerely thanking you for those efforts. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, ok. In that case I will take what you said as ordinary constructive criticism. I'm trying the best I know how. Huggums537 (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, your posting here got me interested in your profile, and because of this essay you created, I now kind of understand better why my efforts garnered your attention. While blocked users are not really my "friends" per se, they are all kindred spirits to me - especially the ones who are experiencing tougher blocks and restrictions. Huggums537 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That essay has proven to be a popular one and I'm glad you took something from it. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49, one other thing I want to clear up is that the editor retention project is not supporting or condoning the inclusion of blocked editors within its scope in any official capacity or otherwise. I did bring up the idea briefly in a related discussion with them a couple of years ago, but no proposal or consensus to implement any of my ideas was ever agreed to. I've been acting strictly under my own volition under the accordance and the belief that my efforts prevail with unofficial good faith editor retention and/or unofficial mentorship types of capacities. Huggums537 (talk) 00:19, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the sentiment, I think your final sentence in this edit goes too far and crosses the line into being uncivil. Thryduulf (talk) 21:29, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I very strongly disagree, but I'll strike it to avoid any controversy because I also respect your opinion. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'll try not to be so abrasive with people. I have a pretty thick skin, and I guess I expect other people to have one too. I'm well aware I come off the wrong way sometimes, and I know I need ongoing work in that area. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 21:44, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I wanted to say—and more!—but couldn't for the life of me find a way to say it. Cheers! Serial 16:54, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for signing my guestbook!

Notrealname1234 (talk) 14:27, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Huggums537 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]