User talk:HandThatFeeds/Archive 2019

Do not edit this page. This is the archive of User talk:HandThatFeeds for the year 2019. (Please direct any additional comments to the current talk page.)
See the annual archives for 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024.

Signature

Thanks for contributing to the WP:SPLIT discussion on Talk:Sovereign citizen movement. Looks like you omitted to "sign" your comments on this occasion though? (As you're an experienced editor, I'm guessing this was just an oversight!) Muzilon (talk) 01:07, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Whoops! THanks for catching that. I apparently hit four ! instead of the tildes. That's what I get for editing while tired! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:30, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your contributions to keeping Wikipedia a place of fair and discerning information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.109.21.91 (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Vampire TV shows

A popular, several season series was Forever Knight. It aired in the early to mid 90s. It was based in Toronto Canada. It was about a vampire who worked as a Homicide detective who wanted to be mortal, but was tempted to remain a vampire by past vampire friends. He worked nights, of course. His name was Nicholas Knight. The only human who knew his secret was the coroner, who fell in love with him and helped to try to find a cure for his vampirism.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:0:803::77 (talk • contribs) 21:02, October 9, 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm familiar with the series. What does this have to do with me? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Steve Scutt

Many thanks for the advice. Racingmanager (talk) 16:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem! — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:27, 21 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)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:11, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith Johnston (talk • contribs) 16:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi, you have reverted my edits on the white privilege page regarding white privilege as a social phenomenon. I reverted the original edits because they are subject to an ongoing talk page discussion which then became as Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion which has not yet reached a consensus. As I told the original editor it was inappropriate to make the changes proposed prior to consensus. You were aware of that discussion and the lack of consensus when you made the edits reverting my edits. I plan to revert the edits again until we have a consensus. If you wish to dispute this I suggest we take this to arbitration now. Keith Johnston (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

You removed content from the article while the discussion was ongoing. You were the one making changes "prior to consensus." If you revert those edits again before consensus is reached, you'll be edit warring. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks the relevant talk page discussion, on whether or not white privilege was a sociological concept, began on 31 October. The original edits were made after that date and prior to consensus. I plan to revert the edits again until we have a consensus. If you wish to dispute this I suggest we take this to arbitration now. Keith Johnston (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"Arbitration" implies WP:ARBCOM which... ain't happenin'. If you want to do an WP:RFC, feel free to try that, but I don't think it's going to end up with the results you want. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

WP:3 is fine if your happy? Keith Johnston (talk) 17:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's the appropriate venue, since this isn't about just you and me, it's about everyone at the article. I really don't care what process you use though. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:08, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, if you have no objections I shall move to WP:3 Keith Johnston (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

To summarise the dispute:

On 31 October Sparkle1 (talk) initiated a talk page discussion on whether white privilege was a sociological concept.

On 1 November Simonm223 (talk) posited that white privilege was a phenomenon, not a concept. This debate is ongoing and has since become the subject of an ongoing Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard discussion that has not yet closed.

Between 9-28 November :Peipsi-Pihkva (talk) made a number of edits including inserting the claim that white privilege was a phenomenon both in 1) the lede and 2) in the body of the article.

On 28 November I reverted edit 1) claiming white privilege was a phenomenon in the lede and notified editor Peipsi-Pihkva (talk) that this has been done because there was an ongoing discussion with no consensus

On 7 December edit 2) came to my attention and I reverted this edit for the same reason

On 7 December Bite reverted my edit of 7 December

On 11 December I initiated this talk page discussion Keith Johnston (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I picked this up from WP:3O. I can see there's a need for assistance, but I don't think Third Opinion will be the correct process. There are more than two people actively involved and it's already on NPOV noticeboard. Could we see if we can make progress with that and on the talk page? I guess I'd ask everyone to be a bit patient as the process might seem slow. I am willing to have a look at the discussions so far and see if I can usefully contribute. FrankP (talk) 15:56, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this FrankP (talk) I quite understand your view and would welcome your contribution to the discussion as an uninvolved editor. Keith Johnston (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2019 (UTC)