Default pronouns selected. (they/them)
Home | Talk | Userboxes I made! | Guestbook | Email me! | Subpages |
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. |
>Low to moderate level of vandalism.
>Low pending changes backlog: 6 pages according to DatBot as of 03:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
|
|||
A belated welcome!
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)
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)
A Newcastle for you!
Cheers! DonQuixote (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC) |
A barnstar for you!
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) |
Thanks! I plan to keep going... Huggums537 (talk) 19:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
February flowers
... for what you said to Flyer22 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:08, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Very kind, and thoughtful of you. Huggums537 (talk) 10:11, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
A toast sandwich for you!
Thanks for signing my guestbook! Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe 09:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC) |
- My pleasure Saha! Thank you for the toasty treat! Huggums537 (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: LinuxConsole has been accepted
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 18% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
A S U K I T E 03:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)LinuxConsole moved to draftspace
Hi, I'm moving this back to draftspace to save it from AfD. It's a well-written article and I'm sure that there's a source or two out there to help get it approved again. If I find anything, I will be sure to add it. Sorry for doing this, I'm still getting experience reviewing larger AfC drafts and may have been a bit hasty. A S U K I T E 02:13, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Asukite, The user who has claimed I did not use independent sources in my article produced no evidence whatsoever that any financial or legal relationship exists between any of my sources and the topic of my article. They only made the general assertion that softpedia stands to benefit from mentioning the topic by claiming that they have a "vested interest" in hosting the software on their site. However, almost all sources "host information" about the topics they cover and they all stand to benefit from that in some way or else they would not be in the business of covering topics to begin with, so this does not make a source non-independent, and it is an incorrect usage of the term "vested interest" according to WP:IIS which says,
Interest in a topic becomes vested when the source (the author, the publisher, etc.) develops any financial or legal relationship to the topic.
Unless a financial or legal relationship can be identified, a source does not have a "vested interest". With this in consideration, I think what was actually done in haste was moving the article back to draft space and approving it was the right thing in the first place. I believe it would survive an AfD given this type of reasoning, and it should go back to mainspace. Huggums537 (talk) 05:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC) - I would also like to add that this article meets all of the minimum qualifications for approval, and you know that, or else you would not have approved it in the first place. The only way to know for sure if it would survive an AfD or not is to let it pass to see for itself. Huggums537 (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I understand. I can see the argument going both ways. On one hand, a blanket ban on a source which doesn't have any other reservations counted against it (Softpedia) does seem questionable, as you pointed out, as any given source does in fact have some financial stake in the topic they write about, doubly-so if we consider that Softpedia in this case doesn't have direct financial stake as LinuxConsole is a free product. The only financial stake I see in this particular case are the ads on the page, but if we are going to start saying ads in online sources are a problem, we might as well just shut down Wikipedia. I agree as to the minimum qualifications as well, which is why I re-submitted the article after draftifying it; I was hoping that another reviewer might have a chance to disagree with me. My main rationale for moving the page back is the disagreement over whether the sources are adequate, a topic I am still learning despite having had the patroller permission for a while - there always seems to be a bit of subjectivity involved in these matters, and I don't want to break with the community. In this case, Robert McClenon's declining of the submission may implicitly answer this for now. I'm not sure if this is something typically done or if it's allowed, so don't directly take my word on it, but if you do feel the article's sources are sufficient, you may be able to remove it from AfC entirely (by removing the afc templates / categories) and moving it to mainspace, allowing a potential AfD discussion (if it even ever goes there) to decide whether Softpedia is acceptable. I don't want to keep rubberbanding my own AfC decisions or it may be seen as disruptive at this point. Hope I helped at least a bit. A S U K I T E 10:36, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
- I could be wrong about this, but it doesn't appear to me that Robert reviewed the article or understood your intention to have another reviewer have a chance to disagree with you about it. It seems like he simply recognized it was sent back to draft and automatically marked it as declined as a typical course of action for articles sent back to draft. So,I disagree his action is implicit of anything other than the fact that he performs his work in the typical manner. I would like to hear from him before making any assumptions About what is implicit. Also, I find it extremely difficult not to totally reject the idea introduced here about a "blanket ban" on a source that I have already proven has been accepted by the community. Did you actually go to the link I provided on the draft talk page and check the list to see that softpedia is there? It should be obvious by now that what has happened here is that another user has appeared to present themselves as an expert in this area for the purpose of creating doubt about the good decision you made and making an effort to change your mind about the article by first claiming my sources are not reliable and then that they are not independent. However, I successfully proved this is less than a half truth, and it maybe only applies to one single source in the article, that being Distrowatch. The self-professed expert said that softpedia was not reliable, and I provided a link in our own guidance that says it is. Then, our expert tells us that softpedia is not an independent source, so I provide excellent reasoning as well as more of our own guidance that says it is. It seems to me our self-proclaimed expert is not so much the expert they think they are, as they have provided nothing in the guidance or any other evidence other than their own opinions and and self-professed expertise. Huggums537 (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: LinuxConsole (June 4)
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:LinuxConsole and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:LinuxConsole, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
- If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
- If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the , on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.
- Robert McClenon, I disagree with this decision. I'm not exactly sure what you meant about addressing the comments by the draftifying reviewer, but I responded to this advice by making a reply to the person who sent the article back to draft in the section above this one. If this course of action does not have the expected results of getting the article back into mainspace, then my intentions are to dispute the matter, and I would appreciate any advice you may have to save me a trip to the help desk or teahouse. Thanks. Huggums537 (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, Huggums537!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
|
Draft:LinuxConsole
I have now read the discussion between User:Asukite and User:Huggums537. If I understand correctly, Huggums537 disagrees with the decision by Asukite to draftify the article, and wishes to contest it. That is their privilege. In that case, Huggums537 should move the article back into article space. In that case, a next step can be for Asukite or another editor to nominate the article for deletion, because AFD is the procedure for obtaining consensus on whether a page should be in article space.
I have not performed a detailed review. If the page is moved back to article space and is the subject of a deletion debate, I will review it and will offer a policy-based opinion. I hope that this answers the questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. I am personally neutral on the article. I felt it may have been a good fit for article space, but did not have complete confidence in my decision as most of my reviews thus far have been on a smaller scale in terms of article length and sources. I probably won't nominate it for AfD, but if Aoidh wishes to, they may, as they were the one to call the sources into question. A S U K I T E 16:41, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. Huggums537 (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:LinuxConsole has a new comment
Thanks for signing my guestbook! Here is your prize for being the third!
Macadamia of the LeafWings | HEAR ME ROAR!! | Contribs | My Guestbook📖 13:13, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
- Macadamia of the LeafWings, Thanks! Huggums537 (talk) 18:12, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
No, thank you. :)
Macadamia of the LeafWings | HEAR ME ROAR!! | Contribs | My Guestbook📖 20:59, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Userbox:My boxes live here
Userbox {{User:Huggums537/Userboxes/My boxes live here}} contains superfluous line breaks that preceding the <noinclude>
tag(s).
Renders gap:
}} </noinclude> {{Userbox ... }} <noinclude>
Removes gap:
}}</noinclude> {{Userbox ... }}<noinclude>
These line breaks are being transcluded. For example, your userbox is listed at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userboxes/Use with the comment, <== Link to your own userboxes!
, which would normally appear on the same line as the userbox. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 14:45, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- CJDOS, I removed the gaps, but it doesn't seem to make any difference in the way the comment or userbox appears... Huggums537 (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Several line breaks are still there; anything not within the tags are transcluded. Just putting
<noinclude>
on the next line after}}
will cause a gap. I recently racked my brains over this with my own userboxes. I've fixed some userboxes on my own initiative, but I assumed editing yours to be beyond my prerogative without talking to you first. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC) (edited 15:28, 13 September 2021 (UTC))- CJDOS, Done! I did a little more tweaking and kind of fixed it. Thanks for letting me know about this... Huggums537 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- This:
- CJDOS, Done! I did a little more tweaking and kind of fixed it. Thanks for letting me know about this... Huggums537 (talk) 15:25, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Several line breaks are still there; anything not within the tags are transcluded. Just putting
}} | info-s = {{{info-s|9}}} }} <noinclude>{{align|
- Should look like this:
| info-s = {{{info-s|9}}} }}<noinclude> {{align|
- That is what had stumped me with my own userboxes (see discussion). — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks. I shall keep this on my talk page as a reference to do some future cleanup editing on my boxes... Huggums537 (talk) 15:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- CJDOS, the future is now. I just completed cleaning up the code on all my boxes, and it makes a huge difference in how neat and orderly my User:Huggums537/Userboxes page now looks! So grateful you addressed the problem. I had noticed I was having to rearrange certain userboxes due to the gaps and they would not stack or align properly on my userpage, so I would just rearrange them until there was no more gap, but now that there is a fix, I can arrange them how I want! I too thought it might be a box sizing problem, and made an attempt to correct it on a box or two to no avail. Once again, thanks very much. Huggums537 (talk) 19:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- That is what had stumped me with my own userboxes (see discussion). — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't get it. Your userbox (the one under discussion) is still creating a gap on the Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userboxes/Use page. I took it upon myself to remove the extra <noinclude>
tags I thought were causing the problem (go ahead and undo the changes if you disagree), but it still gaps. I eventually figured out that the userbox below it in the list had the same problem, but fixing it didn't resolve the gap issue. Now I'm confused. Unrelated, I was wondering if you could help me with a userbox (see next section). — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Update: I figured out what the issue was that started this whole thing with your userbox. Guess what the problem was.
Nothing to do with your userbox itself, the problem was in the comment in the template at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Userboxes/Use. The template was taking the double-equals sign as syntax rather than text. I've replaced them with HTML markup for an equals sign, and that fixed it; page looks good now. I am sorry about the changes I made to your userbox, though it may yet help. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- CJDOS, thanks. I changed it on my userbox page as well... Huggums537 (talk) 21:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Userbox user categories
I didn't like the preexisting userbox creator userboxes (not generic enough), so I created {{User:UBX/Userbox-generic}}. Adding the userbox to my userbox page put me into the category (I can see my username in the list), however, It's not displaying the category at the bottom of my userbox page like all the others are doing. Can't figure out why (just look at all my test in the userbox's edit history). — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- CJDOS, Fixed! Huggums537 (talk) 20:35, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the edit; very similar to how I originally had it (excluding my copyedit errors). It doesn't appear to have added the category to the bottom of my /Userboxes page. I can always re-add myself using hotcat like I had done before I finished creating the userbox. It's just that the userbox is supposed to automatically do it, like the baseball team categories, the fencing and English categories, etc as listed at the bottom of the page. It's the automatic display that's not working (no matter how many times I purge the cache and refresh the page). I'm in the category, it's just not being displayed on the bottom of my User:CJDOS/Userboxes page. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- CJDOS, it appears to be displaying for me... Huggums537 (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- It is, indeed. I doubt that my removing the category from my user page with hotcat before I had completed the userbox would have cause the described issue, but at this point I'm not ruling it out. I'll run a test: I'll remove the userbox from my /Userboxes page, logoff, and then re-add it later today after closing my browser out (sorely needed at this point). The other userboxes don't appear to have an issue being on a user subpage, so it can't be that (what I was getting at). — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- I hope it works out for you because I actually misunderstood the problem you were having when I made the edit, so it will be an unexpected pleasantry if it turns out good... Huggums537 (talk) 21:41, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- It is, indeed. I doubt that my removing the category from my user page with hotcat before I had completed the userbox would have cause the described issue, but at this point I'm not ruling it out. I'll run a test: I'll remove the userbox from my /Userboxes page, logoff, and then re-add it later today after closing my browser out (sorely needed at this point). The other userboxes don't appear to have an issue being on a user subpage, so it can't be that (what I was getting at). — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- CJDOS, it appears to be displaying for me... Huggums537 (talk) 21:01, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for the edit; very similar to how I originally had it (excluding my copyedit errors). It doesn't appear to have added the category to the bottom of my /Userboxes page. I can always re-add myself using hotcat like I had done before I finished creating the userbox. It's just that the userbox is supposed to automatically do it, like the baseball team categories, the fencing and English categories, etc as listed at the bottom of the page. It's the automatic display that's not working (no matter how many times I purge the cache and refresh the page). I'm in the category, it's just not being displayed on the bottom of my User:CJDOS/Userboxes page. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
I finally got it working, exactly how it's supposed to be. The coding I had was right, except the <includeonly>
tag was unnecessary (see WP:INCLUDEONLY). It wasn't doing any harm, but I had copied it in the process. The problem was a matter of when I put the userbox on my page.
- Remove the userbox from user page page.
- Fix the template's categories.
- Re-add the userbox back onto my userpage later.
I hadn't been doing it in that order. Now, it all looks right.
Template:Statustop
I see you're using two user status indicators. I've tried asking others information that's not in the doc. Do you have to manually update it inline/subpage, and if so, does changing your status increase your edit count? I've seen others manually change theirs by 'undo'ing their edit history, but I don't know if that still increases the edit count. I already have plenty of unnecessary edits as it is. I understand a menu/box template can change it from another page—supposedly with just a click, but instead I've read complaints that such a menu only pulls up the subpage's source for editing. No idea if it is possible to auto-detect when you're signed in/out and change itself. I'm mostly concerned about not artificially bumping my edit count. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 02:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
- CJDOS, I just realized I didn't properly answer the question. I was on mobile. Anyway, I use a script to change status with one click, but you would otherwise have to do it manually inline/subpage, but you can create links for that also. No matter how you do it, each change counts as an edit, but my thoughts on that are all edits count. I mean if you have an issue that takes you a bunch of edits to sort out, then it was you who spent that time and effort getting that experience to sort it out so you earned it, and if you are just some hooligan trying to do meaningless things to increase your edit count that are not harming anyone, then it was you who spent your valuable time earning those edits. There are probably more productive uses of your time, but if you wanted to spend it earning edits on Wikipedia, I could think of worse things to be spending your time on as well so more power to you. However, if your concern about bumping your edit count is that great you might consider using a banner rather than a status indicator or you could use the status indicator very sparingly such as maybe not showing online and offline every single time you are away from Wikipedia and come back (like I sometimes do) or maybe if you're online a lot just show always online and only offline when you are really away and just can't edit. Huggums537 (talk) 01:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "banner"? Do you mean similar to Template:Busy (already incorporated into the Template:Digital clock and date box on my talk page)? I have considered minimal updates as an option; when I was more active on social media, my status was set to not indicate when I was online, else I'd never get anything done. I consider minimal edits for the purpose of debugging, or correcting occasional editing mistakes/forgets, as meaningful; I consider updating my user status as non-productive (unless I can bundle it with another edit; that would be perfect). There's a page that talks—but not exclusively—about exploiting edits simply for the sake of boosting a user's count, but I don't remember what the title was. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- Yep, a banner just like those! Yeah, I think maybe I read a page like that somewhere around here a long time ago too. It was prolly just a user essay from an editor with a different opinion than mine. That was back when I wasn't as sure of myself, and took established editors' opinions over my own. My tendency now is to choose my own opinion and think for myself unless the established editor can manage to convince me otherwise, in which case I'm more than happy to say they have convinced me. Huggums537 (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- What do you mean by "banner"? Do you mean similar to Template:Busy (already incorporated into the Template:Digital clock and date box on my talk page)? I have considered minimal updates as an option; when I was more active on social media, my status was set to not indicate when I was online, else I'd never get anything done. I consider minimal edits for the purpose of debugging, or correcting occasional editing mistakes/forgets, as meaningful; I consider updating my user status as non-productive (unless I can bundle it with another edit; that would be perfect). There's a page that talks—but not exclusively—about exploiting edits simply for the sake of boosting a user's count, but I don't remember what the title was. — CJDOS, Sheridan, OR (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
- @CJDOS, I wanted to let you know that Enterprisey did an update to the status changer which fixed my status issues, but the update also apparently made some improvements as well which enable it to be a truly one-click system now! The link is here: User:Enterprisey/StatusChanger.js. Huggums537 (talk) 05:52, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm glad you got the user box fixed because I honestly thought I was fixing a different problem so when I realized what it was you were actually trying to do, I didn't understand how anything I did could have fixed the problem so it was weird it looked like it was working. I guess the cache needed to purge or something. Anyway, I just started using the second status indicator because I was having trouble with the status updating and I thought using a new indicator might have a different result, but I'm still having the problem and it will only update when I purge the cache or make an edit to the user page. I was making a lot of status changes today trying to figure out the problem and every change counts as an edit. I believe that even I'm doing yet history counts as an edit also, but you will have to check with a more experienced editor to make sure about that. Huggums537 (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
Happy Thanksgiving Weekend!
Happy Thanksgiving Weekend! | |
Happy Thanksgiving weekend to one and all! This year on Wikipedia I'm most thankful for all the editors and admins who took a part to help me get my editing status back so I can contribute, and also have my voice heard on subjects I think are important. I'm equally grateful this year for those who I have had past conflicts with because all of them have allowed me to edit peacefully without incident, so my gratitude goes out to them for making Wikipedia a happy editing environment free of conflict! I think anyone who might be reading this knows who you are, but it doesn't really matter because my thanks goes out to all of you just the same no matter which side of the table you sit on this year, so I will avoid any needless embarrassment by pinging anyone to this comment, even though I'm rather well known for being the ping master! At any rate, blessings to you all... Huggums537 (talk) 05:34, 27 November 2021 (UTC) |
Merry Christmas!
Hello, Huggums537! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, and happy holidays to you as well! Huggums537 (talk) 15:31, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at MOS:POPCULT
Hi Huggums537,
Since you have previously contributed to the discussion at MOS:POPCULT, including about the most recent substantial changes to the guideline, perhaps you'd also be interested in a discussion we're having on the scope of MOS:POPCULT - whether it only applies to "trivia sections", or also to stand-alone lists and "in popular culture" articles. Pilaz (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Warning: Casting aspersions
Re Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 January 7 § Wikipedia:Inclusion criteria (permalink): You're welcome to disagree with me on whether IP78 did or did not have experience on Wikipedia. Reasonable minds can differ there, although I think I've made a good case for why I saw reason to listen to their opinion. You're not just saying, "I think they don't have enough experience for their !vote to be given much weight," though. You are saying that they are "suspect". You have provided no evidence for why they are "suspect", other than the fact that they have a low edit count, which is absolutely meaningless for an IP user. Some people's IP addresses change every few minutes. There are a number of IP users who are regulars at SPI, as you must have noticed by now.
"Suspect" is an aspersion and you are casting it baselessly. This is a formal warning, and the only one you will receive for this: Strike or reword that part of your comment, or be prepared to justify it to ANI when the DRV has concluded. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 19:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Tamzin, fine. I struck the relevant portion. I have no desire for ongoing "challenges" with you. My only goal was to reopen the discussion you closed. Please understand that. Huggums537 (talk) 23:30, 7 January 2022 (UTC)