User talk:HectorMoffet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Precious[edit]

Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

investigation
Thank you, editor who had "two blissful years". for quality articles, investigating politics and law cases (Mass surveillance in East Germany, Investigation of the death of Trayvon Martin, Iranian legislative election, 1950, and - most complex - right here), for dealing with deletions and openness helping editor retention, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Cherry blossom Frauenstein.JPG

Precious and missed

You may like a line from my latest article: "I found Diogenes especially appealing because he battled against every sort of convention not just theoretically but also in his lifestyle. And what really pleases me: he left no written record whatsoever, and yet his spirit lives on." (Daniel Keel) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Hector, got your emails, but I'm not going to reply to them, just FYI. I have sympathies toward your position, but I need to choose my battles. Right now, I'm still formulating where my energies are to be best directed, and TFA is probably not where it's going to be. There are more widespread issues out there. Good luck in your endeavors. Montanabw(talk) 18:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:Bencherlite. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:14, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Stop icon This is your last warning. The next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User talk:Bencherlite, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Cirt (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2014 (UTC) Cirt, you are WP:INVOLVED and you know it. If an uninvolved user shows up, I'll listen to their advice.

HectorMoffet, I'm not an admin, I don't fight battles on behalf of others and I'm only here because I'm a TPS of a third party. Now I've got my "neutral" badge on, I really do think you need to take a step back for a couple of hours and get things in perspective. Your actions on Bencherlite's page are crossing a line you really shouldn't be crossing (and there is no need to cross it anyway). You had your say on the page, all well and good, but if Bencherlite chooses to delete threads on his own talk page, he is perfectly entitled to: you should respect that, and not try and force them back on there. They are still in the edit history, and as such a permanent record of them exists. It is every editor's prerogative to clean up their talk page by archiving or by deletion, if they see fit. It's not cool to edit war to re-insert the thread, just because you want it to be there. I'm not getting into the rights and wrongs of all the other stuff that's going on, but I suggest—in an entirely friendly way—that you take a break for as long as it takes to get some perspective on the matter. - SchroCat (talk) 15:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

WP:ANI#HectorMoffet[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. BencherliteTalk 15:13, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

  • You appear to have lost your ability for rational action, I assume because you're pissed off about something. You've been blocked until you agree not to harass Bancherlite anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:21, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • HectorMoffet, please read WP:OWNTALK. As far as deleting material is concerned, Bencherlite can do whatever he wants with his talk page, including with the archives thereof. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:43, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Hector, when I asked you to show more determination I meant in creating articles and proposing DYKs, like you had been doing. These talk page edit disputes distract from the justice of your original cause. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Arizona Fourth Amendment Protection Act[edit]

Thanks for your article from the wiki and I Victuallers (talk) 00:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination for Mass surveillance in North Korea[edit]

Hi. I've closed Did you know nominations/Mass surveillance in North Korea as rejected. If this doesn't make any sense to you, please feel free to promptly revert the closure and add a note there. I'm sorry to have read a few things related to your absence, and hope that you'll feel differently in the future. All the best. -- Trevj (talk · contribs) 15:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board report on mass surveillance[edit]

Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Klayman v. Obama[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for ACLU v. Clapper[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Barack Obama on mass surveillance[edit]

Allen3 talk 18:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox United States proposed state legislation[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Infobox United States proposed state legislation has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

CFD[edit]

You're blocked, but if anybody else relevant is watching; I've nominated the category you created for listifying and deleting. See Category:Recipients of the Sam Adams Award. Award-winners are much better handled as lists, not categories, for a variety of reasons. Please see WP:OCAT#Award for the basic rationale, and I'm happy to talk about it more if you like. Or, join the discussion at CFD. --Lquilter (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for USA Freedom Act[edit]

Thank you Victuallers (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please consider clearing up the administrative situation[edit]

I will not deny that WP:DYK is an incredible pain in the ass, even under the best of circumstances, and obviously I've agreed with you on certain points about it in the past. Nonetheless you have a talk page full of DYKs now, and I've just finally gotten them to pass the FISA Improvements Act on. The block notice I see on your account is one of the most temperately worded I've seen out of WP admins: "block may be lifted by any admin without consultation as soon as HM agrees to drop it". But I worry that editors looking back at the history of the articles and talk pages will tend to look at your talk page, see the red X, and discount your opinion without looking at that. For this reason I would really like it if you can just agree to leave the editor alone so you can get unblocked. Just be very careful to be clear that you will do so and don't get drawn into arguing with them about the underlying issue (there's nothing more illegal on Wikipedia - it's our equivalent of asking for a jury trial IRL, you can spend your life in "jail" for it). You don't actually have to start editing again, just get unblocked to improve the "balance of power" on these articles. If you're (not implausibly) afraid that you'll keep getting dragged back into disputes by editors who have more arguing to do, then at least by getting unblocked you make it fully legitimate for you to start a new account at a later date instead of using this one, if you wish to avoid the arguments. In any case, I thank you for the work done, and I hope you'll read over the DYK discussions as they include some genuinely useful feedback on your writing. Wnt (talk) 15:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for FISA Improvements Act[edit]

Thanks from → Call me Hahc21) 16:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Stop Watching Us[edit]

The DYK project (nominate) 01:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

OER inquiry[edit]

Hi HectorMoffet, I'm sending you this message because you're one of about 300 users who have recently edited an article in the umbrella category of open educational resources (OER) (or open education). In evaluating several projects we've been working on (e.g. the WIKISOO course and WikiProject Open), my colleague Pete Forsyth and I have wondered who chooses to edit OER-related articles and why. Regardless of whether you've taken the WIKISOO course yourself - and/or never even heard the term OER before - we'd be extremely grateful for your participation in this brief, anonymous survey before 27 April. No personal data is being collected. If you have any ideas or questions, please get in touch. My talk page awaits. Thanks for your support! - Sara FB (talk) 20:41, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Amash-Conyers Amendment for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Amash-Conyers Amendment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amash-Conyers Amendment until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Launchballer 16:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:List of votes on the Amash/Conyers Amendment[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svgTemplate:List of votes on the Amash/Conyers Amendment has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. The Banner talk 21:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The First Book of Napoleon for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The First Book of Napoleon is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The First Book of Napoleon until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FyzixFighter (talk) 03:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Book of Nullification[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article The Book of Nullification has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails notability criteria of WP:GNG/WP:NBOOKS, nor is there evidence that it could satisfy the criteria for non-contemporary books.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. FyzixFighter (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The Book of Nullification for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Book of Nullification is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Book of Nullification until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FyzixFighter (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of The Healing of the Nations[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article The Healing of the Nations has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Doesn't appear to meet the notability criteria of WP:GNG or of the more specific WP:NBOOKS, particularly that of significant coverage in multiple sources. All claims in article of notability appear to be cases of inherited notability.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. FyzixFighter (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of The Healing of the Nations for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Healing of the Nations is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Healing of the Nations until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. FyzixFighter (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)