User talk:Inanygivenhole

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


Hello, Inanygivenhole, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Button sig.png or Insert-signature.png or by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Oliverlyc 03:19, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Getting started
Finding your way around
Editing articles
Getting help
How you can help
Thanks! Inanygivenhole (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


I just ran across an old note of mine, reminding myself to support your wish to keep your name. Is that still an issue? If so I will certainly support you; just leave a message on my Talk page telling me where to go (I'd say "leave a reply here," but I can't guarantee I'll see it because I sometimes go days without checking my watchlist, and things get missed).

Best regards,

*Septegram*Talk*Contributions* 18:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Theory of Forms[edit]

Thanks for the heads up, it was an unruly Firefox extension. I've turned it off, so it shouldn't turn up here. Rest of the edit should be good, though, so I'll reinstate them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tibfulv (talkcontribs) 20:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's against the Manual of Style to continuously link to a page. Inanygivenhole (talk) 23:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


Hi. Just a quick note that I had removed your PROD from LitPAC: based on what I found, I think it would at least benefit from a full deletion discussion. I'll take it there. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LitPAC Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know! Inanygivenhole (talk) 21:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Soliciting comment...[edit]

Hi! Would you care to review or comment/vote (support/oppose) at my FA nomination for the article New York Dolls (album)? Information on reviewing an FA nomination's criteria is available at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 02:31, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding other people's talk page comments[edit]

Though likely accidental, you've twice now removed Festal82's comments at Talk:Metamodernism and once inserted [deliberately] a fact tag into his/her comments. Please try to be careful, and don't edit anybody else's talk page comments (as I'm sure you know, the citation needed tag is for articles). WP:TPG lays this all out pretty well. This discussion already teeters back and forth on the brink of incivility, personal attacks, bad faith accusations, and all that fun stuff without stoking the fire more with accidental things. --— Rhododendrites talk |  04:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Odd, I'm not sure how those got reverted. I made sure to use the right box after the edit conflict. Inanygivenhole (talk) 05:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
it happens. Just a heads up. --— Rhododendrites talk |  05:11, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Comments like this aren't helpful. If the point is to get a consensus, the fact that more people feel one way or the other is helpful itself. Now that the article more clearly separates the different views, I think that's more in line with your concerns, correct? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. From WP:CONSENSUS: "Decision-making involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines." Mere assent is not what we were looking for in that stage of the decision-making process. "Yes" is not a concern. (Then there's the issue of the many SPAs, but that's for another time...)
But back on point. Yes, the article is looking much better, thank you very much for that. Where do you think we should go from here? Inanygivenhole (talk) 20:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Keep on working on it. That's it. Don't try to get ahead of yourself. Speaking of which, why did you unarchive this section? The discussion seems done to me. We can still point to it but the length of that prior discussion will keep any editor from just examining the issue in a concrete manner. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Those discussions were not done at the time, Festal merely refused to comment on them, explicitly saying that he was ignoring several of us. They still aren't done really (though the new page makes many of them moot points), but I've given up hope of Festal ever responding to them. Several of those comments, however, are still quite relevant to the state of the article.
I agree, the length is imposing and uneccessary, but since Festal wasn't responding to the issues at hand (and since, when he did respond at all, it was usually a page-long, single-paragraph, semicoherent screed, and it sometimes wasn't even very related to what was being discussed), the conversation went every which way and people restated them elsewhere and in different ways. I'm not sure that there is really any way to determine which parts are still relevant and which aren't. Inanygivenhole (talk) 18:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It's a huge discussion. I'd say archive it and start a new section with a link back on a specific outstanding issue. There's nothing wrong with having the same topic discussed multiple times if they can controlled. I'm seeing the patterns there, it takes a lot of time to break down. There is always going to be a number of drive-by editors blasting text without explanation and to be blunt flat out lying about their sources (not saying Festal is that) but you just get used to the number of "Oh my god you people are all wrong" edits and talk page comments you see over the years (and don't stick to one article for too long). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 16 July 2014 (UTC)


That looks too like WP:DTR for comfort, and if you can find any rudeness against my co-editors at Talk:metamodernism, I would be grateful if you could spell it out to me. Or, are you outing one of 'em as a leading metamodernist? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

@Steelpillow: Making unsupported, patently false claims that "almost all [of the key contributors] have been WP:SPA" is rude, unhelpful, and dishonest. Which part of that is confusing? Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:05, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
"Unsupported, patently false?" When you questioned the evidence for my comment I offered you five Contrbs from unarguably SPA accounts. There is also a clue in my "almost all" qualifier, it allows the exclusion of your good self from that list. "Rude"? There is nothing perjorative about being an SPA, I am sorry if you think there is. But there are risks associated. WP:SPA will clarify this for you: it will even explain why I pointed you there. "Unhelpful"? Not you perhaps, but others found it helpful and thanked me for it. "Dishonest"? You breach WP:AGF there, you are on dangerous ground. None of your remark is confusing - at least, not to me. But I do find it unsupported, patently false, rude, unhelpful and, consequently, not a little hypocritical. Definitely not the kind of thing to write on my user talk page - you were on dangerous ground there, too. All in all, I excluded you from a comment that was not perjorative anyway, and provided supporting evidence when challenged. I reply now out of courtesy and I trust that we do not need to return to the matter. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
@Steelpillow:A brief look at the contribution history shows unequivocally that most of the key contributors are NOT SPAs (directly contrary to your claim). You named five contributors: two of them are not "key contributors", and one of them can hardly be called a key contributor having hardly even touched the article! Conviniently twisting the truth to fit your version of it is not helpful, and, (believe it or not) rude. Again I ask you to either provide support for your claims or to rescind your comment. Inanygivenhole (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk: Metamodernism. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The allegation that an editor is lying is a personal attack. Even if User:Steelpillow is mistaken in saying that most of the edits to Metamodernism have been made by SPA's, the claim that an editor is lying is disruptive. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

lol, I bet you haven't even bothered reading the discussion. That's the biggest problem facing the discussion. I think @Esmeme: would agree with me here. Inanygivenhole (talk) 22:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I agree that this has definitely been a problem with the discussion lately, although I'd like to think that Steelpillow was simply mistaken. Esmeme (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I would too but his tone suggests otherwise. Inanygivenhole (talk) 23:40, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Your accusation of lying goes way beyond acceptability on Wikipedia. It is not the tone of one who "would like to think that [I was] simply mistaken" as you now claim. Nor is "lol" a wise response to being warned by a helpful colleague. You really do need to retract your accusation at Talk:Metamodernism#Too soon?, apologise and give us some confidence that you will assume good faith on my part. I would echo Robert McClenon's warning: if you do not comply, the Wikipedia community may take sanctions against you for your unacceptable accusations. Or, once you have complied, I will be willing to continue civilised discussion of my position if it helps. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
You uttered an untruth knowingly. Either you lied about being in a position to pass judgement on the editors by calling them SPAs (i.e. you pretended to have looked through the article history), or you lied about what the facts showed: that most of the key contributors to the article were not SPAs. To come out of nowhere with blatant lies, which were uttered either out of ignorance or malice, is absolutely and unequivocally against the stated goals of the project. No amount of mental gymnastics will change that. Inanygivenhole (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)