Hi Handpigdad! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Happy editing! -- 🐦DrWho42 👻 00:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, Handpigdad. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Robert Flanagan (Poet), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 06:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Georges Feydeau on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 29 September 2023 (UTC) reply

You have recently made edits related to discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes. This is a standard message to inform you that discussions about infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Wikipedia:Contentious topics. - SchroCat ( talk) 13:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I bring the above to your attention as you're throwing around terms like "hypocrisy" and "disruptive behaviour" around without necessarily grasping the wider context of IB discussions.

As to your question on the page about asking people to 'describe instances where they do support the use of infoboxes', not only does that go counter to the two ArbCom decisions I linked at your request ("avoid turning discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general"), it is pointless: what people do on other articles has no bearing on what happens on the Feydeau article, which is supposed to be the point of the discussion. - SchroCat ( talk) 13:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi SchroCat. I'm demoralized to hear that attempt to deescalate the discussion was not well received. I was not trying to score points against you, but trying to build a bridge with the other editor to communicate how they could be constructive, but I can see how it appeared as some of kind of underhanded way of insulting you. I apologize for that.

On the subject of my question, I think it was misinterpreted. It's precisely because many of the arguments in that thread appeared to me arguments about infoboxes-in-general that I requested those general stances be stated to by contrast make clear the nuances of what the specific arguments were on that page. The intention was certainly not to change the topic of discussion to infoboxes-in-general. I do somewhat quibble with your assertion that what happens in other articles should have no bearing on the Feydeau article—to me that feels impossible. The ArbCom decisions you are citing as precedent for how the discussion should be conducted are themselves based on discussions that happened about other articles. I agree that they shouldn't be the primary reasoning for what happens on this article, but obviously they are relevant, because other examples are how we identify what an infobox is, what it can do, how we have experienced them, how they may enhance or detract from an article. Infoboxes we're not invented for this article, so it's impossible to consider them in isolation, but the principle that their use or non should be primarily justified on a per-article level seems reasonable to me. Handpigdad ( talk) 17:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I should have made my point a little clearer: I am not criticising you for attempting to deescalate the situation - indeed, thank you for doing so. You were, however, still saying I was showing "hypocrisy" and exhibiting "disruptive behaviour". That is all water under the bridge and I truly appreciate your apology for that.

We shall have to agree to disagree on the rest: the ArbCom decisions are clear to me: it isn't about how they are used in different articles and trying to find a common point, but, as MOS:INFOBOXUSE puts it "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article". Despite the untruths spread by some at Feydeau, most people who have a flexible approach to IBs do not obsess over them, have a "hatred" for them, do not travel round removing them or pushing discussions endlessly. These are just outright lies that have been rejected and refuted before, but the continual dishonesty by a small core of editors is something many of us are used to. Like most people with a flexible approach to IBs, I also don't like discussing them either and this is one of the reasons your comment on the thread has not been replied to. - SchroCat ( talk) 18:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

It's stronger language than I would have used if I wasn't conforming to the terms that had already been used—and I probably should have chosen to change my wording, rather than just quoting the other user. But to be frank, I found some of your contributions to that discussion to be impolite, and as seems to often happen in arguments about civility, both of you were justifying an escalation of combativeness based on perceptions of the other's rudeness. I would hope that two editors who are as experienced as you both are would be better able to recognize that pattern and interrupt it. I'm pretty bored by discussion of a war over infoboxes—and framing conflicts in that way seems to be a shortcut to making assumptions about one's opponent—but if it is bound to be seen that way, then every battle can be an opportunity to move towards peace. I've come across several other combative groups of editors, similar to what you describe, but I find that every time I homogenize them in my conception, I start to make errors in judgement, distracted as I am by frustation.

Now that I have reviewed the ArbCom decisions you sent me for a second time, I must respectfully disagree with what I understand to be your interpretation of those decisions on my talk page here and also on the Feydeau article.

Point 10 of the Remedies section of the 2018 case states (the same verbiage is used in the 2013 case): "All editors are reminded to maintain decorum and civility when engaged in discussions about infoboxes, and to not turn discussions about a single article's infobox into a discussion about infoboxes in general."

This is a request to not turn to a specific article's Talk page into a discussion of infoboxes in general, but is not a commentary on what sort of evidence or argumentation is appropriate, aside from a reminder to maintain decorum and civility.

Point 2 of the Finding of Facts section of the 2013 case states: "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article by site policies or guidelines. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."

I interpret this as suggesting that consensus on infobox use should be determined on a case-by-case basis, but does not clearly imply that examples from outside the article can't be consulted.

If there is a section of the ArbCom rulings that I am missing? Perhaps we have a more formal disagreement about whether the subject and the content of a discussion are the same.

Thank you for your time engaging with me on this; as a relatively new editor, I really appreciate it. I really hope I'm not coming across as condescending; as a new editor I'm observing again and again that the tone and incivility of many discussions drives off potential new editors, and I'm trying to learn how to help encourage more charitable exchanges. Handpigdad ( talk) 18:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

As I have said, we shall have to agree to disagree about the ArbCom ruling. I've discussed it before with the Arbs involved in the case and other admins, and been through the argument too many times to doubt what they mean, which is as I have outlined it. You are, of course, free to interpret it how you would like, but I am only suggesting one reason why people are not following up on your desire to widen the discussion to other articles. - SchroCat ( talk) 18:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the clarification. It's disappointing that that meaning is just not clear in the text as it was published. That makes it very difficult for someone who has not been through this argument as many times as you have to understand the discussion. I assure you that just from reading the text that's there, that interpretation is not clear to me. Especially given your connection to the case, I wonder if you might be able to encourage some more specific wording to be adopted? That would be very helpful for your point being easier to convey. The just trust me, that's what it means, is never going to be a particularly useful argument with someone you don't already have an existing relationship with.

And similarly, it's not my desire to widen the discussion on that article page either, I was just giving that question as a prompt to editors who were making arguments that they claimed were specific, but didn't appear to me that way. The contrast could be a way for them to make an argument more precise by identifying differences. Defining what makes an apple an apple is much easier if you're permitted to make reference to the characteristics of other fruits. Handpigdad ( talk) 19:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

As I've said, I don't like wasting my time talking about IBs in the abstract (and only do it in the specific when I have to), so I think I'll pass on trying to get ArbCom to change their wording (they are highly unlikely to do so without a case to work on anyway, and would likely say the meaning is clear enough when asked).

Apple#Description does an excellent job without referring to any other fruits! A slightly facetious response, but there is a kernel of truth there too. The discussion needs to focus on why the consensus should change to put an IB on Feydeau - regardless of what happens on any other article. That's just the reality of the situation with IBs - as you can see with the MOS and Arbcom.

I'm going to step away from this: I've already wasted enough time on IBs recently and I'm in the midst of an FAC and trying to write another article for FA, so the IB timesinks are something I'll shy away from once again, except where they are thrust upon me on articles on which I have worked or have an interest. Have a good evening. - SchroCat ( talk) 19:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your time and grace in discussing something we aren't on the same page on. (and I'm perfectly charmed by the apple retort!) Best of luck with all your hard work. Much work is lost to getting bogged down in timesinks. Handpigdad ( talk) 19:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Boxing on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, Handpigdad. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Manhunt (Novel), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot ( talk) 01:04, 7 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove a redirect and replace it with a blank article. If you would like to work on an article on the topic to get it ready for the main space, please create a draft. voorts ( talk/ contributions) 02:34, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

hi! i'm not sure what happened there. i was just editing the article's short description field from the mobile app. i hadn't even been shown the edit screen for the rest of the article. the last thing edited on that page appears to have been that redirect, so perhaps there was some sort of error? or the way the official app inserts a new short description disturbs a redirect? i will double check my edits in future when doing this sort of thing. thank you for catching it and letting me know. Handpigdad ( talk) 04:18, 14 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Kylie Minogue on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 18 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Congrats on 338 edits!

Wow Mollu ( talk) 02:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi @ Handpigdad, some three weeks ago you mentioned you'd get back to check Ostap Korkuna for notability. This is a gentle ping. Looking forward to your feedback. Thx Qq8 ( talk) 07:31, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

My apologies for never coming back to it! I really appreciate the reminder. Taking a look now. Handpigdad ( talk) 09:21, 4 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Congrats on 500 edits! Wow Mollu ( talk) 05:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:32, 23 November 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) 00:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Konstantine Anthony on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 13 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hi and thank you for joinging the WikiProject Organized Labour! We are editors who collaborate to improve the coverage of all matters related to trade unions.

A couple of suggestions:

• If you've not done so already, you might wish to add {{ User WikiProject Organized Labour}} to your userpage.
• You can leave questions or start discussions at the Organized Labour talk page about matters related to the project.
• If you feel like doing some clean up; we have a big list.

Once again, welcome. Goldsztajn ( talk) 11:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, Handpigdad. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Robert Flanagan".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Tim Hunt on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Self-immolation of Aaron Bushnell on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Dune: Part Two on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Hunter Biden on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 24 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, Handpigdad. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Manhunt".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply