Fhsig13

List of Inland Ferries in British Columbia

@Fhsig13: Since you are the creator and primary contributor to the above article, I should mention that I am in the process of researching this topic in quite some depth, which will is likely to take up to two years. The findings will ultimately supersede much of the existing historic content of your article, which will then be linked to more detailed information in the respective WP pages specific to numerous BC locations. Over the past few years, I have detailed a number of inland ferries when working on WP articles for specific localities. My present exercise, which will focus on locations not previously covered, will initially require creating several new WP articles and significantly expanding over 100 existing articles. Creating new articles and addressing deficiencies in existing ones will also require substantial research into non-ferry content. The sheer volume of work in this foundational undertaking is the reason why it would be unproductive for me to make any changes to your list article until later next year. DMBanks1 (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

@DMBanks1: Thank you informing me of your research. I do feel dissatisfied with the some information (or lack thereof) that I was able to provide in the list article I created, so I look forward to seeing what you able to uncover about the history of ferry transport in BC, and I do hope that it proves fruitful for both yourself and the articles you plan to improve. Fhsig13 (talk) 17:54, 22 February 2022 (PDT)

Drive by votes at FfD

You're still making a lot of mistakes and blindly endorsing positions that make little sense. Last warning. -Fastily 08:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fastily Thank you again for reaching out. As I said before, you are welcome to dissent from my opinions, but with all due respect, I am not finding this kind of feedback helpful. I have studied the criteria for WP:NFCCP, WP:SPEEDY, WP:SK, and others at length since our last conversation; and still feel that I am making the most logical points I can, based on my best judgement and interpretations of the relevant policies, as well as by thoroughly reviewing the files and articles involved in each case. Otherwise, there is little else I can say beyond that the point of FfD is discussion, and so if there is no indication that my stance in a discussion is incorrect at the time (so I will thank you for pointing out my mistakes in the spots where you have, which has enabled me to make the necessaey corrections), then there is little way for me to tell if I'm off base. FHSIG13 ^TALK 09:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

No. You're either missing the point or willfully ignorant of it. As I told you before, there's no issue if you're learning, but there are serious issues with the rapid clip at which you are making sloppy !votes. I don't have time to audit all of your !votes at FfD, and the small handful I sampled yesterday ranged from misinformed to outright wrong. Competence is required to edit, and if you're not going to bring your contributions up to necessary standard, then well, you already know what happens next. -Fastily 20:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fastily: This has been going on far too long. There were extensive discussions of issues with this editor's edits in 2018, and nothing has changed. See the comments on the talk page in 2018 [1] I suggested that this might be WP:CIR issue almost 6 years ago, and I wasn't the only editor to raise it. Meters (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Meters With all due respect, I hardly think infractions from 6 years ago are relevant to completely different issues in the present, especially since I have had few if any similar occurences since then, but by all means do whatever you feel is correct. @Fastily As I said before, I apologize for the mistakes that I have made in my voting, however I was raised to believe that making mistakes is one of the best ways that one can learn to improve themself, however if it will put an end to your questioning of my competence, as well as the veiled threats to block me from editing, I will try to be more careful in my reviews and judgements before voting at FfD. FHSIG13 ^TALK 21:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The history is germane because your behaviour is still the same in general. You don't change your behaviour when other editors point out out problems. We should not have to repeatedly tell you that what you are doing is not correct. As Fastily put it: You're either missing the point or willfully ignorant of it. and if you're not going to bring your contributions up to necessary standard, then well, you already know what happens next. Meters (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Meters With all due respect, I am neither missing the point, nor is it fair to accuse me of ignoring it. As a matter of fact, I have been conducting myself differently at FfD since Fastily and I spoke previously, and while I regret that I have unintentionally made some similar mistakes, I am trying my best to do better. I am truly at a loss as to what more I can do remedy the situation beyond telling you both that I have changed, whether it looks that way outwardly or not. I can't stress enough that I am learning as I go, and that UNLESS is made apparent to me that I have erred (by other editors dissenting from my rationales), then I have no reason not to believe that I haven't erred and therefore assume that I am making sound judgements. FHSIG13 ^TALK 21:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's break this down:

I am neither missing the point, nor is it fair to accuse me of ignoring it

Yes you are and yes, it is.

I have been conducting myself differently at FfD since Fastily and I spoke

Oh really? Looks the same to me.

I have unintentionally made some similar mistakes, I am trying my best to do better

Not the problem. Everyone makes mistakes but you're doing it at a rapid clip on a grand scale even after being told to knock it off/slow down

I am truly at a loss as to what more I can do remedy the situation

Easy, quit !voting at FfD

I have no reason not to believe that I haven't erred and therefore assume that I am making sound judgements.

Do you think we're dumb? -Fastily 22:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@Fastily Go ahead and block me then please. I am not going to quit voting at FfD, as I enjoy the process and value what I have learned from it. I am not trying to insult your intelligence, but am through with you insulting mine. We are clearly not going to reach an understanding, since you refuse to recognize any of the changes I have made, as the mistakes I am still making will forever outweigh them. I see no other solution beyond you following through on your threats, and keeping me from voting by force. FHSIG13 ^TALK 22:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

As you wish. -Fastily 22:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Fhsig13 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like my self-requested block to be reduced to a partial block from WP:FFD only. After further contemplation, I still feel that have made valid contributions to encyclopedia outside of that forum, and would like to be able to continue with that, if possible. I am not looking to be fully unblocked, as I wish to be forcibly prevented from re-entering FFD discussions as a precaution. Thank you. FHSIG13 ^TALK 07:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Fully unblocked per discussion below. Fhsig13 has agreed to cease disruptive behavior with the understanding that *any* repeat of said behavior will result in an immediate re-block, no exceptions. Fastily 08:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree this is "self-requested"; it appears to me that you agreed with blocking you under threat of it being done to you anyway. However, I will do this if Fastily does not object. 331dot (talk) 07:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm concerned that Fhsig13's disruptive editing will continue in other areas of the project and a p-block from FfD (because OP has zero self-control) does little to assure me that this will not be the case. I'd like to see OP explain to us why their recent behavior was inappropriate, how it will not be repeated, and with the understanding that any new infractions will not be tolerated and result in an immediate indef block. -Fastily 08:12, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments; I was going in that direction myself. I agree. 331dot (talk) 08:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@331dot@Fastily While I disagree with your assertion about my self-control, I will state that my recent behavior was inappropriate because I continued to vote based off incorrect information and misjudgments, even after being told that I was making such mistakes previously. And while I maintain that none of what I did was the result of any intentional effort to interpret policies incorrectly, I will not repeat such actions in any other part of the project as I will now ensure that I fully understand all relevant material before making any edits, and will avoid any areas that I am not intimately familiar with as there are editors out there that can handle such situations better than I. Lastly, I have had no infractions outside of FfD for over six years, so I do think that my track record there should speak to my abilities to make constructive, sourced edits, write useful articles, and work cooperatively with other editors to build the encyclopedia. I hope that this response is satisfactory for all intents and purposes. FHSIG13 ^TALK 04:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Wow. For someone who's trying to get unblocked, you ought to be *way* less defensive and *a lot* more apologetic. I'm surprised (but not really) that you failed to address the reason I blocked you, which [hint hint] I've stated multiple times above. Also I'm unimpressed by how you're twisting the facts to fit your ill-advised narrative. Assuming you're not here to troll and actually give a damn about being unblocked, now would be a good time to start telling the truth and be earnest in your description of how you'll do better. -Fastily 06:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fastily You blocked me because I was making, as you characterized it, "a lot of mistakes and blindly endorsing positions that make little sense", and doing so continuously despite being informed that I needed to stop doing so. I will do better by listening to what other editors tell me when they reach out and making solid changes to how I do things as a result. I will proceed slowly and take time to ensure that any position I take on any part of the project is correct and based on valid information before I move forward. I do apologize for causing such issues over this, and I do sincerely want to do right by all involved. FHSIG13 ^TALK 06:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Better, but do you actually understand why "making a lot of mistakes and blindly endorsing positions that make little sense" causes a lot of problems? In your own words, please explain why this is disruptive to the FfD process. -Fastily 06:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, from what I saw based off the progression of some of my incorrect votes, the introduction of invalid and/or misinformed points can derail a discussion by shifting the focus away from the issue(s) at hand and causing subsequent votes to be directed towards the nonexistent/irrelevant issue, rather than them being used to sort out what the file(s) was/were originally nominated to discuss, and thereby creating the potential for the outcome of the discussion to be skewed. FHSIG13 ^TALK 06:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and it also creates additional work for admins who need close/moderate such discussions. If you are unblocked, how will you change your contributions to FfD? Are you still planning to !vote in every listing? -Fastily 22:24, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fastily I certainly would not vote in every listing if unblocked, but I would would still have a subdued presence over at FfD, should I be allowed to do so. In terms of what I would do differently, I would take things much slower, and make certain to avoid any discussions where I am not intimately familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines, the subject of the file(s) in question and, provided those file(s) are not orphaned, the article(s) in which it/they is/are used in. Doing this should minimize, if not outright eliminate, the possibility for me to vote improperly as it would restrict me to voting only in discussions where I am certain that I am fully aware of all policies and guidelines that are at play in each specific case, and thus formulate a rationale that takes all necessary factors into account. I would stay out of any discussion for which the nomination leaves me with any uncertainty, and allow more experienced editors to handle it, allowing me to learn from them, for future discussions. FHSIG13 ^TALK 23:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fastily Please excuse the ping, but I would still like to resolve this matter whenever it is convenient for you. Thank you. FHSIG13 ^TALK 21:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad answer. So now let's say hypothetically you are unblocked but then at some point in the future resume the same behavior that resulted in this current block. What do you think should happen to you? -Fastily 01:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fastily Well, I'd have to think that if I do the same things again, the consequences would be magnified, since I would not have kept my word in that scenario. I can only assume that I would be blocked permanently, unless that's somehow deemed too harsh, although I'm not sure what other consequence exists, beyond what I am currently experiencing. FHSIG13 ^TALK 08:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fastily Again please excuse the ping, but please let me know if you require anything further from me to wrap things up here. No hurry of course. FHSIG13 ^TALK 22:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Works for me, I'll unblock you on the condition that ANY repeat of the same behavior that lead to this current block will result in an immediate re-block, no exceptions. Please confirm that you've read and understand these conditions. -Fastily 09:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fastily I have read and understand the conditions. Thank you for taking time to work through this with me. FHSIG13 ^TALK 04:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fastily: I would hope that this behaviour condition is taken to mean any of the same WP:IDHT behaviour in any context, not just in FfD. Fhsig13 has a history of refusing to listen to problems that other editors have pointed out. Meters (talk) 05:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I think given the previous block, this is a reasonable expectation. Fhsig13, is the comment from Meters clear? -Fastily 06:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fastily Yes, the comment from @Meters is clear. FHSIG13 ^TALK 08:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Fastily You also have my word that this will be the final time that I'm going to ping you. All I ask is that you please let me know once you have reached a decision on unblocking me. Thank you. FHSIG13 ^TALK 23:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Very well, I'll hold you to it. -Fastily 08:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of current AHL captains and alternate captains, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brad Hunt.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

NHL captains & alternate captains

Howdy. The Red Wings are rotating two separate alternate captaincies & it's the Ducks who 'currently' don't have at least two alternate captains. The Blues have 'three' alternate captains. GoodDay (talk) 21:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Did something go wrong with my last edit? I thought I corrected all of those things, which were not my original doing. I merged the Redwings alternate captaincy boxes as I thought it looked cleaner and less redundant that way, but if consensus differs, than doing otherwise is more than okay. I switched out where the blurb at the top erroneously listed the Blues as having less than two alternates, and put in the Ducks instead. Not sure what went wrong from there though. FHSIG13 ^TALK 21:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

The Ducks/Blues edit was my blunder, apologies. I hadn't notice your correction, when I reverted. GoodDay (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

It's all good, it all got fixed one way or another. FHSIG13 ^TALK 04:36, 15 December 2024 (UTC)