User:Sm8900/draft notes
note re your message
[edit]I wrote a reply to your note at the other editor's talk page; I would like to discuss it here, if that is okay. thanks. what time frame do you wish me to agree to? I am open to accepting a specific time frame. Do you feel that twelve months is the time period you prefer? thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 23:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- Whilst, I don't wish to be sucked into a long conversation over this - sorry - I was genuinely trying to be helpful. I know your heart is in the right place. I knew my bluntness in my reply on Iridescent's talk page might either offend you, or steer you to better ways of working. Yes, I really do think a 12 month commitment to only editing article content (whilst still enabling you to contribute at WP:HISTORY) would be the best outcome for you and the Project. Are you agreeable to that, my friend? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- well, I am relieved that you are willing to discuss this amicably. yes, your message at Iridescent's talk page caused me huge emotional distress. I do not want to create a prolonged discussion either. I am open to ALL your guidance on this. I am practically crying with distress at this point. your willingness to discuss this calmly is a source of huge relief to me. yes, I would like to discuss this here, is that is okay.
- to begin with, could you please tell me whether anything that I actually did at WP:Village pump (proposals) was somehow counter to WP:CIVIL? and yes, I did try to improve my behaviour and editing habits in EVERY respect. I have NOT canvassed at all. I only made one or two proposals since then. and a proposal that I made at WP: Community bulletin board was entirely accepted and AGREED upon by user:Moxy and user:Headbomb. so it seemed like the main two parties to the initial issue has admirably and commenably overcome any prior objections they might have had.
- can we please discuss this via email? I am greatly worried by the overall tone of this. I am glad to discuss this with you. I would like to do so in an atmosphere where we can both approach each other calmly, positively and constructively. I wouild greatly appreciate your understanding. I will email you now. thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 00:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi there, Sm8900. If I were in your shoes, I think I'd also be deeply, deeply upset by what I said to you, and by what others have said to you. I would probably also be crying too, because it's really not nice to be told to stop doing stuff. I know that; I would be in tears, too. But, no, I am not agreeable to discussing things with you by email. I honestly do not want to be sucked into having to discuss every minutiae of every past discussion, and I am not going to look back to past discussions to evaluate every issue. Look: I do know that you care about Wikipedia; I also know that you want to improve it. But, unfortunately, you've not done it in the right way. You simply need to recognise that, especially as it's upset/annoyed/irritated rather a lot of experienced editors. So, by asking you to agree to taking a step back, and taking a 12 month time-out - I'm hoping you can contribute well to article space, as can the rest of us. Best wishes (and have a hug, too, if you feel that helps). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- ok. what are the choices here? by the way, I sent you an email, because I had not seen your reply here; you can feel free to disregard it. ok, but what are the options here? are you open to discussing this matter, or the length of time? or are you saying that if I do not agree, you will go to WP:ANI? by the way, I made a set of proposals at another venue, which were fully AGREED to by both Moxy and Headbomb, who were the editors primarily raising issues with my prior statements. So I thought I had succeeded in resolving this positively. and I went out of my way to be fully courteous at WP:Village Pump (proposals), just now. as far as accepting a twelve-month limit, I would be open to that proposal, but I would prefer to address this via an alternate approach.
- Hi there, Sm8900. If I were in your shoes, I think I'd also be deeply, deeply upset by what I said to you, and by what others have said to you. I would probably also be crying too, because it's really not nice to be told to stop doing stuff. I know that; I would be in tears, too. But, no, I am not agreeable to discussing things with you by email. I honestly do not want to be sucked into having to discuss every minutiae of every past discussion, and I am not going to look back to past discussions to evaluate every issue. Look: I do know that you care about Wikipedia; I also know that you want to improve it. But, unfortunately, you've not done it in the right way. You simply need to recognise that, especially as it's upset/annoyed/irritated rather a lot of experienced editors. So, by asking you to agree to taking a step back, and taking a 12 month time-out - I'm hoping you can contribute well to article space, as can the rest of us. Best wishes (and have a hug, too, if you feel that helps). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am willing to take a step back NOW, and furthermore, to not make any improper proposals on a PERMANENT basis. I don't see any need or any reason to make any in the near future, and again, I am willing to accept any guidelines on a permanent basis. I thought I WAS honoring what I said to you previously, I DID forgo any proposals for a length of time, as you said, and further I made sure to not canvass anyone regarding any ideas. I don't necessarily disagree with twelve months as a time frame;l simply am not sure that the time period you suggest as a moratorium would be effective; I would prefer to simply to agree to improve my conduct, editing habits, etc, any way you wish, right NOW, in a PERMANENT fashion. I think that is much superior as a long-term solution. by the way, could you please let me know if you are willing to discuss further? I am open to any and all guidance and insights on this. Please feel free to let me know. I greatly appreciate your assistance. I don't necessarily disagree with the need for twelve months, but I don't specifically agree, either; I am saying that I don't have any underlying agenda; as I have nothing currently that I need to propose, but I simply would like to resolve this more positively NOW, rather than assuming no amicable agreement is possible, without a lengthy moratorium. I am open to ANY response you may wish to provide. thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 01:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Sm8900: Firstly, I am probably not going to respond to your email. I will, however, do you the courtesy of reading it tomorrow. But, right now, you ask what your options are. I can't speak for the community of editors; I can only speak for what I think they might want. I believe they (including Iridescent and Moxy) would seek a commitment from you to a complete 12 month break from all non-article based edits (except for allowing you to focus on what (I assumed) was your prime interest: WP:HISTORY.) And when you resume activity there, that you'd be more willing to 'let go of the bone' when others don't support your proposals. That seems to have been the real problem here - the rather large time-sink that your ideas and input have caused. I could ask you to make that commitment at WP:ANI, rather than here on my talk page. But if, having considered what I've proposed, and you're agreeable, then can we hold you to that? If you do agree, and then breach that agreement, I would be agreeable to implementing a full editing block for the remainder of that 12 month period. I can't force you to accept this, as it's only my suggestion, not that of the whole community. But if you do accept here, we'll probably hold you to it. I don't want to get into a huge and detailed discussion of all the minutiae of past discussions here, so would refer back to WP:ANI if you're not comfortable with these proposals. If you feel I am not being supportive of you, but am being a heavy-handed bastard and a jerk, then do please say so now. I'm OK if you feel that. But I really hope you see that I am actually saying this for the good of Wikipedia and also of yourself (even if you don't think that right now!). Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Nick Moyes, I appreciate your reply above. and yes, thank you for the courtesy of being willing to read my email. I do appreciate that. I have read al your points, and I am open to any guidance that you may have. with respect, may I ask what time-sink are you referring to? I accepted all suggestions put to me to modify my proposal, and asked for further feedback. More importantly, I took seriously the commitment to not implement ANY proposal without first getting FULL consensus. and also, I took very seriously the commitment to NOT canvass for any proposal, but rather to present it simply in a single appropriate venue for making formal proposals, i.e. WP:Village pump (proposals), and to allow discussion to proceed there. and furthermore, I was specifically careful to do so courteously, and to hear all opinions and feedback put to me. and again, I made sure to fully adhere to WP:Civil, and to to WP:AGF, two core principles which I fully agree with. I do NOT think you are being a jerk. I think you are motivated by a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia. I simply am asking you to sincerely hear me out, and pursue a more positive, constructive, collegial and helpful way to fully and completely resolve this NOW. as you yourself said above, once any putative 12-month had elapsed, you would still have a suggestion as to how I could positively proceed. so my preference would be instead to adopt any such guidelines now, to make a permanent improvement in any area desired. I appreciate your consideration. thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 02:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Persistency is a virtue in life but leads you to the dark side here on Wikipedia. Two editors have this problem as of late and any moratorium they're willing to join to prevent them from being blocked would be great.--Moxy 🍁 01:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Sm8900: Firstly, I am probably not going to respond to your email. I will, however, do you the courtesy of reading it tomorrow. But, right now, you ask what your options are. I can't speak for the community of editors; I can only speak for what I think they might want. I believe they (including Iridescent and Moxy) would seek a commitment from you to a complete 12 month break from all non-article based edits (except for allowing you to focus on what (I assumed) was your prime interest: WP:HISTORY.) And when you resume activity there, that you'd be more willing to 'let go of the bone' when others don't support your proposals. That seems to have been the real problem here - the rather large time-sink that your ideas and input have caused. I could ask you to make that commitment at WP:ANI, rather than here on my talk page. But if, having considered what I've proposed, and you're agreeable, then can we hold you to that? If you do agree, and then breach that agreement, I would be agreeable to implementing a full editing block for the remainder of that 12 month period. I can't force you to accept this, as it's only my suggestion, not that of the whole community. But if you do accept here, we'll probably hold you to it. I don't want to get into a huge and detailed discussion of all the minutiae of past discussions here, so would refer back to WP:ANI if you're not comfortable with these proposals. If you feel I am not being supportive of you, but am being a heavy-handed bastard and a jerk, then do please say so now. I'm OK if you feel that. But I really hope you see that I am actually saying this for the good of Wikipedia and also of yourself (even if you don't think that right now!). Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am willing to take a step back NOW, and furthermore, to not make any improper proposals on a PERMANENT basis. I don't see any need or any reason to make any in the near future, and again, I am willing to accept any guidelines on a permanent basis. I thought I WAS honoring what I said to you previously, I DID forgo any proposals for a length of time, as you said, and further I made sure to not canvass anyone regarding any ideas. I don't necessarily disagree with twelve months as a time frame;l simply am not sure that the time period you suggest as a moratorium would be effective; I would prefer to simply to agree to improve my conduct, editing habits, etc, any way you wish, right NOW, in a PERMANENT fashion. I think that is much superior as a long-term solution. by the way, could you please let me know if you are willing to discuss further? I am open to any and all guidance and insights on this. Please feel free to let me know. I greatly appreciate your assistance. I don't necessarily disagree with the need for twelve months, but I don't specifically agree, either; I am saying that I don't have any underlying agenda; as I have nothing currently that I need to propose, but I simply would like to resolve this more positively NOW, rather than assuming no amicable agreement is possible, without a lengthy moratorium. I am open to ANY response you may wish to provide. thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 01:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Pronouncing that you're going to restrict yourself to editing articles for 12 months, isn't necessary, as you're not currently facing a ban or block. Just practice that self-restriction & all will be well. Question is - What happens when those 12 months are up. :) GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Moxy, I am very pleased to see you here. you and I have successfully forged a highly positive working relationship in recent weeks!! I highly value your considerable insights, knowledge, and helpful input in various items here recently. and we did have a rather successful exchange, over at WP:CBB, didn't we? I was highly pleased to accept every one of your wise suggestions fully, and to get a much-improved outcome as a result. similarly, as well for GoodDay. I like and appreciate your willingness to engage here.
- ok, so Moxy, I will open the question. you have been largely fair, helpful, and interactive in our recent discussions, and I welcome your input. forget for a moment about a moratorium for the time being, although I am NOT disagreeing with that idea outright. just please tell me, which guidelines, modifications to my conduct, editing approach, etc, would you like to see me adopt? you are the one who has had the most experience out of anyone I know with putting aside past differences, and finding ways to work together POSITIVELY. so I would invite your input here. Please feel free to offer any suggestions, insight, or guidance. I see no reason to not abide by any guidelines or principles that you might indicate. only, let's continue to have a discussion that is constructive and positive, on things we can do positively to resolve this now, rather than trying to freeze things for twelve months. by the way, we can discuss this here, or alternately on your talk page; whereever you find it most convenient. thanks!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 01:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Pronouncing that you're going to restrict yourself to editing articles for 12 months, isn't necessary, as you're not currently facing a ban or block. Just practice that self-restriction & all will be well. Question is - What happens when those 12 months are up. :) GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- CaptainEek here, I've been trying to mentor Sm8900. I've had some communication with them, and am hoping that them agreeing to edit only content for the next year would be a good solution. I'm willing to continue working with them to show them the content ropes. I think part of the issue is that Sm8900 has not been involved in much content work, and just wasn't sure how to go about it. Thus instead of content, they turned their enthusiasm towards an area they had worked more: behind the scenes. I'm hoping to turn their great energy towards writing some good articles! At the end of the year I can talk to Sm8900 and evaluate how they've grown in the course of a year. Who knows, they might find after a year of article writing that there is no need to push such ardent reforms, or will hopefully emerge more knowledgeable about our core policies and the realities of day-to-day editing :) Smooth sailing, CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- I am going to ask Headbomb to weigh in here. because they and Moxy, more than anyone I know or have ever seen at Wikipedia, have been simultaneously willing to put aside all differences and work with me positively on ideas they thought had any merit, yet simultaneously let me know when I was overdoing it a tad, or alternately making a complete hash of things. I like, respect, and admire all of their input, and would like to invite them to weigh in. as you can all see, my own mentor is here, and all they could suggest was to fully agree with the suggestion for punishment to be meted out to me, when I have gone out of my way to FULLY abide by WP:Civil, WP:AGF, etc, and as I will say AGAIN, if you want an example of two editors who willingly and admirably put past differences aside, in order to work with me on positive ideas, look no further than Moxy and Headbomb, both of whom have been more than willing to let me know flat out when they thought I was on the wrong track. and GoodDay, I appreciate your positive sentiments as well. however, sorry, but just to correct you, I am under a threat of a ban. or a block. or worse. with that said, I am fully willing to work with, accept, understand and abide by ANY and all guidance and insight provided to me here, by the considerably knowledgable and insightful experienced editors gathered here.
- My only request that we take steps to resolve this positively NOW. I am willing to adopt any positive guidelines and insight provided to me now. Adopting a 12-month freeze will not resolve the problem; it will exacerbate it. it will put a permanent stigma on me that would not improve my relationship with anyone who is already pre-disposed to view me negatively. Again, currently, I am not planning to present any proposals, and do not anticipate doing so for the forseeable future. but if I did, I would like to get the guidance needed now to do so properly. and again, with the two editors who showed the most willingness to challenge me when they felt I was wrong, there is NO need for a moratorium to restore positivity; they have both ALREADY reached that point, willingly, and openly, without any request from myself, but rather driven simply by a basic willingness and common openness to ignore past differences, and place those aside, and to work together to make Wikipedia a better place. THAT is the focus that I would most aspire to, and that is the discussion in the PRESENT that I would most heartfully recommend and request to this assemblage here. thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 02:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Due keep in mind. Refusing or failing to get the point in a polite fashion, is still refusing or failing to get the point. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- okay. well, in that case, let me just briefly say, I do not have any proposals I am planning to present right now. but I would prefer to get an answer to the question of exactly how my most recent interaction was improper in any way; and let me say in advance that I will willingly accept any guidelines, recommendations, or indications put to me on how to behave and exhibit conduct that would be on a better and more compliant level. and let me also say, since I have no plans right now to present any proposals, how about a viable alternative to any such punitive measures? such as, before submitting any such proposals on any level, I first submit to a further level of review? such as contacting any individual admin or experienced editor, getting their full feedback, and restricting myself to taking only the steps that they indicate are acceptable? that is just one possible option. I am just trying to demonstrate that I do get it. I thought the point of Village Pump was that it is an acceptable venue to discuss such proposals, and NOT to try to discuss, present, or act upon any such proposals in any other location in any way. so that is a principle that I willingly take very seriously. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 03:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Due keep in mind. Refusing or failing to get the point in a polite fashion, is still refusing or failing to get the point. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- My only request that we take steps to resolve this positively NOW. I am willing to adopt any positive guidelines and insight provided to me now. Adopting a 12-month freeze will not resolve the problem; it will exacerbate it. it will put a permanent stigma on me that would not improve my relationship with anyone who is already pre-disposed to view me negatively. Again, currently, I am not planning to present any proposals, and do not anticipate doing so for the forseeable future. but if I did, I would like to get the guidance needed now to do so properly. and again, with the two editors who showed the most willingness to challenge me when they felt I was wrong, there is NO need for a moratorium to restore positivity; they have both ALREADY reached that point, willingly, and openly, without any request from myself, but rather driven simply by a basic willingness and common openness to ignore past differences, and place those aside, and to work together to make Wikipedia a better place. THAT is the focus that I would most aspire to, and that is the discussion in the PRESENT that I would most heartfully recommend and request to this assemblage here. thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 02:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not particularly interested in revisiting the specifics that lead to this, but since you've asked me to comment and give you advice, and you seem to be having a hard time, I'll give you these words of advice: review WP:HERE (third point). Not as a contrast to WP:NOTHERE, but rather absorb what it means on its own. You had an idea you felt strongly about, the community didn't buy in. That happens. But the point of Wikipedia is not to have certain behind-the-scenes page fall inline with your [or anyone's] vision of what a behind-the-scenes page should be. The point of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia that represents the sum of human knowledge. That is, creating and improving articles. Find a topic you like. Maybe you like dancing. Maybe you like cars. Maybe you like coin-collecting. Browse WP:Wikiproject and find stuff you're interested in. Join them. Watch their article alerts pages. Get involved in cleanup. Improve sourcing. Write. And just ignore the back end until you actually need to get involved in the back end. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- okay. I do appreciate your reply to me. that sounds reasonable. thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 05:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- by the way, it so happens, I like Agency-specific police departments of the United States. And political charters. And diplomatic conferences. And Domestic implements. And Exploration of North America. And, the Sono arsenic filter. and one entirely new type of article, 2020s in political history. so, see? I do have some actual interests. I appreciate you asking. thanks!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 12:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- okay. I do appreciate your reply to me. that sounds reasonable. thanks. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 05:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
New accord and understandings
[edit]- Hey, Sm8900 I've just read you email - sorry for the hiatus as I'm in UTC 1 time here in the UK, and have just got up. First off - have a big hug from me, if that helps. I'm really sorry that what I said distressed you. By my being intentionally blunt, I was trying to be 'cruel to be kind'. First off, don't be fearful that I am going to personally block you. That would be a community decision if any matter ever went back to ANI. Yes, I think you committing to yourself and your mentor, CaptainEek, to shift focus permanently towards front-of-house content changes is an excellent idea, not requiring you to commit to some informal agreement on pain of pain blocked if you breached it. But steering away permanently from any more of those niggling and seemingly repetitive editor interactions to push forward some change that nobody else feels strongly supportive about is going to be helpful for everyone involved here. It's when someone starts trying to get to the bottom of every minutiae of an interaction and then politely forces everyone else to explain precisely what they mean, how, precisely, someone is perceived to have done something wrong, and it's when they demand 'chapter and verse' on what it is that is all so irritating and exhausting everyone else... - it's at exactly that point that everyone simply wants them to stop talking and take in that everyone else is telling them something different. That should - on its own - be enough. I've seen this with teenage schoolgirls so often - they can irritate the hell out of everyone around them by wanting to sort out everyone's problems for them, but in so doing make every else simply want to give them a slap, or to say something so mind-blowingly rude, just to stop them from going on.
- -problem is- the behind the scenes stuff can sometimes get like that gaggle of schoolgirls. If just one of them doesn't know when to stop, it causes more problems than it solves. That, I think, had been your past trait, and it's one that I was pleased to hear you had been addressing - at least until I was dragged into last night's discussion on Iridescent's talk page. It's the skill to sense when to "back off and 'drop the stick'" and to stay quiet that perhaps needs nurturing. I do think the areas of content creation and anti-vandalism really teaches one the need for precision and conciseness when interacting with others here. (Of course, I appreciate this reply is, itself a bit TL;DR, but I am still genuinely trying to be helpful and supportive, even if it doesn't sound like it to you right now.)
- Please don't feel the need to reply in equal measure. Either a short rejection of what I'm saying, or a short acknowledgement of what you're going to PERMANENTLY do or not do from here on in will suffice. Keep it short and simple from now on is my best advice. Let's all get on with adding content to this encyclopaedia. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Nick. thank you sincerely for your great reply. yes, I do appreciate the thoughts and sentiments that you express above. and your statement above of what steps on my part would be helpful is simple and easy to follow. Now. as to your highly positive question about what I am willing to do for the future. here it is:
- 1. well, I think one simple commitment would be to avoid the behaviors that defined this interaction. I thought that going from Idea Lab to the Proposals tab, in order to generate a greater volume of response, was a legitimate move. since it appears it wasn't, then I can agree to not do so.
- 2. I think your additional point above was that if a proposal does not have any apparent support in the venue where I presented it, then I should simply drop it, rather than seeking to further discuss it, tweak it, seek modifications, trying to pare it down, etc etc. is that accurately stated? I think that's your point. Based on that, I am fully glad to commit to fully avoiding any such behavior as well. If I did make a proposal, hypothetically, and someone else responded with significant objections, and no one responded in support, then I could discard that proposal.
- I would like to note that I might fully discontinue a discussion of some item in a public venue, but then might seek counsel from my mentor if possible, or someone else who agrees to help me with any questions I have; in other words, any requests for further input would not be on multiple talk pages, but I would want to be able to be able to turn to at least some experienced person here who would be agreeable to providing positive guidance and blunt feedback.
- 3. If an experienced, good-faith editor such as yourself provides further input on any behaviors that are problematic, then I will be glad to utterly refrain from such behaviors immediately.
- 4. and further just as an article of good faith, I can agree to make no more proposals for the next few weeks; at least two weeks, and probably a good deal more than that. I am not trying to be litigous about this; in truth, I would have to be rather... unwise... to make any new proposals now. So I agree entirely, better to take a step back and concentrate only on basic editing for now.
- 5. You asked above that I avoid revisiting minutiae. No problem, I will avoid doing so. Please note though, in order to fully address any concerns, sometime I may ask in good faith for information on the actual details for any specific concerns expressed. So your statement on that above is of great value. I may ask you for other details, if needed and if this colloquy develops further.
- the only thing I would ask, and this is FULLY consistent with my initial statements above, is that ANY concerns be presented in the form of a positive dialogue. one of the main reasons for my distress was I was truly perplexed by all this. I was trying to understand, how can I have reached a plateau of positive accord with Moxy and Headbomb in certain specific matters, and yet be coming back to this issue as if nothing had changed? that was my sincere question on this. so please assume that I am truly open to any and all feedback, that any questions are in good faith, and that I am open to real discussion and real change.
- so does that cover it? if not feel free to present any other points. or alternately, feel free to discuss or present any concerns to my mentor. you do wear the admin hat now, so I feel that my asking you to allow for any positive discussion of any such concerns is simply fair and valid. if desired, please do absolutely feel free to cite any other concerns that you may have. I sincerely hope I have addressed all of your concerns above. if not, feel free to let me know; I will willingly accept any other points that you may make. I hope that is helpful. your insights are appreciated. thanks!!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 12:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Sm8900: Yes, you know, I think that does over it. Well done and thank you. If it helps, I am willing to put in a bit of blunt and or subtle feedback from time to time - but maybe you might discuss that first with Moxy or Headbomb, or any other current mentor. It might even be a good idea if one of those mentors makes that initial approach to a third party, rather than yourself. That way, nobody can unfairly accuse you of bothering them unnecessarily with some matter or another that they deem trivial, but which is important to you.
- Finally, maybe this near-global lockdown is making some of us more grumpy than usual, and more prone to sharp words. Sorry about that. Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- Hi Nick. thanks so much for your positive reply, and for all your help. I am very glad that we could reach some positive accord on this. I am very glad to hear all of your insights above. I will be glad to follow all guidelines set above, and also, I will be glad to hear any other concerns that you may have. I appreciate all your help. if I have further questions, I will let you know, but I think this has covered all points. and also, thanks very much for your gracious and generous apology above. that is very thoughtful and considerate of you. I appreciate it. thanks very much!! see you. ---Sm8900★ 🌎 23:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
- To be clear, since I keep being brought up in this discussion. I'm neither hostile to nor supportive of the recent events, and offer moral support as encouragement to find something you like doing on Wikipedia. But beyond the words I offered above, I am unwilling to be that mentor. I'll also note that a "solemn commitment" to anything in "permanently" seems a bit silly to me. You had one idea (or group of ideas) that didn't fly. Just stop pushing for that idea / set of ideas. Doesn't mean you can't have other good ideas, but if you find support lacking, it likely means support isn't there. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- hi Headbomb. thanks so much for your helpful note above. you feedback above is extremely helpful and positive, and I greatly appreciate it. your insights were very helpful in elevating this entire discussion, and proceeding into a much constructive and helpful note, and for that I greatly and deeply thank you.
- so does that cover it? if not feel free to present any other points. or alternately, feel free to discuss or present any concerns to my mentor. you do wear the admin hat now, so I feel that my asking you to allow for any positive discussion of any such concerns is simply fair and valid. if desired, please do absolutely feel free to cite any other concerns that you may have. I sincerely hope I have addressed all of your concerns above. if not, feel free to let me know; I will willingly accept any other points that you may make. I hope that is helpful. your insights are appreciated. thanks!!! ---Sm8900★ 🌎 12:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
- In the future, I may run some ideas, suggestions, etc by you on your talk page, based on your highly useful and valuable input here. yes, I agree with you, you do not need to be my mentor; in other words, I would not approach you for input on my own personal editing style. however, your input here on procedural matters, and your input in recent discussions regarding ideas that I had proposed, were all extremely helpful. Based on that, I may approach you for your feedback and insights, in the future, . Don't worry, as I noted above, I will be taking a hiatus of some duration, as I already noted above. but I do appreciate your help. and if i do come by your talk page, you are still absolutely free of course to decline to comment, or to simply say "sorry, but that idea just doesn't wash with me." or to provide any and all other feedback you may wish.
- Anyway, I do appreciate all of your insights above. again, you were the first person to respond favorably to my request for simple positive input on some direct and specific information on ways that I could improve, and any steps that might enable me to positively address this situation, and to move on and get things back to normal. I really appreciate your help. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi all. To Nick Moyes, and to others here, I just want to let you know that I will be placing a message on some individual talk pages for a few editors who have been directly involved in discussions relating to these issues, to let them know of the new clarifications, and the new accord and understandings reached here on this page, above. the reason for this is simple; I have already been directly contacted by some editors with some emphasis, letting me know that they were viewing my actions as having been subjected to some constraints, based on the discussion several months ago at WP:ANI.
Based on that, it seems somewhat appropriate to notify a few editors who may have made some direct comments, to let them know the situation has now been positively clarified, modified, and updated and brought to a clearer and more specific positive resolution in a positive manner, based on the colloquy above.
this seems like a worthwhile and helpful way to bring this whole issue to a positive resolution, and to allow our activities and interactions to proceed more positively from this point forward, in the future. I hope that sounds okay. If you wish, please feel free to comment. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
One suggestion I have is not to tell people who are providing constructive feedback to assume good faith, act civilly, and not to make personal comments. The vast majority of the feedback I've seen has been on your actions and not made any assumptions on your personal motivations. I feel editors have made extreme efforts to assume good faith on your part and try to guide you towards productive areas, and so telling them to assume good faith is disheartening and engenders bad feelings. isaacl (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
telling them to assume good faith is disheartening and engenders bad feelings.
. let me get this straight, asking people to assume good faith engenders bad faith? your statement itself is disheartening. But I mean that with 100% desire to put this behind us, to move ahead positively, and to work with you positively in any respect. So actually, I do appreciate your suggestion, and will sincerely take it to heart. can we please agree to addressing this positively, and moving forward positively? I appreciate your help and understanding. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)The vast majority of the feedback I've seen has been on your actions and not made any assumptions on your personal motivations.
with respect, then you have not read this talk page very closely. please go back, and read it again. the measure that was being offered here was to bar me for twelve months from entire venues at Wikipedia. to their credit, the editors who proposed that, were entirely open to finding positive ways to compromise and to move ahead together positively. but I think that a measure of that magnitude does signify some doubt about my motives, doesn't it? and also, did you read the talk page section at the prior discussion that led here? seriously, I appreciate your attempt to be positive. but I think you are somewhat mistaken. Several people here were quite disenchanted with me, my motives, my approach, and my actions. with that said, the people who felt that way were ENTIRELY motivated by a desire to make Wikipedia a better place. Based on that I have absolutely accepted and implemented ALL of their concerns and feedback. I will be glad to continue to do so. And I do entirely appreciate your positive intent in trying to be helpful, and in commenting here. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)- I have of course read the feedback closely. I did not say that no one was disenchanted with you, so I don't know what you believe I am mistaken about. Yes, telling people to do things that they are doing already is disheartening, and makes me sad as well, knowing that reaching out in good faith is being misinterpreted as bad faith. Asking editors to address matters positively when they've gone to great lengths to do so already is dispiriting. Being misquoted (no one said that bad faith was being engendered) is discouraging. isaacl (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- Okay, I accept, and agree with, all of your valuable points above. and I appreciate your suggestions entirely and in full. is that helpful? as you yourself said, " I feel editors have made extreme efforts to assume good faith on your part and try to guide you towards productive areas." ok, fair enough. since you have specifically said that you do assume good faith on my part, I do genuinely and seriously appreciate that statement on your part. Seriously, thank you. and based on that, I hope we can move on, to addressing this issue positively and working together, based on your highly positive and helpful comments above. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have of course read the feedback closely. I did not say that no one was disenchanted with you, so I don't know what you believe I am mistaken about. Yes, telling people to do things that they are doing already is disheartening, and makes me sad as well, knowing that reaching out in good faith is being misinterpreted as bad faith. Asking editors to address matters positively when they've gone to great lengths to do so already is dispiriting. Being misquoted (no one said that bad faith was being engendered) is discouraging. isaacl (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Getting to the point: SM8900, ease off on the paragraph after paragraph of excruciatingly over-polite replies. Isaacl has a point about AGF and I'm darned if I was going to explain it to you. Ease off on making any proposals for as long as you possibly can. A year would be lovely; two weeks is far too short -you decide for yourself, and surprise us all, please. Ease off on innumerable edits to my and other people's talk pages - that can irritate too. Just go get on with some content creation or anti-vandalism work, please, and let us live in peace. I think this discussion should end now. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC).