Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:54, 2 April 2024

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 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 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 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 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 22:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I would like my self-requested block to be reduced to a partial block from ] 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like my self-requested block to be reduced to a partial block from ] 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I would like my self-requested block to be reduced to a partial block from ] 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. ] <sup>]</sup> 07:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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 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 04:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock