User talk:Huggums537/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Vandal accounts

I won't post it there per WP:BEANS but ... I would imagine a 'reformed' vandal would probably abandon the blocked account, wait a few days for the autoblock to expire, then create a new account and start from scratch rather than appeal the block on the vandal account. Strictly speaking, it's against policy, but in practice it's unlikely anyone would care, much less that we could prove it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right. Oh, well. Huggums537 (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Swarm, Thanks very much! Huggums537 (talk) 02:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

A toast sandwich for you!

Thanks for signing my guestbook!  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:22, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• My pleasure Saha! Thank you for the toasty treat! Huggums537 (talk) 12:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages (including user talk pages) such as Talk:List of Linux distributions that run from RAM are for discussion related to improving (a) an encyclopedia article in specific ways based on reliable sources or (b) project policies and guidelines. They are not for general discussion about the article topic or unrelated topics, or statements based on your thoughts or feelings. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Johnnie Bob (talk) 22:42, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Johnnie Bob. This template you left on my page claims I have made statements based on my thoughts and feelings, or that I have made general discussion not related to the topic of the article. Those claims are false. You also claimed in your edit summary that I was using the talk page as a forum for general discussion, which is also false since I never asked anyone for a discussion, but simply posted useful information I thought would be helpful to the improvement of the article. Furthermore, the template says that the general rule is to talk about specific ways to improve an article based upon reliable sources. That is precisely what I did. I even said, "You will still have to provide a reliable source for any distro you have tested,..." and "I hope this helps add to the quality of the list!".

Also, you should be aware that you could potentially lose your rollback rights for improperly reverting editors on a consistent basis, or even worse, you could possibly be blocked if someone gets upset about it and decides to take you to ANI over the matter.

I wish to avoid edit wars, and ANI disputes. I'm not upset about this enough to try to get anyone into trouble. However, I would like to explain to you that the guideline about editing other people's comments is pretty clear that you should not delete someone elses comments unless it is absolutely clear it is personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism. It says off topic posts should only be deleted if it is jibberish or harmful material. I can assure you messing with other people's comments is something they take very seriously on here, so I'm going to just ask you nicely to please restore my comment without further incident and we will forget about the whole thing, but please be more careful in the future. Thank you. Huggums537 (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm just going to restore this comment myself with a reference to this talk page since the OP appears inactive at the moment, and I will assume good faith there will be no further incident. Huggums537 (talk) 02:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Userbox request

@Huggums537:

To this user Bigfoot is real.

To this user the Lochness monster is real.

This user is Bigfoot. Rowwrrr!!!

This user is the Lochness monster. Catfurball (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Catfurball, thank you for contacting me regarding userbox work. I've not made any decisions to do user requests at this time since I expect to be busy in life, but just out of curiosity, were you looking for one userbox that says four things, or four userboxes that say one thing? I was just wondering for clarity. Huggums537 (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Catfurball, I will pass on the offer to do the userboxes due to time constraints, as well as the controversial nature of the topics since they cause strong disagreements, but thank you for inviting me. I hope you find someone to do them. Huggums537 (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)