FeydHuxtable
  A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10... 100... 200
And here are several pages on what to avoid:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), which are produced by clicking on the
This welcome message was sent by Avi15 at 13:34, August 3, 2008 (UTC) |
Big welcome to the article rescue squadron
edit
Hi, FeydHuxtable, welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron! We are a growing community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to identifying and rescuing articles that have been tagged for deletion. Every day hundreds of articles are deleted, many rightfully so. But many concern notable subjects and are poorly written, ergo fixable and should not be deleted. We try to help these articles quickly improve and address the concerns of why they are proposed for deletion. This covers a lot of ground and your help is appreciated!
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! Ikip (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC) | |||||||
User:Ikip/89 -- full list of rescuable AfD discussions
FeydHuxtable, if you need any help at all, please let me know. Happy to see you as a new member! Ikip (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the welcome! Im impressed with how you guys operate. ARS seems to be the place to be and to be seen at :-) FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Wishing you a happy 2026! 
edit
.jpg)
MMXXVI Lunar Calendar
Have a great 2026 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.
– Background color is Very Peri (#6868ab), Pantone's 2026 Color of the year
Barnstar!
edit |
Your Opinion is More Important than You Think Barnstar | |
| For your phenomenal additions to Looksmaxxing, but most especially for your thorough knowledge of Manosphere history and scholarship presented on the Talk page, which serves as invaluable for future contributions to that article. |
HarvardJock🏫 (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2026 (UTC)
ANI overflow: Lord Keynes & GAR/GA
edit@Dedhert.Jr: @Z1720: - hope you dont mind me responding here. I don't like to ignore a ping & it's an interesting topic, but at this point this discussion feels irrelevant to possible admin action so would just be clutter on the ANI board.
@ Z1720 , just wanted to re-assure that it was the GAR process itself that I found demotivating, not at all your execution of it. Your 'GA concerns' comment concisely identified key areas for article improvement, and I esp. appreciated that you allowed 10 days for someone to respond before formally starting GAR. Even the GAR process itself is obviously a good thing in moderation. We might draw the line at different points, but I'd expect we'd agree that like all review processes, 'too much of a good thing' / 'negative marginal returns' very much apply.
@ Dedhert.Jr - also appreciate your encouragement to re-submit Lord Keynes for GA.
Below are the reasons I probably won't, at least not for a good few years. While it would probably take less than 3 hours focussed effort to address Z1720's concerns (leaving aside WP:TooBig where a compromise could likely have been reached) , putting the article up for GA would commit me an unpredictable amount of work over the next few months. It's not cricket to nom and then not engage with the GA reviewer, but some of them these days like to be super thorough, esp. for a major topic like LK.
Back in the day I'd have thought it worth the effort, I'd been promoting Keynesian policy through various channels from about 95-2020, and would still see LK's insights as invaluable for reducing economic distress. But after those 25 years I've came to see invoking Keynes name can be counter productive on an emotional level. In fairness, among the sort of practical economists who have the ear of policy makers, Keynes is way less controversial than it might seem from culture wars & academic debates. (E.g., back in 2010 when I was closer to London finance, I can confidently say at least 90% of city economists were strongly pro Keyneisan.). But there are powerful players who have a strong visceral reaction to the name of Keynes, hating him far more than Marx as they see him as greater threat to cherished free market ideas. Also, the AI age presents more extreme threats & opportunities than even Keynes predicted. There's folk who come from impeccable free market friendly backgrounds who are still talking about the need to plan for transitioning to a Star trek economy. There's also Thomas Metzinger's 2018 warning that spinning up billions of instances of AIs as data centres proliferate across the world risks triggering an explosion of suffering that human's would have no way to accurately measure. I'll hopefully be devoting available wiki time to expanding topics adjacent to this over the next year or two; putting LK back up for GA would have too high opportunity cost.
I guess this raises the question of why I didn't rescue LK's article back in 2024, where a few hours effort would almost certainly have sufficed, esp. as Z1720 kindly gave the chance to do so without engaging with a formal GAR. No disrespect to the phenomenal Abraham Yahuda, but LK has always been the foremost cataloguer of Newton's alchemical work. In public, LK couldn't have been more respectful. But in July 2024, I'd been shocked to discover from Keyne's private letters that he'd suggested it would have been fine to lock him away in a loony bin for his belief & promotion of "woo"! In his failed attempt to achieve the great work, Newton suffered probably more intensly for the benefit of all humanity than any since Christ. There also the shear gall of LK thinking he was in a position to judge. LK rightly had a high opinion of his own brilliance, but he must have known even at his peak, trying to throw down against Newton at his best would be a total non contest. I've got over said shock now, there's probably no one who couldnt appear a hypocrite if their private comms were open to scrutiny, and LK was writing to a rationalist when he dissed Newton so was probably code-switching. With the benefit of hindsight, I wish I fixed Z1720's concerns when they were first raised, but sadly my time machine is not working! FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- @FeydHuxtable: Thanks for posting your thoughts above. I read through the post a couple times but might have missed some aspects or nuance, so I apoligise if that happens. My impression is that you are very knowledgeable and interested in this topic, and know how to find and interpret the appropriate sources. You mention that it would take 3 hours for you to fix up the article: it would probably take me at least double that time because I am much less familiar with economics (and I don't know who this person is: sorry!) This is why I post GARs: I am hoping that someone interested in the article will want to fix it up. Unfortunately, the GAR process did not produce positive returns for Keyes, as the article was not brought back to meet the GA criteria. One positive benefit might be that an editor (you) now have this on their list of articles to fix up: would editors have noticed this article's problems if it wasn't posted to GAR? The other question is: when is an article so far from the GA criteria that it should be brought to GAR? If one sentence is uncited, I wouldn't post it, even though that one sentence might prevent the article from getting promoted if posted at GAN. If the whole article is uncited, I would definitely post it to GAR. But what about one uncited paragraph? One entire uncited section? This is where it starts to get tricky (and fwiw, I would not post an article to GAR for one uncited paragraph alone).
- Concerning size: I have mentioned WP:TOOBIG in other reviews, and some editors respond that their article is the exception to the 8,000 word consideration (although I usually start posting about this concern after 10,000 words). I usually disagree; I think spinning out content is better than leaving it in one article. The initial shock of a large article (or large sections) discourages readers from reading the text, especially with younger audiences who are more experienced with getting information in shorter formats. Long articles also negatively affect load times for those on slower Internet connections: if the page takes too long to load, readers will click away. If readers are not reading our work, then are we really building a general encyclopedia and spreading knowledge? Sometimes prose can be moved to child articles where more specialised analysis and jargon can be used, while the Keyes article summarises the most important aspects of that topic (and how Keyes is related to it) with a wikilink to that new article. My best-case scenario is that Keyes and the new article both get promoted to GA status (and eventually FA?) so that interested readers get the specialised information they want in the child article, while general interest readers who stumble upon Keyes will not be overwhelmed with text and read discover an amazing biography, potentially clicking on the wikilink to the child article to get more information. If you would like suggestions on what I would spin out in this article, feel free to ping me. Z1720 (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- LOL, I do have a fair few books on or by LK.
Would editors have noticed this article's problems if it wasn't posted to GAR?
Probably in some cases none would have noticed prior to you posting. But in the case of the LK article, I at least was already aware of about half the issues you raised. Being slow to correct issues I see others introduce is one of several ways I'm far from an ideal editor. There's exceptions, but I'm quite adverse to online conflict & also it feels inconsiderate to immediately revert an editor even if I'm sure its not an improvement. Often I make a mental note and plan to correct an edit in a year or so when the original editor will likely have forgot - in practice I often don't get round to it. If not for the timing with the Newton thing, your 'GA concerns' comment would very likely have prompted near immediate action by myself to fix the article.
- LOL, I do have a fair few books on or by LK.
When is an article so far from the GA criteria that it should be brought to GAR?
The way you're drawing the line seems reasonable. Putting an article up for GAR when it has a large amount of issues is a two-edged thing though. Sure, in some cases editors might feel genuinely grateful for you pointing out issues, or at least see it as fully in the encyclepedia's best interests. But editors generally like being free to spend their wiki time as they please. So facing the choice of either letting an article lose its GA status or having to put in major effort to rescue, may sometimes feel a burden. Esepcially if it happens to several articles on their watchlist in quick succession. So it might be worth considering a targeting method that doesn't risk putting several articles in the same topic class up for GAR in a short period of time (Mentioning this as it looked liked several maths articles were being considered for GAR with little gap, with the same editors noticing, and maybe friction could have been avoided if GAR adjacent attention to maths articles had been more spread out.
- On the WP:TOOBIG thing - you've converted me to your philosophy! I was thinking of WP:otherstuffexists examples, where less notable historical figures have far bigger articles. And my personal preference for long form content. But as you say, it's what suits the reader that should be decisive. I recall the Colonel advising over a decade back that young people are increasingly reading via smartphone & much prefer short articles. I've the deepest respect for the Colonel's insight, but sometimes one has to hear the same thing from multiple credible folk before it sinks in. Should I ever feel up to putting LK up for nomination, I'll definitely seek your council. I've already created five child articles for Lord Keynes Heavenly Twins, Keynesian Revolution, Post-war displacement of Keynesianism , International monetary system & 2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence. Keynes is so multifaceted, there's many more child pages that could be created for him. One of my books is universal man the seven lives of john maynard keynes which has sections for Altruist; Boy prodigy; Official; Public man; Lover; Connoisseur and Envoy. It's only idle curiosity as I wont be fixing up the article any time soon, so no worries at all if you dont respond, but yes I'm interested in what other child articles you'd spin out @Z1720: . Regardless, much appreciate you taking the time to engage with a GAR sceptic! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- @FeydHuxtable: The GAR process can feel like a time limit, but the process is paused when an editor says they want to make improvements on the article talk page (during the notice) or at the GAR. For posting a bunch at the same time at GAR: I am reviewing topics in small batches, which sometimes means a couple of articles in the same topic are noticed on their talk page at the same time. If there's no response to the notice, I try to post one GAR in a topic at a time to not overwhelm editors in that topic area. There are probably ways to improve the process, and I can try to notice less articles on a topic. Its OK for an article to be delisted then posted again: it allows an editor to get the credit they deserve for fixing up an article (that sometimes doesn't happen in GAR). Z1720 (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- On the WP:TOOBIG thing - you've converted me to your philosophy! I was thinking of WP:otherstuffexists examples, where less notable historical figures have far bigger articles. And my personal preference for long form content. But as you say, it's what suits the reader that should be decisive. I recall the Colonel advising over a decade back that young people are increasingly reading via smartphone & much prefer short articles. I've the deepest respect for the Colonel's insight, but sometimes one has to hear the same thing from multiple credible folk before it sinks in. Should I ever feel up to putting LK up for nomination, I'll definitely seek your council. I've already created five child articles for Lord Keynes Heavenly Twins, Keynesian Revolution, Post-war displacement of Keynesianism , International monetary system & 2008–2009 Keynesian resurgence. Keynes is so multifaceted, there's many more child pages that could be created for him. One of my books is universal man the seven lives of john maynard keynes which has sections for Altruist; Boy prodigy; Official; Public man; Lover; Connoisseur and Envoy. It's only idle curiosity as I wont be fixing up the article any time soon, so no worries at all if you dont respond, but yes I'm interested in what other child articles you'd spin out @Z1720: . Regardless, much appreciate you taking the time to engage with a GAR sceptic! FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Stitch-ups
editHi Feyd. I'm putting this here because I don't want this to be a distraction at the editor in question's talkpage. I have no problem with someone sticking up for a Wikifriend who has been blocked, especially when the reasons are so opaque. That being said, I have to say that I don't much appreciate the edit summary you left when making your comment. I hope you have known me for long enough to believe that I don't take pleasure in blocking established editors, and I have no axe to grind against this particular one - I acted on a report made at SPI as an entirely neutral investigator. Policy prohibits me from giving you details as to why I made that block - not just policy, but binding confidentiality agreements I have put my real name to - so all I can ask is that you trust me when I say that I am very confident in my reasons. Could it be a little brother impersonating them - I guess it's not a technical impossibility, but it would have to be a very Wiki-aware little brother, using the same internet connection on the same days, finding their way into discussions on the same subjects, etc. We can never be entirely certain about whose fingers are typing on the keyboard behind the screen, but having seen the technical evidence, I can only ask you to trust me when I say that it is compelling - and that I have no interest in stitching anybody up. Girth Summit (blether) 18:12, 3 June 2026 (UTC)
- Good evening GS - apologies for the edit summary. And thanks for posting here - as we both know, beyond a certain minimum, too much chat on an indeff'd editors talk only hurts their chances. As per my comment
HJ's been stitched up by a mischievous brother, ... or whatever the explanation in his UTRS.
Admittedly , while said RL connection was mainly what I meant, I did have in mind something wider with "total" in the ES. But that was purely the SPI process, not any individual. I should have just used "comment" which wouldnt have been open to coming across the wrong way. As you say we've known each other a long time and it never crossed my mind as even a remote possibility you'd take action that's not by the book. I guess you must become aware of all sorts of deceptive behaviour per your check user work and dont doubt from youre perspective you've solid reasons for your level of confidence. From my side, having got to know HJ quite well, I find it most unlikely he'd sock, esp so incompetently, and I'm annoyed by the SPI process allowing so little chance for the accused to defend themselves / be defended. But ideally I should keep that to myself unless I can commit to a community discussion on the matter & working out appropriate forum for it.FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:28, 3 June 2026 (UTC)- Apology accepted - no hard feelings. When it comes to getting to know someone, and thinking it unlikely they would sock - I understand how that feels. But this is the internet, there are a lot of people who do things for reasons that are hard to fathom, and appearances can be deceiving - oftentimes intentionally so. Do you remember Edgar181? I was just getting into regular editing when that hoohaa blew up, and I remember at the time thinking very highly of more than one of his accounts. Or CLCStudent - a prolific anti-vandalism patroller, who I was in the trenches with in my early days, and who racked up over 300k edits before someone noticed that they were themselves logging out and vandalising pages (in rather unpleasant ways). Afterwards it turned out they were just another sock of an globally banned LTA after all. And then there was Eostrix, who managed to convince me (and another sitting member of the Arbitration Committee) to nominate them for adminship, before it transpired that they were a sock of Icewhiz, seeking advanced permissions for presumably nefarious purposes. What I'm saying is that stuff like this happens, and on a global, high-profile project like this, it happens more often than one would think likely.
- Why do we rush to judgment at SPI, and not give more of a chance to let people defend themselves? Speaking for myself only in general terms, and explicitly not saying anything about this particular case, I'd say it's usually because the evidence is irrefutable, and because people almost always deny it initially, and because there would be little point dragging out the investigation to see whether they are inventive enough to think of a good lie, or eloquent enough to make me feel bad about blocking them. If I see a stable IP address, that 99% of the time has a single account on it, and then occasionally that account logs out and another one logs in to prolong an edit war the first account started, or to back up the original account in a heated debate, I confess that I do not spend a lot of time thinking to myself 'maybe there's an innocent explanation, let's ask them what gives'.
- Blocked accounts do have the opportunity to appeal, and it is not unusual for those appeals to be accepted if it is clear that the person is willing to take some responsibility. If they say Sorry, that was stupid and I shouldn't have done it, can I have another chance?, I typically say 'sure, accept a one-account restriction, and don't do it again because it will be a lot harder to get a block overturned next time.' If they say It wasn't me, it was my friend who was over at my house, I told him what was happening on Wikipedia and he offered to help., I might be a bit more skeptical, and start looking at other factors like how experienced the editor was, how often they'd done it, and how egregious it was. It's possible that I'd buy it in some circumstances. If, on the other hand, they say I have no idea who that person was, it's nothing to do with me, maybe we've been caught up in a shared IP range or something, I have very little time for them. Girth Summit (blether) 20:25, 4 June 2026 (UTC)