User talk:Adrianmn1110
Add topicWelcome to Meta!
[edit]Hello, Adrianmn1110. Welcome to the Wikimedia Meta-Wiki! This website is for coordinating and discussing all Wikimedia projects. You may find it useful to read our policy page. If you are interested in doing translations, visit Meta:Babylon. You can also leave a note on Meta:Babel or Wikimedia Forum if you need help with something (please read the instructions at the top of the page before posting there). Also worthwhile acquainting yourself with the functions of global user pages. Happy editing!
— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:20, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
- @Red-tailed hawk: Thanks for the warm welcome. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 10:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Draft UCoC Training Module 3
[edit]Hello @Adrianmn1110 Thank you again for your interest in the UCoC training modules. I just wanted to share with you that the draft of Module 3 is now online. Happy to hear your thoughts and comments by June 10. MFischer (WMF) (talk) 10:16, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- @MFischer (WMF): Thank you for the notification. I'll definitely check it out. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Example of a Politician's Answer
[edit]@Barkeep49: Even though the election is over, I wish to complement you on the slippery way in which you answered a question. It's truly a Politician's Answer. Your first three sentences don't even answer the question, and your last sentence is vague. You didn't specify how you would build local capacity, nor did you specify what alternative methods of enforcement you would provide. And because your answer is so vague, it allows voters to fill in the blanks with whatever they want to believe. Very cunning! Well done. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 14:02, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you would go out of your way to insult me but here we are. My answer there is because I think I'm being asked to reply to a hypothetical that doesn't exist, so yes I first want to challenge the premise of the question and the last one acknowledges that things are context dependent while also referring to a demonstrable track record of how I view cases and ways I try to build capacity. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:11, 5 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: I didn't "insult" you; I complemented your ability to avoid giving a substantial answer while looking like you did. That takes genuine political skill.
- The hypothetical in question doesn't need to be challenged because the asker never said it already happened. Also, you could have described how you would build local capacity and what alternative methods of enforcement you would provide. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 00:30, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is a cultural thing, but your comment reads like a backhanded compliment to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: If a description of your actions reads like a backhanded compliment, it may be time to reflect on your actions. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- You call my actions "slippery" and "cunning". These are words which do not have positive connotations (and in some places/cultures being called political also would have a negative connotation). I have been trying to be conciliatory here but I think this last comment shows that you did intend for the comment to be something other than a complement. As I noted in my first response, I stand by my response as an appropriate and substantive response to the question while answering in a brief manner (to be respectful of voters who have to sort through answers from multiple candidates and multiple questions). I'm sorry that these answers didn't connect with you and you find them unresponsive and evasive. It was not my intent and it is useful feedback to hear that you (and likely others) have read them that way. But I also don't need to be insulted by you any further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: I described your actions exactly as they are. You're certainly free to interpret my description "negative[ly]" if that's what you want. Connotation is subjective.
- How is your answer substantive when the last 25% of it is so vague that it could mean anything, depending on the voter's imagination? How is your answer brief when the first 75% of it doesn't even answer the question? Adrianmn1110 (talk) 01:29, 8 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sounds like an insult that was sugar-coated to me.Sumlunatiksmom (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2025 (UTC)
- You call my actions "slippery" and "cunning". These are words which do not have positive connotations (and in some places/cultures being called political also would have a negative connotation). I have been trying to be conciliatory here but I think this last comment shows that you did intend for the comment to be something other than a complement. As I noted in my first response, I stand by my response as an appropriate and substantive response to the question while answering in a brief manner (to be respectful of voters who have to sort through answers from multiple candidates and multiple questions). I'm sorry that these answers didn't connect with you and you find them unresponsive and evasive. It was not my intent and it is useful feedback to hear that you (and likely others) have read them that way. But I also don't need to be insulted by you any further. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:57, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- @Barkeep49: If a description of your actions reads like a backhanded compliment, it may be time to reflect on your actions. Adrianmn1110 (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
- Perhaps this is a cultural thing, but your comment reads like a backhanded compliment to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2025 (UTC)