User talk:HighInBC/Archive 38

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.

Good call indeed. There are even BLP issues with the AfD & these had been reported - Alison ^❤ 05:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I saw an urgent need to remove such content. ^Chillum 05:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use {{sockblock}} when posting a notice to a user's talk page, versus {{sockpuppet}}, as the latter is typically applied to the userpage, and it is redundant to have the talk page linked as well. Here, I fixed things so that the user talk page is no longer included in the category. Thanks for your time.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have not done a sock puppet block in some time. Thanks for the tip. ^Chillum 15:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Hell_in_a_Bucket (talk · contribs)
I need to outline my thoughts here. I usually disagree with the user's methods, and have interacted with him on this topic. Since when is a "block reset" an appropriate resolution? It does not matter what you see after a user's block is in place -- it was written, obviously, before the block. Once the block is in place, that is the length to be fulfilled unless the user commits an infraction on his own talk page (the only place he can thereafter edit), for which a new block can be outlined. Blocks are NOT meant to be punitive, but to curtail disruption. IMHO, this "block extension" is punitive and does not fall under acceptable use of the blocking policy. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking to the correct person? I am not the one who reset the block. I will point out to you the block is in fact preventative as the user in question engaged in further personal attacks just a short while before the block was extended. So there were further infraction's on his talk page. Contrary to what you think, blocks are not written in stone and there is no requirement that it run out its course.

The user is still acting disruptive, the extension of the block prevents that. The block may have been made shorter if he demonstrated prevention was not longer needed. It is really up to the user how long the block lasts. ^Chillum 16:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per Spartaz's request, I am notifying you that this discussion that you participated in has been relisted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Healy (2nd nomination) in the hopes to gain a more fair consensus due to the participation of three sock puppet accounts in the earlier discussion. The three sock accounts that checkuser confirmed are the same person voted to delete or redirect and made multiple edits to the discussion which closed as "redirect" and therefore may have created a false impression of consensus by vote-stacking. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. Re-running the AfD makes sense to me. ^Chillum 20:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You probably already know this, but you should sign your posts. It seems kind-of pointless to welcome someone to Wikipedia, tell them to sign posts, but then not sign your own. Just a heads up. *Pepperpiggle*^*Sign!* 22:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. ^Chillum 23:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me attempt one last explanation.... The thing I saw in it was they stuck to Orwellian Speed of Light theories and the other faction Einsteins. I saw a series of increasingly bizarre interactions, unilaterally subject bans without consensus. I argued that individual administators couldn't page ban them without consensus. I was told that it is allowed "implicitly". The only thing I was reffering to was the attempts made to keep them out because of what I percieved as a different scientific viewpoint. I was just a bit off colour with the remark and anytime you attack seldom is the reaction good....I had brought the issue up regarding JeHochman at Ani a few months ago, he threw my block record in my face. This was the first time I've been blocked since I first created my account so that had been building up for a little bit. However, the NPA policy does explicitly allow describing behaviors. In the strictest sense what I did was innapropriate, the reason I concede this fact I made 3 distinct Attacks. I called them Morons, Assholes and Fucking Nazis. I never made it completely clear it was the behaviors and methodology I was referring to and not saying they "were" Nazis. When I tried to re-correlate my comment while blocked. I dropped all references to Nazis, I instead used the Example of the Catholic Church when it turned on a sect of Christianity. Why? it was the same thing I mentioned above both parties were attempting to act for what their perception of good and right was. To use historic examples is not a bad thing, we have to learn from it. I can't disagree the delivery was not in a manner useful or condoned here, the block extention however was not justified. Did you see what I asked, I had a time zone difference and he extended it? We do have a history and this is the second time he's done something that lacks sense. Indefintely blocking someone for apologizing for acting like a idiot, and then throwing that situation in my face here? It wasn't even remotely similar. Go back to the beggining of my page history, I have matured quite a bit here. I know not everyone agrees so hopefully this persuaded you to see the words behind a flawed delivery. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a seperate iszue, I require assistance here if you could oblige...Star Trek (film) the editor in question is removing five sources including cnn top replace it with a blog. I can no longer change as I believe it would violate 3rr. Can you step in and help out a bit? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you recognize your attacks and that they were inappropriate. I really hope this can all be behind us. It appears that the situation at Star Trek has been taken care of, but thank you for bringing it to my attention. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:39, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abnsolutely,, we only disagreed. You were doing what you thought best for the pedia and I me. No worries. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would you give me a second opinion as regards a user compare? Off2riorob (talk) 02:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is a user compare? I am going out for a dinner and will be back in 2 or 3 hours. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, perhaps later, user compare is betacommands tool that you got a key for to go duck hunting a few days ago. Off2riorob (talk) 02:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This tool . Off2riorob (talk) 02:35, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, that. Sure, you can send me the query you wish me to look at either here, or through e-mail if the information is potentially sensitive. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:58, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it is not especially sensitive but I have emailed you the details to preserve a bit of privacy for the users. Off2riorob (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to tell. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a degree of combination that is too coincidental imo, I have filed a report here . Thanks for looking. Off2riorob (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good plan, a report at SPI will make sure that people who are skilled at such investigations will take a look. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Brigitte Helm in Metropolis.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 03:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The licensing information is clearly present, I have provided a citation showing it is in the public domain. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Thuga.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Skier Dude (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again Skier Dude, the copyright information is clearly present. I have linked to where the creator has marked it as public domain. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)\[reply]

You should read the entirety of the messages you got before responding - both of the images are missing the licensing (templated license): refer to copyright tag or Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/All and then add the appropriate tag (with Fair Use Rationale, if appropriate) to the image description page. And, I do take time and read each page - the lack of a license template is pretty blatant. Skier Dude (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will add the tags. I however certainly hope you are not deleting public domain images because they don't have the right tag. If the crucial information is there, but it is not in the special format, it should be fixed and not tagged for deletion. Public domain images are after all pure gold to our project. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May the days get longer after they are done getting shorter! Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote on my talkpage
I then replied to you in kind
You didn't come back - sadface

–xeno^talk 20:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is removing headers incorrectly. You can see examples of this here and here. It should remove the headers for empty sections on that page, however, so if you can modify the bot to not remove headers below a report it's removing, but check if there are two level-3 headers in a row and then remove the top one, that would be awesome. Thanks! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I don't see any reason why this new feature could not be added, it should not adversely effect is current operation. I will look into adding this to the bot before I archive this section. I am likely going to make it simply not remove such headers at all, it is a bit outside the scope of the bot to identify and remove empty headers. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be useful to include the removal of headers as well, and I believe it would be fairly simple to include. I know a MySQL query that checks for that would be fairly simple to write, and I assume bot scripts should be similar enough to that be fairly simple, too. I don;t think it's too far outside the scope of the bot to do that, either. Maybe that's just me, though. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand, I'm happy to avoid reinforcing the "because Jimbo said so" line of thinking. On the other hand, the link was included to address doubts that IAR is a policy (which Jimbo actually was empowered to declare). So I could go either way on this one. —David Levy 17:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the reason to put it there was to reinforce that it was policy, and I also agree that Jimbo has the authority to make such a declaration. I think that a note on the talk page would be a better place than the policy itself. I think that the community itself supports this being policy and that consensus otherwise has never formed. I too can go either way on this. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The idea of placing a note on the talk page seems sensible to me. —David Levy 20:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What format do you think would be best? The quotation could be displayed (as it was on the project page until now), or we could simply link to Jimbo's edit as a citation for the statement that IAR is a policy (as we did on the project page in the past). —David Levy 21:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I have never been good at those sort of stylistic decisions. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that you can block me if you want. That's your perogative. But I'm not attempting to evade scrutiny. I simply haven't logged in to my account in quite some time. And while I'll certainly agree that what I said was unnecessarily rude, part of what burned me out on this place is the inability to speak plainly. Everything you say has to be couched in 5 layers of jargon. So you say, "This person edits in an uncollaborative and tendentious manner. His confrontational style has resulted in significant disruption." but what you're really saying that is that the person is a jerk. You know it, he knows it, everybody knows it. But somehow it's better? I just don't have any interest in that game any more. So block me if you must, but we both know it won't accomplish much. I wish I could go back in time to when I just wrote articles and was blissfully unaware of the seedy underbelly of Wikipedia. I try to get away, but the drama just sucks me in. Alas, alack. 208.97.245.233 (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see, you are not a duck, you just walk like a duck and quack. Got it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, okay. You go on protecting the encyclopedia from dangerous characters like me. Whoever it is that you think I am. 208.97.245.233 (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Come on buddy, I only asked you not to talk about people's dicks. It is not as though I blocked you on sight. You aren't being dangerous, just a bit rude. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Though, in my defense, I was talking about a metaphorical dick, not his acutal dick. Anyway, you don't need to worry about me. Happy editing. 208.97.245.233 (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.