Misplaced Pages

User talk:HighInBC: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:03, 23 February 2015 editWinkelvi (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers30,145 editsm Reverted 1 edit by SEHSstorm17 (talk) to last revision by NewEnglandYankee. (TW)← Previous edit Revision as of 04:33, 23 February 2015 edit undoHobit (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers16,316 edits Antidiskriminator close: new sectionNext edit →
Line 199: Line 199:


::We don't need a range block, you are easy enough to recognize. ] 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC) ::We don't need a range block, you are easy enough to recognize. ] 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

== Antidiskriminator close ==

Thanks for closing that. I think it is the right close given the discussion (though, per the discussion I don't think it's the right outcome, but that's a different issue). ] (]) 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:33, 23 February 2015

Tokens from other editors:

Archive
Talk page archives - Archive index
2006 Archives:

Archive 1 (February 16th – May 21st)
Archive 2 (May 27th – June 3rd)
Archive 3 (June 3rd – July 15th)
Archive 4 (July 23rd – August 23rd)
Archive 5 (August 23rd – September 5th)
Archive 6 (September 5th – September 8th)
Archive 7 (September 13rd – October 18th)
Archive 8 (October 18th – October 24th)
Archive 9 (October 24th – November 6th)
Archive 10 (November 7th – November 12th)
Archive 11 (November 12th – November 17th)
Archive 12 (November 17th – November 22nd)
Archive 13 (November 22nd – November 30th)
Archive 14 (November 30th – December 3rd)
Archive 15 (December 3rd – December 7th)
Archive 16 (December 8th – December 12th)
Archive 17 (December 14th – December 20th)
Archive 18 (December 21st – December 24th)
Archive 19 (December 25th – December 29th)
Archive 20 (December 30th – December 31st)

2007 Archives:

Archive 21 (January 1st – January 3rd)
Archive 22 (January 4th – January 9th)
Archive 23 (January 10th – January 21st)
Archive 24 (January 22nd – February 6th)
Archive 25 (February 6th – February 20th)
Archive 26 (February 20th – February 28th)
Archive 27 (March 2nd – March 24th)
Archive 28 (March 25th – April 2nd)
Archive 29 (April 3rd – April 13th)
Archive 30 (April 14th – April 24th)
Archive 31 (April 24th – May 12th)
Archive 32 (May 12th – May 21st)
Archive 33 (May 23rd – June 6th)
Archive 34 (June 7th – June 17th)
Archive 35 (June 22nd – July 26th)
Archive 36 (July 26th – August 12th)
Archive 37 (August 12th – August 23)
Archive 38 (August 31st – September 15th)
Archive 39 (September 19th – October 14th)
Archive 40 (October 15th – November 17th)
Archive 41 (November 18th – December 28th)

2008 Archives:

Archive 42 (January 4th – January 8th)
Archive 43 (January 10th – January 18th)
Archive 44 (January 20th – February 14th)
Archive 45 (February 17th – March 25th)
Archive 46 (March 27th – March 28th)
Archive 47 (March 28th – April 22nd)
Archive 48 (April 24th – May 14th)
Archive 49 (May 24th – July 9th)
Archive 50 (July 17th – July 23rf)
Archive 51 (July 24th – August 4th)
Archive 52 (August 5th – December 14th)

2009 Archives:

Archive 53 (January 1st – March 5th)
Archive 54 (March 8th – March 20th)
Archive 55 (March 23rd – April 6th)
Archive 56 (April 7th – April 22nd)
Archive 57 (April 26th – May 9th)
Archive 58 (May 17th – June 9th)
Archive 59 (June 1st – June 18th)
Archive 60 (June 18th – June 20th)
Archive 61 (June 21th – July 7th)
Archive 62 (July 7th – July 14th)
Archive 63 (July 14th – July 30th)
Archive 64 (July 31st – August 14th)
Archive 65 (August 14th – September 6th)
Archive 66 (September 7th – September 15th)
Archive 67 (September 19th – October 3rd)
Archive 68 (October 4th – October 27th)
Archive 69 (October 27th – November 3rd)
Archive 70 (November 3rd – November 24th)
Archive 71 (November 24th – December 7th)
Archive 72 (December 7th – December 17th)
Archive 73 (December 17th – December 31st)

2010 Archives:

Archive 74 (January 1st – January 30th)
Archive 75 (January 30th – March 7th)
Archive 76 (March 7th – October 11th)
Archive 77 (October 11th – December 31st)

2011 Archives:

Archive 78 (January 1st – December 31st)

2012 Archives:

Archive 79 (January 1st – December 31st)

2013 Archives:

Archive 80 (January 1st – December 31st)

2014 Archives:

Archive 81 (January 1st – July 12th)
Archive 82 (July 13th – July 31st)
Archive 83 (August 1st – August 20th)
Archive 84 (August 21st – September 1st)
Archive 85 (September 1st – September 21st)
Archive 86 (September 21st – November 4th)
Archive 87 (November 4th – December 13th)
Archive 88 (December 13th – December 31st)

2015 Archives:

Archive 89 (January 1st – January 15th)
Archive 90 (January 15th – February 12th)
Archive 91 (February 12th – March 4th)
Archive 92 (March 4th – May 12th)
Archive 93 (May 12th – June 15th)
Archive 94 (June 15th – June 25th)
Archive 95 (June 25th – July 15th)
Archive 96 (July 15th – July 24th)
Archive 97 (July 24th – August 18th)
Archive 98 (August 18th – August 25th)
Archive 99 (August 25th – September 21st)
Archive 100 (September 21st – October 11th)
Archive 101 (October 11th – November 9th)
Archive 102 (November 9th – December 18th)
Archive 103 (December 18th – December 31st)

2016 Archives:

Archive 104 (January 1st – January 21st)
Archive 105 (January 21st – February 5th)
Archive 106 (February 5th – April 3rd)
Archive 107 (April 3rd – April 30th)
Archive 108 (April 30th – May 15th)
Archive 109 (May 15th – May 29th)
Archive 110 (May 29th – June 22nd)
Archive 111 (June 22nd – July 2nd)
Archive 112 (July 2nd – December 22nd)

2017 Archives:

Archive 113 (January 1st – December 31st)

2018 Archives:

Archive 114 (January 1st – December 31st)

2019 Archives:

Archive 115 (January 1st – December 31st)

2020 Archives:

Archive 116 (January 1st – December 31st)

2021 Archives:

Archive 117 (January 1st – June 20th)
Archive 118 (June 20th – July 3rd)
Archive 119 (July 3rd – July 10th)
Archive 120 (July 10th – July 28th)
Archive 121 (July 28th – August 15th)
Archive 122 (August 15th – September 21st)
Archive 123 (September 21st – November 10th)
Archive 124 (November 10th – December 31st)

2022 Archives:

Archive 125 (January 1st – Present)

  • Hello and welcome to my talk page! Click the + button at the top of the page to create a new discussion or use any of the "edit" buttons to contribute to an already existing discussion.
  • Postings made in the form of haiku will be given first priority.

HBC AIV helperbot

Your bot hasn't been running for about 12 hours as of now and UAA is becoming cluttered. Command and Conquer Expert! review me... 07:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, it seems I have an error:
Not a HASH reference at ./HBC AIV helperbot.pl line 330.
I will look into that when I have some time. I have started it back up again. Chillum 07:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I have a fix for this but I want to add code that shows me what is causing it so I can test the solution by reproducing the cause. I will try to keep it running in the meantime. Chillum 20:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Re your note on my page:
Short story is I screwed up, bot did nothing wrong, sorry for any concern. I reverted my revert once I could figure out what happened. Sorry, my fault. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

No worries at all. I was just trying to fix a bug and was concerned I had introduced a new one. I wanted to check with you before turning it back on so it did not edit war with you. If it ever is malfunctioning feel free to block it, you won't hurt its fealings. Chillum 21:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

@Cncmaster: I think I have fixed the fault, if it does not crash in the next week or so I will publish the new code and raise the required version for the UAA page. Thanks for the report. Chillum 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, HighInBC. You have new messages at IJBall's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback Smack

So you deleted my article on majhost, eh?

WELL, I'M PUTTING IT BACK!--LooneyTunerIan (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@LooneyTunerIan: If you insist on remaking an attack page without sources I will just block you. You have been here 3 years and you know how it works. Chillum 18:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
@Chillum: It is not an attack article, it was just for reference. Majhost.com is a real image hosting website. Just ask anyone who used it. And besides, don't you have to give the user some kind of warning stamp or something like that on their profile before you attempt to block them? --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I just did warn you. You need references and you need to make it neutral. Unreferenced entirely negative articles are deleted on sight, we don't host such articles. If you do recreate it please do not do it in its prior form, take into account our WP:V verifiability requirements. Chillum 18:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Please delete talk page?

Seems I created it after you deleted the page. Heh, my fault. Anyway, I made it to justify the non-notable other CSD criteria since I wasn't sure of attack page covered non BLP. The website isn't notable according to alexa. https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Majhost ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Chillum 18:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I should be thanking you for being faster than me. :) Cheers! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Just don't...

Chillum while I understand your efforts to help another editor you are doing it for nothing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I am well enough aware of the futility of my efforts. It was worth the try for the benefit of the project but nothing will come of it. Chillum 22:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Interested?

Hi Chillum,
You must be interested in Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/National Names 2000 as you had a suspicion.  - T H (here I am) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I did find those two to be a bit quacky earlier on. Since then it appears to have become more obvious. Thank you for drawing my attention to that. Chillum 17:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the extended block of 108.25.73.174

I tried to be civil to him. Really, I did. But due to his constant misdemeanor from the lack of understanding, he had to be dealt with severely. Thank you for that, he won't be causing anymore trouble for a lengthy time. 70.45.65.243 (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Try to avoid calling other editors childish, even if they are. It is best to just report, block and ignore. Chillum 22:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I will do so in the near future. I see now that there are vandals that can't be reasoned with and best to report instead as you told me. Again, thank you. 70.45.65.243 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. Chillum 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Thank you for reverting the vandalism done to my user page! :) JuneGloom07 Talk 02:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
Any time. Chillum 02:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Majhost

You deleted the page Majhost on Feb 8. I'd like to see the deletion discussion but have so far not been able to find it. Secondly, you may have used the wrong deletion reason. You cited "Negative unsourced BLP". However, that relates to people while majhost is an internet page. And maybe a thorough rework of the article would have sufficed. I'm not fond of hasty deletions. --Maxl (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello. Per Misplaced Pages:Biographies_of_living_persons#Legal_persons_and_groups companies are seen as people by our BLP policy. While I have no objection to a neutral and well sourced article what I deleted was entirely negative and without any sources. Any article on the subject would need to be fundamentally rewritten. It was deleted under WP:CSD#G10. Chillum 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick answer. But where is the deletion debate? --Maxl (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletions are done at the discretion of an administrator, they are not the result of debate. It was marked as an attack page per WP:CSD#G10 by an editor and I saw it in the category and upon review decided it was an attack page and deleted it at my discretion. Chillum 19:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I see. A speedy deletion. No wonder I didn't find a deletion debate... ;) --Maxl (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

I hope that clears everything up. Again, you are welcome to make a neutral well sourced article on the subject. The deletion does not prevent recreation in another form. Chillum 20:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

An apology

Chillum, I want to apologise to you for this posting I made on my talk page a few days ago. It was unnecessarily rude and not even entirely accurate. I doubt that you and I will ever be exchanging Christmas cards, or our opinions of Gamaliel ever coinciding, but I don't despise you, and it was wrong of me to say that I did. Eric Corbett 18:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I really appreciate that Eric. Thank you. Chillum 18:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
To be honest, I'm rather embarrassed I said that about you, which is why I came to your talk page, but what's been done can't be undone. Eric Corbett 23:13, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Different IP, same user?

Hmm... I think its safe that my talkpage should be protected from anymore future vandalism of the same IP user (just with different numbers). And don't worry, I had said nothing to him. Just didn't think he'd come back and cause mischief again. 70.45.65.243 (talk) 18:54, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

If we protected or even semi-protected your user talk page then you could not use it. The only way would be if you created an account. Chillum 19:56, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Yeah. And by doing so completely conceals the same user from finding out. As I did some contributions despite my main activity of just reading articles, I guess I do need to create an account of my own. And when I do, I'll let you know. 70.45.65.243 (talk) 22:48, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Here I am, no longer an IP user. Jon the VGN3rd (talk) 22:51, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Welcome, Jon, Good decision. . Buster Seven Talk 17:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

JW's talkpage

My suggestion there, was about as successful as a one-legged person at a butt-kicking contest :) GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. His page has become a less formal discussion area for controversial things. I suspect when some people post there it is to get the attention of the community rather than Jimbo. Not saying this is the case on this occasion. Chillum 21:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

re: Context

: Much of the context you're looking for can be found here. Typically when an editor starts with rants containing: "I don't give two cents for your words after that ignorant, preposterous, country bumpkin lie of yours ..." we know that somebody is here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, not a good sign. Still, I allow for AGF (and unblocked), but right after that when things like: "Why is it that "incivility" is generally the accusation of people who have both hooves in the trough? I am grateful for Dreadstar's reaffirmation of that aphorism.", start showing up, it becomes pretty clear that they've come armed for a WP:BATTLE. I suspect that Dreadstar has made the right call here. — Ched :  ?  22:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree he did make the right call. Thanks. Chillum 00:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

You were right

After thinking about for quite some time, I've decided that you were right on my desysopping proposal: The community has authority over admins that is not used. Perhaps the larger community is unaware that they have this ability. Do you think that adding a paragraph to that effect added to the WP:ADMIN page would be helpful? --Biblioworm 23:42, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

What did you have in mind? Chillum 00:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Regardless of what the paragraph says, it should be in the "Disputes or complaints" section. It could describe how a topic ban concerning the admin tools can be imposed by the community (perhaps at WP:ANI). It could then go on to say that if the admin violates the topic ban, s/he will be blocked or automatically desysopped. --Biblioworm 00:37, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Happened to see this in passing—I'll just note that the community (at least, the denizens of the noticeboards where these sorts of restrictions are generally applied and enforced) are fully aware that topic bans – and interaction bans, and revert restrictions, and all the other options for editing restrictions – are well aware that these restrictions can be placed on administrators, just as they can be applied to any Misplaced Pages editor. There isn't any need to list the all the specific remedies available on WP:ADMIN because they are the same as for every editor; admins really aren't special or unusual in this respect, and those among them who are e.g. topic-banned are already well aware that they can be blocked for violating the terms of their restriction. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
True, but it's sometimes best to just put it down on "wikiPaper", as some people will try to wikiLawyer and say that we can't do so and so because it's not documented anywhere. It just makes things a bit easier. Quite obviously, the fact that so many people still think that we need a desysopping procedure shows that either they don't know that they can impose a topic ban on the tools, or if they do know, they might not know where to do it. Has there ever been a case where an admin was topic banned from using the tools? --Biblioworm 15:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
I think rather than trying to explain an idea on a policy page this may be a great opportunity to start an essay. Something like Misplaced Pages:Being an admin is not a big deal, this title is inspired from this old post by Jimbo: . Chillum 00:44, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. I might try to start the essay soon, if I get the time. --Biblioworm 17:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You have a sense of humor?

You are on Jimbo's talk page, pinging him accomplishes little.

You owe me a keyboard. :) Viriditas (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Elsewhere, I'm glad you didn't recommend a prostate exam. LOL. I will now proceed to Jimbo's page to see what all the giggling is about!!!! Thanks for your sharing. :~). . Buster Seven Talk 17:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
. I have pointed out to LB that removing her comment causes your response to be non-sensical and is bad practice. It also removes any sense of humor.. Buster Seven Talk 22:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

HBC AIV helperbot

Hi Chillum, the bot hasn't operated at WP:UAA for a couple days. Callanecc (talkcontribslogs) 10:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I rebooted and did not restart it. I am going to put it into the cloud and setup a system to it automatically restarts. Chillum 18:17, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Vcorani unblock

I decided that since there wasn't a firm consensus to keep them blocked, and that they had essentially already served out the 6 months of the SO, I should go ahead and unblock. I did say to make sure they read the issues raised in the AN discussion and to ASK if there was anything they didn't get. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Chillum 16:28, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
@SarekOfVulcan: How the heck did I miss your RfA? I thought you were an admin for years. Congrats. Chillum 20:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I was. :-) I resigned two years ago, after the arb case that decided to strongly admonish me instead of desysopping. I was going to run again after a couple of months, but gave it a year, which I didn't pass. After another year of practicing not going ballistic on the dramaboards, they let me back in. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I knew I had seen your name on the admin logs before. I don't think I know anyone else who has passed RfA 3 times. Impressive. Chillum 20:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the adjective you seek is "masochistic", actually. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Protect

Please protect this page. Thanks! Jim Carter 06:10, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Done Chillum 06:15, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! Jim Carter 06:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

An Sock puppet investigation concerning Cultural Marxism Deletion

] This investigation has been started to investigate RGloucester and suspected sock or meat puppet Jobrot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.15.36 (talk) 12:58, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me know how that turns out for you. Being a brand new user jumping into a heated debate accusing another user of jumping into a heated debate is a bit rich, I am sure it will turn out well. Chillum 15:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked for sock puppetry

Per our sock puppet policy undisclosed alternative accounts are not to be used in discussions internal to the project. Logging out to file a complaint against another user qualifies as such. It is clear from your knowledge of events that take place well prior to your edit history that you have prior history here. It is also clear you are using more than one IP to edit war and act disruptively at Draft talk:Cultural Marxism.

If you wish to appeal this block please log into your regular account to do so. Chillum 17:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Let me know how that turns out for you. Being a brand new user jumping into a heated debate accusing another user of jumping into a heated debate is a bit rich, I am sure it will turn out well. Chillum 15:59, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Response to above paranoid schizophrenic behavior. Not an account holder nor am I a boggy man and never made any claim to be a new user so that makes you a liar as well. It seems your paranoid behavior has led to a knee jerk paranoid action. Sorry but that is the truth that you cannot handle. Hey go ahead and range block, as it a cellular IP you will only block a few million of a major provider. It would be another ignorant but predictable move. Your online friend also salted the well laid out SPI investigation about an obvious sock or meat puppet of RGlouchester and a brand new account Jobrot. Don't worry I saved it and will post elsewhere as more evidence of you get what you pay for which is not much when it is free. Interesting cultish behavior where without any evidence you make false accusation and attempt to bury well founded evidence. Keep up living in your little world of make believe. More evidence that project is failing to come close to its stated goal. Thanks for the evidence and your behavior is a bit rich. 172.56.15.217 (talk) 23:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I see in addition to sock puppetry you are now engaging in block evasion and impersonating me on several user pages. You are hardly convincing me that I was wrong to block you.
There was no conspiracy to close your sock puppet investigation, it was just a shitty report. You provided no evidence while engaging in evasion of scrutiny yourself.
We don't need a range block, you are easy enough to recognize. Chillum 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Antidiskriminator close

Thanks for closing that. I think it is the right close given the discussion (though, per the discussion I don't think it's the right outcome, but that's a different issue). Hobit (talk) 04:33, 23 February 2015 (UTC)