User talk:HighInBC

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives. Archive index 2006 Archives: Archive 1 (February 16 – May 21) Archive 2 (May 27 – June 3) Archive 3 (June 3 – July 15) Archive 4 (July 23 – August 23) Archive 5 (August 23 – September 5) Archive 6 (September 5 – September 8) Archive 7 (September 13 – October 18) Archive 8 (October 18 – October 24) Archive 9 (October 24 – November 6) Archive 10 (November 7 – November 12) Archive 11 (November 12 – November 17) Archive 12 (November 17 – November 22) Archive 13 (November 22 – November 30) Archive 14 (November 30 – December 3) Archive 15 (December 3 – December 7) Archive 16 (December 8 – December 12) Archive 17 (December 14 – December 20) Archive 18 (December 21 – December 24) Archive 19 (December 25 – December 29) Archive 20 (December 30 – December 31) 2007 Archives: Archive 21 (January 1 – January 3) Archive 22 (January 4 – January 9) Archive 23 (January 10 – January 21) Archive 24 (January 22 – February 6) Archive 25 (February 6 – February 20) Archive 26 (February 20 – February 28) Archive 27 (March 2 – March 24) Archive 28 (March 25 – present) Trophy case Removed comments: From my User Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] From my User Talk: [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]

Contents 1 Canvas 2 Fair use image on user page 3 Here's a username for you... 4 Thank you, but next time. 5 Mongo 6 Kudos to a fellow spanner! 7 What is your methodology? 8 Hoverflies and bluebells

[edit] Canvas

whether or not a post is a canvas violation is rather controversial - i disagree with your assessment that his post was in violation of canvas and therefore that makes your action blanking.

The person involved in the RFA is also highly controversial, which could easily lead to that misconception. A subjective analysis of said user shows that they should have been banned years ago for incessant pov-pushing, but he's so good at doing it below the notice of the admins (and he has an admin in his pocket) that the problem article stays a problem.

the user in the RFA is one of three users that are the reason i A) do trust wikipedia as far as i can throw my house B) don't edit wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia is about reaching consensus... consensus and turth are not always the same thing.

So please - never remove content from my talk page again.

PS for the love of $DIETY turn down your archival rate Lordkazan 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not something is canvasing is not controversial it is spelled out very clearly in WP:CANVAS. You do not WP:OWN your talk page. When I revert a canvasser I am going to revert them all. It is not about you, it is protecting about the issue being canvassed from having a bias applied to it. I will continue to act towards canvasing the same way regardless of if your page is involved. I like my archive rate. Peace. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think whether or not something is a violation of canvas isn't a pattern of opinion and point of view then you need educate yourself on the entire issue of what a "point of view" is. These are exactly the reasons i don't edit anymore - biased enforcement of rules all over the place and the protection of the status quo, even if the status quo is wrong. Lordkazan 05:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let it go. I can decide if something is canvasing, any user can make that decision. If you think I was wrong then do some sort of review on me, but yes I can decide if something is in violation of policy and act accordingly. If you have problems with Wikipedia then good luck, but I still need to enforce policy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently attempted to clarify WP:CANVAS on this specific point. Canvassing requires the solicitation of an opinion. If you contact another Wikipedian to discuss an opinion they already gave in an RfA, it is not canvassing since the opinion already has been given. If you contact another Wikipedian about a pending RfA that they have not participated in, it is canvassing and not the acceptable kind. If you contact another Wikipedian about a pending RfA that they have not participated in because the person involved in the RfA is highly controversial, YIKES!!! -- Jreferee 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the canvas policy says that posting a message to enough people is "Excessive crossposting" even if it is neutral. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I revised WP:CANVAS so that it now asserts that if you contact one Wikipedian to discuss an opinion they already gave in an RfA, it is not canvassing. If multiple Wikipedians are contacted with a neutral message in an effort to form an opinion collation, that is canvassing. RfA's are highly susceptible to canvassing since one oppose vote essentially has the weight of three to four support votes. If one or more Wikipedians are contacted with a neutral message about an upcoming or ongoing RfA, that is unacceptable canvassing (in my opinion). If multiple Wikipedians are contacted with a neutral message about an upcoming or ongoing RfA and there is some reason to believe that the contacted Wikipedians are pre-inclined or pre-disposed to vote one way or another, that's YIKES!!! in my book and requires swift action. I have no opinion on the Lordkazan's posts since they are gone and I don't know what they were. -- Jreferee 18:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on all that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to post a comment in the affect RfA. I believe that the RfA closing admin can take into account the effect canvassing may have had on the RfA in determining whether there is an RfA support consensus. -- Jreferee 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RfAs are close by 'crats, not admins. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image on user page

Please consider Wikipedia's guideline regarding the editing of other users' pages, in particular, "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. ... The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so." Thanks. --SparqMan 02:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images on user pages is a copyright infringement issue, they are removed on sight, there is nothing to discuss, I just pointed you to the policy. Also it was not a "substantial" edit, just a small necessary one. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the policy, I wasn't aware of it though. I'm a bit curious that you just removed one out of five fair use logos. -- Henriok 14:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have set up a page that lists all fair use images in the userspace User:HighInBC/FU_in_userspace(warning big page), but it is indexed by image, not by users. As a result I am going it one image at a time. I will most likely re-write the script to index it by user. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here's a username for you...

Hi there. I came across R&M Kirkman 14 Beetham Place Blackpool Lanc's fy3 8hl (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) on the list o' new users. I left {{UsernameConcern}} because of its length -- it's a full address. I guess I'm also concerned that we have no proof that this is the user's actual address or if it's a way to attack someone by posting their address. Mind you, this latter concern doesn't seem to violate policy. Do you have any thoughts on this? Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was someone elses address that would violate our policy against releasing others personal information. But there is no reason to believe that. The name is too long per out username policy though. I will block it. Despite the hub-bub at RFCN about people getting warned before their username is discussed, violations of the username policy can still be blocked on sight. I set up a page for such reports: User:HighInBC/Usernames. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you, but next time.

Thank you for removing dorset.jpg from my userboxes I did not know that it was a fair use image, however as my userboxes link directly to my userpage I would request that you notify me next time. The user box was located at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/United Kingdom, I have subsequently removed it. Bass fishing physicist 15:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that my message in the edit summary would notify you. There are literally thousands of fair use images on the userspace that need to be removed, so I am just putting a clear edit summary explaining everything. Many people prefer to use the userbox without the image. Sorry for the inconvenience, I will see about adding a talk page addition to my script, but I may not have the know how. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My fault really, I should have checked the licensing on the image before using the userbox. I am now checking over the rest of my images and will do so as a matter of course in the future. My thanks for alerting me.Bass fishing physicist 15:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mongo

Hi HighInBC, since you took part in the incident, I thought you might want to comment on the draft of a statement I'd like to take to RfC on Mongo. It can be found here: user:Thomas Basboll/Sandbox. It's sort of a last ditch effort to refind the desire to keep working on WP. Best,--Thomas Basboll 15:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I will look through it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Thomas Basboll 19:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos to a fellow spanner!

Image:Cordialgreetings1x_pix.gif [43] Image:Cordialgreetings1x_pix.gif Jreferee 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good show with your update. But you put "Terms" where "Official" goes. hehe. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is your methodology?

Hey, I'm curious: How are you getting the FU violation lists? I'd like to apply it to other namespaces as well. --Iamunknown 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am using:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=category&cpnamespace=14&cptitle=Fair%20use%20images&cpfrom=Category:Promotional%20images&cplimit=500&format=xml

to get a list of categories in FU then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=category&cpnamespace=6&cptitle=<each category name>&cplimit=500&format=xml

to get a list of images in those categories, then

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=imagelinks&titles=image1|image2|image3...&ilnamespace=2&illimit=500&format=xml

to get a list of which pages in the user namespace(namespace 2 as defined by: this) link to which images and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=categories&titles=image1|image2|image3...&format=xml

to get the list of categories the image is in(to exclude images in [[{Category:Fair use images used with permission]] and other categories).

Most of the info on how to do this is at the query.php instructions. <sarcasm>Is that simple enough?</sarcasm> ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I can e-mail you my perl source code if you like, it is not ready for publishing, but it works. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooo, so nifty. :-) Are you going to automate it any time soon? Eh, I'm not that good at Perl, but I might ask you later. Thanks for the info. --Iamunknown 01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Once I have filtered out the false positives, and built a routine that handles the 17 odd ways an image can be displayed I am going to request approval for an automated bot. But as it stands human analysis of any removal is still needed.

The problem is that many images are marked as "Fair use" but also under other licenses that allow use outside article space. The other problem is that images can be displayed on a page using a variety of syntaxes, so it is hard to detect them all, and even when you do an automatic routine may incorrectly removed them leading to malformed data, example of such an error. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose you know how to find the closing bracket of a set of brackets that has nested bracketed data? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore. I'm asking around. --Iamunknown 01:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoverflies and bluebells

Hey HighInBC - hope things are well with you. I can't hope noticing the uncanny similarity between the photo on the top right of your userpage and the one recently nominated at FPC - is there a plague of hoverflies in Victoria at the moment?! While I'm on the subject, I'll point out the same correction I did at the FP nom: the blue flowers are grape hyacinths, not Virginia Bluebells. Anyway, nice photo; if you don't mind praise from an amateur, I think your photography is really getting pretty good!

FWIW, I agree about vote counting vs. consensus, having previously had someone claim my judgement was 'clouded' by my having voted when I'd been very careful to ensure my actions were fair and warranted. All the best, --YFB ¿ 01:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, that is the same Hoverfly, and grape hyacinth. Me and KirinX are good friends and often go on walks with our cameras to take images. I let him spend 5-10 minutes taking pictures of this guy and then I took some. There is not an inordinate amount of hoverflies around.

Thanks for the encouragement, photography is very involved. I really like how I can find a random insect or flower and find out what it is through Wikipedia. If you know about photography I am always open to advice, whether general or based on what you have seen of my work.

One of the greatest attributes of an admin is to know the difference between a vote and a consensus. While participating in a discussion and then closing it may create the appearance of bias, an honest admin can do so without bias, but should be prepared to rigorously defend his decision later.

Once in a while opinion drifts from policy and sense, but a properly interpreted consensus should always be dead on balls accurate. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling it looked familiar... :-)

Just made another minor correction: the Prunella vulgaris you photographed was actually Lamium purpureum (I nearly made exactly the same mistake a few weeks ago, responding to a question at the Science ref. desk). I've taken the liberty of re-uploading it under the correct filename to the Commons, and replaced the links; I hope that's OK with you. I couldn't get your template to work on the Commons so I've removed it for the time being - you're better at that sort of thing than me! If you have some reasoning for not uploading to Commons, please feel free to shout at me and move it back. Cheers, --YFB ¿ 02:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should keep my gallery on your watchlist and be my personal mistake corrector. Thank you for correcting my misidentification yet again. Commons is fine, I don't know why I don't upload there by default. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Heheh, well it's on my watchlist now so I'll take a peek from time to time... ;-)

I'm not an expert botanist by any stretch of the imagination, it just happens that there've been a few weird plant-related coincidences recently that have caught my eye! Keep up the good work, --YFB ¿ 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)