User talk:H/Archive 30

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[edit] Hinomaru sock

I noticed your edit [1] to this Hinomaru sock. I am pleased to tell you I have modified the sockblock template to automatically include the blocked person in the "sockpuppets of xxx" category. simply use {{sockblock|puppeteer}} which was an existing syntax, but I added the bit of code adding the category. Go on, try it. Now there is no need to have BOTH those templates on the one page. Nardman1 00:05, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Bah, nvm, I guess you were using a semi-automated admin "tool". So of course niceties of editing aren't going to matter. Nardman1 00:17, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

It would require a bit of trickery to do what you are suggesting using my javascript. I am not so hot with java. But the important thing is that the sockpuppet userpages are not being marked as temporary. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Barnstar of Diligence

Barnstar moved to user page

Thank you. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:12, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] your note

Thanks for your note. I thought your comment on AN/I was needlessly aggressive but to be honest I'm used to it. I don't need "an eye kept on me". I've been just the same since I began editing here, and I'm not going to stop standing up to bullies, admins or not, just because they whine on the admin's noticeboard. Still, on the other hand, I don't particularly like conflict and don't carry it on endlessly, so I won't bear a grudge. Happy editing! Grace Note 10:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I was but one person out of many who had a similar opinion. Glad you are willing to work through it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:30, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Estatemagazine

This user (showing as blocked by yourself) shows an edit history composed of spamming the publication in his/her name. Can I request that be given consideration if he contests his ban? Thanks ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Consider it considered. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:56, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. I've reverted his/her spam and it looks like his/her uploaded images are on the way out. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 00:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:GRIEF

Thought you'd like the above essay that Kafziel wrote. RJASE1 ^Talk 00:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I love how the diffs are provided. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:59, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Appreciate input

Ryan, as a username expert, would you care to offer an opinion on this? RJASE1 ^Talk 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi High

Is this what we're talking about? Niko Silver 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding sockblock to sockpuppeteer pages

I know what you are trying to do by this, simply stop them falling into the tempory category, but, why this template? As sockblock is for sockpuppets, not sockpuppeteers, and adding sockblock results them in looking like a sockpuppet. The whole idea is crazy. Retiono Virginian 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I noticed you manually removed a sockpuppeteer from the temporary userpage category. You can do so more easily by using {{Sockpuppeteer|blocked}} and removing the indefinite block template (see example). :) —{admin} Pathoschild 18:44:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I will set up a two pass system where is subst the template first, then removes the category. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Help Please

There is a vandal on here who is trying to get me blocked, I don't know why, he is User:Glfootball92.

Southluver 12:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks like everything was taken care of. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Surprise

Now this was a pleasant surprise to discover on Wikipedia! Cheers, and keep up the good work. :-) --HappyCamper 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

No problem. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFCN

Hi there, I've responded to your block message for User:Spammyou on RFCN with a request that you unblock pending completion of the discussion, and I've outlined some reasons why I believe the block was a bit premature. The discussion may end with consensus to disallow the username, but it hasn't gotten there yet. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not need a consensus at WP:RFCN to give a username block. If it is violation of the username policy then any admin can block at any time. The policy specifically mentions spam, and it gives me the impression of the intent to do so. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As the RFCN discussion shows that there is not a consensus to block and I disagree that it violates, I'll unblock the user, but I want to consult with you first. I'll wait a little bit before doing it if you have any concerns. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I don't need a consensus to block. Unless there is a clear consensus to allow I don't see how any lack of consensus overrides my decision to block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is not a consensus to allow, I did not block under any sort of consensus at RFCN, but through my own judgment. I suggest you bring this to ANI, because a lack of consensus at RFCN does not invalidate my block. I am going out for a couple hours. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Your block isn't invalid, I just think it was a bit hasty. As I mentioned, I'll unblock the user for now (on my own judgment) and bring this to AN/I for comment if you'd like. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

If my block was not invalid then why the hell would you unblock?? I think to avoid any appearance of wheel warring you should discuss first and unblock only after there is a consensus to do so, because right now you only have a difference of opinion with me and a no consensus discussion. And you have said it is not invalid, why would you unblock? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How is it hasty? It took me 3 seconds to look at the name, and a couple of minutes reviewing the policy. That is really all it takes. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you have just gone ahead and done it, even though I asked for a larger discussion first, shall I post at ANI, or will you? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Nm, I see it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Howdy! I didn't see your response before I unblocked, didn't realize you felt this was a wheel-situation. I'm not sure that's accurate, as I discussed the unblock with you first. Also, unblocking doesn't seem to require a group consensus in this case as you did mention that you had used your own judgment to make the block. We can always reblock the user later if the discussion goes in that direction. Also, your block wasn't invalid, I didn't mean to imply that if that's what you read. I've posted to AN/I if you have any concerns, let's work together on this. Regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Ummm, I am very confused here. You say my block wasn't invalid, yet you revert it? What are you doing? Why discuss at all if you feel that block is not invalid???? Surely realize that admins can give username blocks without RFCN approval. What exactly are you trying for? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:54, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a combat situation, we're just both working together to serve the project and our users. Please don't take the unblock personally. I'm re-activating the RFCN, it was closed after your block. If the consensus is to block the name, I'll take the onus of re-blocking the user and informing them. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 18:00, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you understand the nature of RFCN, it is a place for comments about a username, it is not there to override the decisions of admins. The fact is the WP:U#Trouble policy says "Give the impression that you intend to cause trouble here, such as by alluding to hacking, spamming, trolling, or computer viruses", it does not say "Give the impression to a majority of people that you intend to cause trouble here, such as by alluding to hacking, spamming, trolling, or computer viruses". So it is really not a vote, I have gotten that impression from the name and I have blocked, this is all very inapropriate. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we seem to be at some sort of an impasse. You seem to have unblocked with the motive of allowing the RFCN to go on, but RFCN does not do reviews of existing blocks. You said the block was not invalid, so what do we have left? You went to ANI to ask for confirmation of you action to unblock, when you should have been seeking consensus to do so before unblocking. Nobody is condemning my block yet. So should we just wait and see what happens on ANI? Do you think the block was invalid? Do you think RFCN should be reviewing existing blocks? Help me here, I am not trying to be an ass, I am just trying to figure out what is going on here. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you reverted my re-activation of the discussion, so the impasse is really of your own construction. I'm not certain why you feel your block trumps anything anyone else can say, whether it's RFCN or another admin, that's the impression I've been left with. I'd appreciate it if you undid your re-closure of the RFCN. I'm not saying you were some sort of abusive admin for making it, despite what some of your recent assertions seem to suggest. We're both volunteers here, as is the new editor whose username started this discussion. It seems that you're approaching this conversation from a "disagreement with my decision constitutes an attack on my character" perspective. If that's not accurate, then accept my apologies, but the way you've been painting this really seems to suggest it. We're all volunteers here, including the new user with the username that started this all, let's keep that in mind. If we ever feel that our actions and status are somehow sacred and beyond any type of inquiry, then we're not filling our positions in the fashion envisioned by the founders of the project. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 20:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

There is an ongoing consensus that RFCN should not be used to challenge admin blocks. You have said the block was not invalid, I didn't make up the decision to not use RFCN to dispute username blocks. The discussion belongs on ANI, and ANI seems to agree with my block. You seem to be overstating the importance of RFCN, it is just a tool to help judge usernames, not a decision making body. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

This is very cool indeed. Great shooting :-) --YFB ¿ 18:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I just stood with my camera set up and facing away from the feeder, took about 20 minutes before one was brave enough to feed with me there. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen a live hummingbird, only moths pretending. I obviously live in the wrong place. :-( --YFB ¿ 19:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

On the gulf islands they are plentiful, lots on Vancouver Island, but Galiano Island is lousy with them. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. No cash at the moment (still at uni) but in the next couple of years I'm hoping to get back to BC. My girlfriend is trying to persuade me to take her sea-kayaking around the Gulf Islands... Out of interest, does "lousy with" mean there's lots or not many? Language barrier! :-) --YFB ¿ 19:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It means lots. They are buzzing around all over and you hear high pitched whines of different pitches whizzing around. They are hard to see, much less photograph because they never stay still except when feeding and will not feed around you unless you stay motionless for a long time. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Cooool. Definitely have to try to get there at some point. Thanks for the info, when I get a bit closer to actually making a trans-Atlantic trip perhaps I'll hassle you for some tips on places to go. Only had 10 days last time... I have a 4ft x 3ft map of BC on my bedroom wall and the bits I've seen are squished into about 3 square inches in the bottom left-hand corner. Anyway, congrats on a great photo - I can't even query your species ID this time! --YFB ¿ 19:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You deleted my page

Why did you delete my page? I could not edit my page because I was blocked by User:Candianceasar for a harmless edit summary. I want my page back.Payne2thamax

You were indef blocked, your page was old, we deleted it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How?

I try and try to keep my cool, until this air of change in WP:RFCN manages to find its path away from the sewer. Are we serious here? Are we going to allow usernames that are trademarked for crying out loud? What's next? Pepsi-Max? Windows Vista? Vaio? Lexus? Pentium? Jose Cuervo? How do you manage to keep yours? Niko Silver 20:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I am starting the think that I was wrong to oppose the deletion of RFCN. People seem to think it is a decision making panel, when it is simply a place to request comments. People really are starting to divide into "camps" and stretch their point of view. Arguments that belong on WT:U are happening on WP:RFCN. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It is driving me bonkers too. These ideological movements, fear of votes, etc... Driving me nuts. I agree with what you're seeing High. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 20:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be made more clear that RFCN does not carry authority and is simply an advisory board. The decisions are made by admins in the end, and if somebody thinks the decision is incorrect, then that can be dealt with through dispute resolution or discussion at WP:ANI. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I sincerely hope something good will emerge out of all this. Niko Silver 21:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:pnc nominated for deletion

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:CANVAS. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centrx

Centrx has words like ***, **** and ***** on his user page. I am beginning to wonder about all three of you, including Ironduke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.194.4.21 (talk) 08:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

*'s are not words, words use letters. Not sure what you are talking about. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent problems

I think one of the major issues in our argument was that I was not clear enough in my initial response. While I thought I was clear that the block should stand and that greater discussion should take place before any reversal, it seems I failed to communicate that correctly. I will try to be more clear next time, and I will also search harder to notice such miscommunication in the future. I certainly have respect for your actions in the past, and in light of this misunderstanding this issue starts to make sense too.

Sorry if I was a bit heavy handed, at the time I was under the impression that you knew I wanted more discussion before you reverted me. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:56, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for reversing your block so quickly, perhaps part of my misinterpretation of your message was that I read what I expected to read, and should have sought more clarification. Let's work together, I think we have the same goals in mind. We don't always agree on the details, but that's part of what makes us (as a group of admins) effective. Best regards, CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Peace. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards Subpage.

A few weeks ago, you suggested I use the <noinclude> tags on my awards subpage. I've followed your suggestion yesterday. I had to update my user page (there was a lot of old information), so I thought I'd do put the tags in as well. Thanks. :) Acalamari 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks good. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Quick question, will the nominations section of my user page cause any problems? If it will, I'll remove it immediately. I only put it there as a reference for myself. Acalamari 23:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why it would be a problem. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay then. I wasn't sure in case other users didn't like the listing of completed RfA's on user pages; but I was the nominator on both those occasions, and I'm only listing them as a reference. Acalamari 23:40, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 420 (whatever the suffix is)

Hi HighInBC, could you do that thing you do with the archiving on the 420 page's talk page next time you are there, from maybe the moment JoopersCoopers or whatever his name is arrived there. Its getting sprawling, and I feel we have all turned a corner and I would like to forget the past.

Also, there is (for once) a vaguely-intelligent and non-black and white debate going on there, your input would be much appreciated.. Jdcooper 03:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Archived, my 2 cents added. It is nice to see productive discussion on that talk page. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TUPjs.js

Hi HighInBC. I saw you created TUPjs.js about weeks ago. I've never seen this new type of monobook before. What do you use TUPjs.js for? In my opinion, TUPjs.js is just similar to other types of monobooks in wikipedia which is only for admins to use. Could you please explain to me more about TUPjs.js? Please, reply in my talk page. Your response would be appreciated. Cheers! Daniel5127 | Talk 06:18, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:ColScott

This individual has contacted the foundation (by telephone). I've requested an admin unblock him. A good deal of his issues have to do with his interaction with Philip Gronowski.

We should not be experiencing any issues of the like that earned him a block in the first place, and if there are any issues with the biography that interests him, he will contact me directly.

Thanks for your thoughtfulness regarding that. Cary Bass 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

This user harassed my userpage with spam for weeks after the block, it is all in the history. I fully expect these sorts of problems from this user in the future if this user is unblocked. Related difs: [2][3] and the contribts of 72.89.210.235. For the record I oppose an unblock of this user. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The unblocking of this user is in accordance with additional events. The actions of this user regarding your userpage were regrettable. He admits his wrongdoing, and I am asking him not to engage you in the future. Please note that I am watching the situation closely, and should any behavior such as this recommence, we will not hesitate in taking action against it. Cary Bass ^demandez 12:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Well I hope there is a good reason then. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trademarks

I removed the trademark restriction again. I know you like to point to WP:BRD, but let me say that at this point, three users (Radiant, Myself, and Abu-fool) have purposefully removed that restriction, and it's only you who is insisting on it. And it would be helpful if you could explain why you think the restriction is sensible, given the counterpoints people have made. Oh.. and how did you get the face to show up next to the Wikipedia icon on this page? That's really cool. Mango juice^talk 15:55, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have responded on the page, I am fine with the rule being removed now that a discussion is active on the talk page. As for the head, that is at User:HighInBC/Floating head. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Lmcelhiney/Sandbox

Hello HighInBC,

I was headed to my Sandbox today and realized that it had been deleted (20:07, 13 April 2007) per the 'temporary page policy'. I didn't realize that the material which I had placed there was in jeopardy and that I should have moved it to another location.

Is it possible that you could restore the page so that I might transfer the material, please?

Thanks very much for your help!

Take care,

Larry --Lmcelhiney 14:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have restored the page. The reason it was deleted was that it was put in the category Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages, I have removed that category[4]. It appears it was inside of a test5i template that normally only appears on user pages of indef blocked users. All should be well now. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly no problem. Thanks very much for your help. I probably left some template debris behind which caused the issue. Have a good day! --Lmcelhiney 14:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 420

This page was already protected, I tagged it as so. I had adjusted the expiry, having misread the existing level, but have set it back to about the same time. If you disagree with the protection time, please feel free to remove it. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, my mistake, thanks for clearing that up. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ccharned's external links

Really long message

i am sorry that you feel that way about my links. yes, the pages on wiki are about _cities_. the links i provided are to postcards and written descriptions of the _buildings and sites ***within _the city*** and are images not often available in any other historical format to show such things as the architectural context within the cities. the images were not for sale. the North Bay page, in particular, has won awards for its discussion on the history of ***the city***. what do you think historic preservationists and architectural historians (of which i am one, have a master's in the field, use as primary research material when documenting the built environment of ***the city***? why, postcards, of course. they were a popular cultural phenomenon in their time which led to a happy accident regarding historic documentation in more contemporary times.

none of this makes the slightest bit of sense to me and, in fact, PullToOpen mentioned that he particularly enjoyed the North Bay page, when he unblocked me, and he took the time to view numerous pages and found nothing wrong with them, which is why he apologized to me for the block.

putting links up was not an attempt to get traffic to my website - as i mentioned, we're already in the hand-edited online edition of the canadian encyclopedia and the pages are used to teach history at the college level in canada and next month, we're receiving a link from an english university with a page rank of 8, for the fact that we supply them at no charge with digital images for the students to work with. (we never charge any educational institution for anything. not even postage.) i did not need to cultivate traffic in any spammy type of way.

the links were an attempt to share the history of the region. i thought history regarding this area of Canada would be welcomed. my time is very limited, as i work long hours on the history sections of the website and rarely spend time actually on any commercial sections of my website. actually, others have posted excerpts from my work here before on wiki, but i had those links removed because they only plagiarized our writing.

i'm sorry that the wiki consensus thus far appears to be that original historic research on ***the cities*** is not welcome. frankly, i have become quite disgusted this week with well meaning but misguided attempts to police wiki. in addition to trying to provide original materials, i've also tried quietly to proofread and correct spelling errors, etc. as i've seen them come up on other pages. the only reason that a large number of pages were linked in the past week or so was because (the earlier links to North Bay, Sturgeon Falls and Temagami were already in place) people in Northern Ontario urged me to put up the remaining pages. it took two weeks to hand code/scan the 14 pages and then i put the links up here as a means to disseminate knowledge. which is what i thought was what wiki was about. ironically, there were no more links to put up after the most recent ones i put up.

frankly, i feel most unwelcome at wikipedia and resent the implication that i am doing something "bad" by providing links about the history of ***the cities***. i think at this point that i will explore the "right to disappear" on wiki. this has been a very disappointing experience. governing by consensus at wiki just doesn't seem to work well when people (not you particularly, but some of the other people like the air force sergeant in iraq who started this whole mess during the past week or so), remove links willy-nilly ***without actually looking at and/or reading any of the materials provided*** (and frankly, from what i can see, many of them seem ill-qualified to edit links regarding history and historic preservation. i see many links and articles on wiki which i am not that fond of, but i leave them alone because i am not qualified to determine, let's say the validity of links regarding quantum physics. (this is why, when Pull looked at the pages, he realized that they were not spam but research. he took the time to look, in other words.) governing by consensus, i think does not work without leadership at some points. and i do not have time to start talk threads about numerous pages. actually, i should not HAVE to start talk threads about pages. other people put up worthy links and go on about their business, and that is what i thought would happen, but it's obviously not happening.

it sort of all reminds me of let's say - let's pull any links to the corvette museum at the corvette plant here in ky. because corvette still makes and sells the car. let's remove links to the louvre because the louvre owns the paintings and thus might remotely possibly have some financial interest in the paintings. etc., etc. i can only write about what i know and love - the history. of ***the cities***. but i just don't have it in me to continually tilt at windmills endlessly here for no reason, when there are so many other productive things i could do.

i would rather concentrate on something productive and will be leaving wiki today. my husband is sitting in the background saying "but this just doesn't make any sense." to which i replied, "i know." it has been an unsettling and somewhat sad experience to learn that wikipedians' interest in further opening the knowledge base to the public can become so warped and skewed by the unknown agendas of wiki "thought police."

thanks anyway. ccharned 03:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)Cathy

I am not reading all of that, I read the first and last paragraph. I suggested that you recommend your links on the talk page of articles you think they are relevant on, but adding them to dozens of articles yourself is not going to work. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Well done

Congratulations for having some good sense [5]. I expect some will criticise you for it, but it was completely the right thing to do. Giano 17:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree. How do you expect to keep a neutral POV if you ban people whose viewpoints you don't agree with? That's a great way for all the articles about pedophilia to become horribly biased, though. 71.192.184.19 17:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Re-opening this conversation on HighInBC's user talk page is pointless. If you want to actually discuss the situation itself, go to the existing ANI discussion. -- KirinX 18:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is controversial to not allow the advocating of a violent act on one's userpage. I posted on ANI before during and after the block though, so it is receiving all the peer attention it needs. No negative comments so far. Thanks. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Right move. Someone should have done it earlier, but no one did, so defense of sanity and perspective was left to you.Proabivouac 06:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Civility etc

I'm sorry if you thought I overstepped the mark there, but believe me I've been getting quite a hard time. WP:AGF and WP:NPA seem to have gone out of the window, and I'm really quite upset about it. That of course leads to irritability. I do, however, apologise and thank you sincerely for the support you gave me earlier. Cheers. --kingboyk 01:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I dig, I have kept intentionally unfamiliar with this dispute as I have little interest, and am trying to keep the civility at a reasonable level. Civility is far from a black and white thing, it is often unclear if it has been kept or not. I have a special way of relaxing that not everyone has, I need to remember that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Please invite me round some time! --kingboyk 01:15, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pedophila wikiproject

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch is in favor of pedophilia. I mistakenly joined the project [6] assuming it was a watchdog project to assure child porn sites were not being added to wikipedia. While making suggestions to an another project participant it became clear what there agenda was. This quote is from the project page, "to better organize and ensure veracity and freedom from bias of information in articles involving pedophilia, child sexuality, and related issues." The reason I bring this to you, is this also appears as an endorsment by wikipedia. [7] However I wanted you to way in on this before I went to WP:ANI with it. --Know pedia 05:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that most, if not all, of the members of that project joined for the same reason that Know describes. But the editors who are actually active in the field, or on the the talk page, may have different reasons. Like most projects, the talk page is the main activity and functions as a noticeboard. -Will Beback · † · 08:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Maintaining a NPOV using reliable sources is one thing, but that project seems to misunderstand our NPOV policy. It is not our goal to give each idea equal coverage, but to cover things as the world acedemic community has already done by compiling reliable sources. Extreme fringe groups are not supposed to get equal coverage, so the flat Earthers, the people who believe in pixies, and the pro-pedophiles are just not going to get a fair shake here.

This needs to stop, it makes Wikipedia look really bad. However Knowpedia, please look at the message Fred has left me below before taking it to ANI. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLueRibbon

Your block of BLueRibbon is appropriate. However, please consult directly, and privately, with the Arbitration Committee in the future regarding such concerns or actions. Public announcements don't work out well. It is good that you gave appropriate warnings. Fred Bauder 13:06, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean about public announcements. I will do just as you suggest in the future. Thanks. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

You say so, but are continuing to post regarding the matter. Please stop. Fred Bauder 13:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, then can you go to the proposed community review against my actions and defend it? Because as it is, I am being accused of all sorts of things and am not supposed to respond. My post was mostly to let people know it is being handled by the committee. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I see you are way ahead of me. Thanks. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:52, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC

Kelly Martin is claiming that BAG actions involved "conspiring to protect their own power base" (ludicrous and untrue, I have had no off wiki discussion on the matter with xaosflux), and has referred to us and me as "much less qualified and competent" than the self appointed IRC participants who decided to approve CydeBot without telling us. I am really quite shaken up and upset by the baseless accusations of bad faith, incompetence and idiocy, and believe it might be appropriate to file an RFC citing Kelly Martin and David Gerard, and possibly gmaxwell and Cyde. To file an RFC, two members need to certify the dispute and show diffs where dispute resolution was attempted. As somebody who has attempted to resolve the dispute, I wonder if you would be willing to so certify? If you are, perhaps we can work in my sandbox. --kingboyk 14:21, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been intentionally avoiding the details of this dispute so as to better handle the incivility issues. I really don't have any information I could add to the RFC. But my advice to you is not to worry, as sense more often than not wins out, sometimes it just takes a while. Taking it to RFC is a good idea. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Unfortunately though I'm not well versed in dispute resolution, because unlike the people who are (I claim) bullying me, I generally try to get along with everybody and let consensus win out. I've never been blocked, brought to RFC or to Arbcom. Despite my long tenure here this is a new and very unpleasant experience for me, and I feel like I'm being picked on by heavyweights who have no objection to riding rough shod over others, even though in fact most outside commentators seem to support me. In other words, I don't really know how to proceed without some help, or even if it's worth proceeding. It's not as if there aren't other more productive things I could be doing. --kingboyk 14:27, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

If you think it is worth it just read the instructions and do your best. But unless some type of action is being taken against you, it may be a lot easier to simply ignore the harsh words. I do have to warn you the an RFC is not likely to quiet any bullies, but more likely to bring everything out at once(Which is a good step in resolving the issue). You just need to decide if it is worth the hassle, I personally only fight about half the battles that come my way here. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

OK mate, thanks for the wise words. I'll have to think about it some more, as it may not be worth the hassle at all. --kingboyk 14:32, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Decided to let it lie. Thanks again. --kingboyk 22:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question regarding category queries

HighInBC, I've been trying to figure out how to implement what you mentioned here. I have a category query here but do not know how to quickly chop it down to the form Image1|Image2|Image3 to do a query on those images. Do you have any suggestions? Thanks, Iamunknown 18:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to figure out which categories are in a set of images? Or which images are in a category? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to figure out image properties of all the images in Category:Public domain unless fair use images. --Iamunknown 18:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by image properties? Categories, what links to them, what pages they are displayed on, revision history? Or do you want info like file size and resolution? Each bit of info has its own type of query. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean upload date (or first revision). --Iamunknown 18:56, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, hold on a second and I will make a query for ya. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Got it. What you want is this [8], where in the titles= section you put "Image:Image1.jpg|Image:Image2.jpg|...". I would not query more than 25 at a time though. You will see the first timestamp in the "<image ...>" tag under the "timestamp=" field. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll be using that later. :-) --Iamunknown 19:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It shows each entry twice for some reason, you can get around that by skipping entries without a "<id>" tag. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV

HIBC, I am going to change the "noautoblock" message back to what it is supposed to be soon, and since you have the bots... Anyway, there was a mess up (and still is) in mediawiki, so the wrong page is listed in Special:Allmessages, but I found the right one, so... I am going to match it to the block list, so it will read "autoblock disabled". Prodego ^talk 01:12, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it won't be hard to fix that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration

You have been cited as an involved party in This new Request for Arbitration. DES ^(talk) 23:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you cannot understand why this should be done through e-mail. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {Block of User:BLueRibbon and subsequent events}

Please present evidence and statements regarding this matter directly to the arbitration committee at arbcom-l at lists.wikimedia.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred Bauder (talk • contribs) 23:48, April 23, 2007

Response e-mailed. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

It is precisely the idea that "there are some topics which simply should not be discussed publically, due to the risk of bringing harm and disrepute to the project" to which i most object. The more I am urged not to puiblicly discuss this, the more urgent I feel public discussion to be, or if need be, public attention being drawn to the matter in non-wikipedia web sites. I don't belive that there is anything so horrid that it can't be publicly discussed. Note that ArbCom does not set policy, and i can see no policy basis for the actions taken to date. This would be at least equally true if the arbcomn endorsed them all together. The major burdent of my compalint is removing (or rather attempting to remove) these issues from public view. It also won't work, such removals simply draw more attnetion than a proper quiet discussion would have done. If the general consensus is that this can't be discussed on wiki, I will seriously consider leavign the project, but i won't do that without having done my best to widely publicize it first. DES ^(talk) 16:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I should add that, as a matter of principle, I will not discuss this out of public view, and if anyone should email me, i reserve the rigfht to publish all such emails, and probably will do so, on wiki or off. DES ^(talk) 16:41, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbcom can do things off wiki through e-mail if they decide to. You made the arbcom request, you should at least respect their decisions. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Note, DES, that editors who have publicly published private Arbcom proceedings previously have been indefinitely blocked. --Iamunknown 16:51, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And rightly so, if a precedings wishes to proceed privately it is a violation of privacy to post those e-mails. You requested those e-mails when you filed the arbcom request, so you should certainly not be publishing them. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. -- KirinX 16:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I haven't recieved any such emails to date, so i can hardly piblish them. But I explictly requested public discussion, and anyone emailing me anything thereby grants me permission to decide whether to publish it or not, unless I have previously agreed no a confidential exchange, which I most emphatically have NOT done in this case. If truly confidential information is sent to me (items that might violate an individual's priviacy, for example) I would of course keep it confidential. likelwise if there is information sent that does not seem to me of public interest, I would ahve no reason to pulish them. I have recieved two emails from someone who claims that in that past, the arbcom has "accepted" similar filings, and then at silently on them, never responding furhter. i don't know if this is accurate or not, so i see no reason to pulish these emails beyone this general summary. DES ^(talk) 17:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I cannot tell you what decisions to make, but I advise against it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

DES, your requesting arbitration in the first place should have been preceded by a knowledge of the rules and procedures involved in arbitration. Ignorance is not a defence. If you cannot abide by the rules put in place to supposedly help you in your arbitration, especially in light of a direct request from a member of ArbCom (Fred), I have to seriously question your motives in defending this case. Administrators especially should be more than aware of policy, and abide by it. -- KirinX 18:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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.