User talk:Chillum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:HighInBC)
Jump to: navigation, search
.Original Barnstar.pngOriginal Barnstar.pngBarnstar of Reversion2.pngBarnstar-camera.pngBarnstar-camera.pngSurreal Barnstar.pngPurple Star.pngResilient Barnstar.pngVitruvian Barnstar.pngVitruvian Barnstar.pngBarnstar of Humour3.pngVitruvian Barnstar.pngBarnstar of Reversion2.pngBarnstar-camera.pngWikiMedal for Janitorial Services.pngVitruvian Barnstar.pngMicroscope.jpgWikipedesketch1.pngOriginal Barnstar.pngBarnstar of Diligence.pngOriginal Barnstar.pngOriginal Barnstar.pngVitruvian Barnstar.pngBarnstar-RTFM.pngVitruvian Barnstar.pngBarnstar of Humour3.pngBarnstar of Humour3.pngOpinion Barnstar Blue.jpgOriginal Barnstar.pngCherry pie with lattice top, April 2006.jpgBarnstar of Diligence.pngWikiDefender Barnstar.pngFeatured article star.svgHomemadebarnstar.pngPeace dove.svgBong glas.jpgSpecialBarnstar.pngBarnstar of Reversion Hires.pngPeace Barnstar Hires.png.

Archive
Talk page archives.
Archive index
  • 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.

Shellshocker[edit]

Thanks for adding some wikipedia clout on that edit, as a VERY new wikipedia user my professional opinions seem useless here lol, thanks again ;0) Edprevost (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Clout aside any user can remove unverified information if they think it is dubious. The burden of verifiability is on the person seeking to include it.
Even if it was possible to attack a log parser with this bug we would need some sort of source to demonstrate that. Let me know if you want any help with Wikipedia. Chillum 16:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

AN title[edit]

Personally, I find it hard to follow conversations in page history when the title changes midconversation, so I reverted you AN title change. If you really feel strongly about it I won't object to you changing it, but I don't think have a totally neutral title is that important. Obviously, it's totally biased and offensive it would need to change. NE Ent 23:33, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

The talk page guideline page does allow for editing of others talk page headings but only if there is no objection. It is no big deal. Chillum 01:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

A little more about a just-closed ANI discussion[edit]

You closed that "Editor adding refspam" discussion at ANI[1] just before I could add this: That "blog" that's being spammed is copying old news items (e.g. this ref[2] that Graemkahn wanted added to London[3] is a copy of a 2010 BBC news story[4]) and the blog is hidden behind a fake website that's a rip-off of www.riverfilm.com. Add in this bizarre claim that the refs were added by accident while looking for citations and i think we've found another site to add to the blacklist.
Chillum, would you be able to add it to the blacklist? NebY (talk) 16:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have warned this spammer about our blacklist. Normally the mere mention of the fact that it is a popular public blacklist that search engines and forums use is enough to strike terror into the heart of the most fierce spammer.
If this pattern continues I will add it to the blacklist, but a single incident is not enough in my opinion. Most spammers learn to leave Wikipedia alone when faced with the blacklist, if not I will make good on my warning.
Thank you for drawing my attention to this. I saw content from Wikipedia, but it now appears the spammer grabs their content from various sources. It is not particularly creative, thousands of people have made blogs with BS content and spammed it all over. Chillum 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Yes, I've seen plenty of websites with scraped content before but this one's very good-looking but utterly stolen front page, plus the spammer's behaviour, did bother me a bit more. NebY (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

AN discussion[edit]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive265#Threatened with blocks, you might want to join in the discussion. GiantSnowman 19:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeat request[edit]

I've requested multiple times that to keep off my Talk page unless you have official business. Ignoring those requests is tantamount to baiting and harassment. What does it take to get through to you?!: Stay the fuck off my Talk page! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Umm you were talking to me in a place that was not really appropriate for us to have a discussion. You can call it harassment but nobody else is going to see it that way.
If you want to avoid interaction with me then stop making snippy little comments about me all the time. Chillum 04:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I've requested multiple times that you keep off my Talk page unless you have official business. What does it take to get through to you?!: Stay the fuck off my Talk page! Ihardlythinkso (talk) 05:20, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Again, if you don't want to interact with me then stop going to pages I was just on and talking to me there. If you want to make snarky comments then you can expect a response. I suspect if you took your harassment theory anywhere you would get hit by a boomerang. Now if you have something to say that is new and not just you repeating yourself go ahead and post, otherwise enjoy the rest of Wikipedia. Chillum 06:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

User:SoulBrotherNumberOne block[edit]

Hi, I just want to point to the indefinite block of this user. For what I saw, his reaction (wich I dont justify) was because other user blanked his personal page, something unfortunately very common in WP (is there any way to avoid other users editing your personal page? If so please tell me, I think other users apart from administrators should have the right to maintain their personal pages as they want.), wich logically angers people. I've been blocked once for my reaction when a vandal deleted contents on my personal page. I know that the actions of vandals dont justify a rude language reaction, but I find it very unjust to punish the user who has been vandalized for his reaction, while the vandal left without punishment. By the way, it seems to me by the context that the way he used the word "Nigga" was more in a colloquial manner than in a pejorative one. Thanks for hearing my thoughts. Regards,--HCPUNXKID 16:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

First off that block is from about 5 years ago. Secondly calling a stranger a nigga is highly inappropriate and even if it was meant in a colloquial manner it is unlikely to be read that way. If this person wants to make an unblock request I would gladly consider it. Please keep in mind there were other edits which were contributing factors such at this one: [5]. This leaves me with the impression that it was meant in the perjorative.
I am rather satisfied with my judgment in this block. Chillum 19:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I just got a Raspberry pi[edit]

So I may be a little distracted.... Chillum 00:18, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Priority posting[edit]

Editor provokes
Wise admin blocks but not long
Wiki sanity
NE Ent 10:08, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the poem. It made me smile. Chillum 16:47, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

You were mentioned[edit]

You were mentioned here regarding the hasty block on Ihardlythinkso. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

This was already reviewed by 3 different administrators. Chillum 20:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)