User talk:H

Please post new messages at the bottom of my talk page. Please use headlines when starting new talk topics. Thank you.

User talk:HighInBC/Header

Much appreciated

Now if User:Aseeel comes back I'll go the spam blacklist route. Cheers. (→Netscott) 04:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, HighInBC.Proabivouac 04:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not blank content from talk pages

Do not blank content from my talk page ever again. Lordkazan 13:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I was removing another users violation of the WP:CANVASS rule. You do not own your talk page, and if another user is spamming then I can remove that spam, it is nothing against you. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS

Hi, Thanks for your post but it's a bit of a tightrope to walk this one. After we did the first part of the harmonisation program we recieved alot of criticism from editors, along the lines of how dare we change their favorite templates, etc, without making a concerted effort to inform the community. I have only 'spammed' admin noticeboard, village pump proposal, and editors who have listed themselves as active or interested in the WP:UW. I hope you can understand as one of the driving members behind WP:UW if I didn't make at least a half arsed attempt at posting this info on the relevant noticeboards then I'd get accused of being a one man show trying to push stuff through. As I said damned if you do damned if you don't. ^Khukri 14:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree this is less than a clear cut case of WP:CANVASS, it seems you are being neutral in your message as well as hitting both sides of the debate. I am personally fine with it, but another admin may think differently. Thanks for you effort to improve the warning system. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Even though I have my own agenda in this matter, to get a clear cut concise system, the last thing I want is for 1) to be seen to be railroading this, and 2) for editors to think that this was done behind their backs. Even now an oppose has appeared for exactly this reason, and for that reason, I think I might extend the deadline just to try and garner greater objective opinions from all sides. Cheers again. ^Khukri 16:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Explanation.

I didn't report that last name to RFC/U because I thought it was funny to do so; I did it because I thought there might have been racial slang in the name. As I said, I've only heard "Shoop-da-woop" in rap, being used as slang; so I thought the name might have been offensive. Acalamari 17:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sure you had good intentions. I added "and explain which part of the username policy you think it violates." to the top of the WP:RFCN page. If you don't know what a word means, then you should research it and only report it if you can find some sort of indication it is offensive. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

What happen??

I'm not sure what happened, but I may have messed up an edit you just made to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Staeckerbot. But I think your edit was messed up to begin with, so I can't really tell. Staecker 17:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the server or I messed up somewhere. No worries, I will fix my comment. Sorry about that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of image

Was this edit made by you? It's currently being used on both your commons user page and your en user page and we allow a personal photo or two for use on a wikipedia user page for established users. Yonatan ^talk 23:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes it was me, I forgot to log in, I am reducing the amount of personal information I am posting. Thank you for checking. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:04, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

This is just the problem

If it was clear enough, it would not have been perceived as necessary to go through Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. I am beginning to see possible evidence that the RCFN group varies in its rulings. I believe that we need to consider creating a way to develop institutional memory in RFCN to help with transparency and consistency. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 01:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If what was clear enough? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:08, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that, it was clear, the reports to RFCN was not needed, they could have been blocked without discussion. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI

FYI. - Denny 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Fact tagging

Concerning this edit, I would like to encourage you to use talk pages before putting up fact-tags.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm, since when? Verifiability is a policy, if a fact isn't verified I mark it, if a citation is not provided I remove it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The text says "drinks and cooking ingredients" and then "wine and olive oil". It seems pretty obvious that the wine was drunk and the olive oil used as cooking fat. There is also a footnote just a few lines down citing 4 pages form Scully's The Art of Cookery in the Middle Ages. You would've gotten a reply just as quickly with a talk page message as with a "I don't believe this"-tag for everyone to see.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and if there was a citation I could have read the source, realized what was meant and altered the sentence to be less confusing. It is really not a big deal, those tags get added here and there, it is not personal. It is not a "I don't believe this" tag, it is a "citation needed" tag. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that you were the one who missed the citation, right? I'm saying this because I don't think it's appropriate to communicate "I don't understand/believe this" by putting up tags that question the veracity of the article for everyone to see. Especially when it's just based on misunderstanding and different standards of citations. Use the talkpage first, have a minimum of patience and then, if someone actually refuses to supply a source, use it to your heart's content. After all, those templates aren't speech balloons...

Now, enough etiquette discussion. Do you have any suggestion on how to word the sentence in question so that people don't think that olive oil was used as a table beverage?

Peter ^Isotalo 08:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Etiquette? I just add a {{fact}} tag. Perhaps I was wrong about adding the tag, I don't think that is an etiquette problem. Talk pages are for discussion potentially controversial changes, I don't need to bring up little tiny things like that. A already explained that the sentence is confusing in that it can be read that people drink olive oil. Unfortunately I could not clarify this matter as all the references are offline. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering

How do you get your picture sticking out from behind the Wikipedia globe on you user page? It is so cool. Lonjers 06:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

After going through two layers of transclusion, I've found it to be at User:HighInBC/Floating head. --tjstrf talk 06:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)