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

Great idea...

On taking on the username problem yourself - thanks! I was so frustrated with conflicting guidance that I had basically given up on usernames. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The whole username review system is getting more and more wonked, just trying to streamline it. Don't worry, I will just read the policy an interpret it, simple ehh? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:HighInBC/Usernames

Have you considered maybe putting an instruction on what user template to use to report here? I see you added a bot template and I wasn't sue which template your bot would recognise, or if it matters. Also, do you mind if I monitor the page and help with it? Cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, doing that right now... Just have to tweak the bot a bit, it seems to have a bug when you turn off autobacklog. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See you got it working, but does it require {{Vandal}}, or does {{User}} work aswell? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All fixed, it is now bot serviced. Yes, please monitor and help out. It will use {{vandal}} or {{userlinks}}, I am suggesting {{userlinks}} because not all bad names are bad faith. I added instructions in the form of HTML comments. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:I'm attracted to your mom

Regarding the above username discussion you closed as 'consensus to disallow', I was wondering if you could share your methodology. To gain a rough idea of where the discussion was going, I counted 14A and 19D, giving a 58% disallow. This doesn't seem to be a clear consensus to disallow, but if I'm missing another piece of the puzzle (I reviewed the various non-explicit entries, for instance, and most of them seemed ambivalent about the name), please let me know. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did not simply stick to vote counting. Several arguments seemed to be based on how the name made them feel, not the potential to offend others. I felt the arguments based on the WP:U idea that "Your username should not be used as a tool to insult or mock other users, usernames, articles, or actions" were not properly addressed by those seeking to allow.

Basically consensus strayed from policy, just a little, so 58% seemed enough for me. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, I feel your edit summary may have been a bit misleading, as it suggests that there was a consensus to disallow. If, as you mention, you've made a judgment call, being clear about that can help avoid misunderstandings like this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a judgment call in judging consensus. Consensus isn't vote counting, and my interpretation did come up with a consensus. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that was the right call. We have two to one against Demsaredonkeys, which similarly mocks members of the Democratic Party. In such cases, to disallow should be the default position, barring a clear consensus to allow.Proabivouac 00:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure about Demsaredonkeys because they self-identify as donkeys. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to re-write the policies guiding WP:USERNAME blocks, you may find Village Pump or the appropriate talk pages better suited. With a lack of clear consensus, an 'allow' is the current default action and changing it would necessarily require broader input than just here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am talking about WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:RFCN procedure. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to talk to me about it? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to you about what? Oh, I see you are talking to proab.^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do want to discuss? I wasn't trying to make a "admin abuse" case out of it, I just didn't think it should have been closed. Or allowed.

HighInBC, Democrats don't "self-identify as donkeys." It's just the symbol of the Party, and it's being used as an excuse to insult Democrats. When this user converses with Democrats, every conversation will be tainted by this slight. It's bad for the user, it's bad for the atmosphere, and it violates policy, "Usernames that are recognised as slurs or insults" (Doesn't say "unambiguously recognized by all," just "recognized," which a large majority has done.)Proabivouac 01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I am unsure about that name, it is a complex case. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused that it ended up being such an impassioned debate - "your mom" usernames are normally blocked on site at WP:AIV; I've sent numerous variations there and never had one turned down yet. Probably because they are normally vandals...one policy consideration that never came up at WP:RFCN was "Usernames that closely resemble any used by vandals", I should have thought of arguing that one.

It's also interesting how many of the same people who assumed good faith on this name are assuming bad faith on User:Demsaredonkeys, which seems much less inflammatory to me. (But I'm not politically affiliated.) RJASE1 ^Talk 03:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons I have set up User:HighInBC/Usernames is because WP:AIV dismisses names that do not need WP:RFCN. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of creating User:YourDemocraticMomisanAttractiveDonkey, but that would just be evil. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<giggle> ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NDR

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Mario Party Advance minigames. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Henchman 2000 08:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

Given that the closing involves judgement of the quality of arguments, it certainly shouldn't be done by someone who has been involved in the discussion. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it had been open for some time, and everyone who generally closes these had participated. It was overdue, and nobody was closing it, so I did.

Frankly I am starting to think that WP:RFCN is getting wonked, people take it as an opportunity to disagree and stretch the limits of username policy. To quote WP:U "Please don't try to find this line", well lately WP:RFCN has been doing a great job of searching for that line. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my general comments at the Talk page. With regard to this case, though: if I had been closing (which I wouldn't have done, having been involved in the discussion) I'd have pointed out that most of those saying that it was insulting ignored the arguments against them, and at least one raised a fatuous non-possibility of confusion leading to conflict. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They provided examples of it being used as an insult. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And others pointed out that such examples relied on context. This, though, is the point: you were involved, you had a view, and you read the discussion as favouring your view, accepting comments by those who agree with you, rejecting comments by those who don't. If I had closed, you'd doubtless have felt that I'd done the same. In a court of law, the verdict isn't delivered by one of the barristers; if arguments are to be wighed (and I agree that they should be), then it should be by someone uninvolved.

Your rapid addition of a comment on your user page is somewhat inappropriate, too, belittling as it does those who disagree with you on this. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My userpage is the result of many many such responses, not just for you, not belittling anyone. As I said, if you think my closing was biased you can find an uninvolved admin to review it, but I can assure you, while I did have a point of view, I did not let it effect my mathematics skill, nor my ability to apply policy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think mel or I are advocating vote counting. I very regularly when closing afd's and such engage in determning consenus and note vote counting. I think what we are saying is your judgement of consenus is clouded by your point of view on this topic, causing you to discount valid keep arguments and to keep all disallow arguments because it is your stance leading you to close as disallow, your desired outcome. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't think my judgment was clouded. The arguments "it does not offend me" and "I think it is funny" and "I don't see it" are not policy based whereas the argument "has the potential to offend" is policy based. Lets not forget that even with vote counting the disallows approuch 60% and discarding the "I think it is funny" vote by torture is wrong brings it over 60%. So what is the issue? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use images in userspace

Do you want us to delete the images/userpages from your list once we've removed them? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For now yes, I will create a bot that will automatically remove them later, so if you don't it is not a big deal. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA.

Hello HighInBC; it seems we are now in the same club: first RfA was unsuccessful! :) I don't feel bad at all: the Bureaucrat who revieved the RfA was polite and encouraging; and I wish to thank you for your honesty with your neutral !vote. Acalamari 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have to be a...

...prophesor! :-) Heh, I was away in Bulgaria for a few days. Glad you noticed. I also saw another glitch I had missed be corrected in the history by someone else. BTW those id-tags were a great contribution, and I find them very useful, not only for your particular application, but also for many other policies (and why not, maybe also articles). Cheers! Niko Silver 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to be more specific, I am glad people are using them. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocking

I am disappointed that you unblocked a user I had blocked, especially when there was no urgency to do so. It is customary to discuss with the blocking administrator rather than just reversing his blocks. A request for comment is not necessary to establish a name as inappropriate. Please restore the block. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Wasn't trying to step on your toes, just maintaining WP:RFCN. Sorry if I disappointed you. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]