User talk:HighInBC

Tokens from other editors:

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 12:38, 30 April 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

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.
• Note: I was once known as Chillum, so perhaps you already know me. HighInBC 20:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Notice of DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 26#MacDonnell Road

I created Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 June 26#MacDonnell Road. Cunard (talk) 23:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

FYI regardless of the outcome I think that both of us have acted in good faith and that this is a reasonable disagreement between reasonable people. No hard feelings. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Oliver Tress

Hi, Sorry to trouble you. I see you've made recent contributions. While there is a request at RPP for page protection I would be grateful if you implemented Page Protection on Oliver Tress and blocked relevant IP vandals. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 01:55, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. This seems to be a recently blocked editor evading their block. I have blocked the range for the IPV6 editor for 1 month. I am not going to semi-protect the page because there is an IPV4 address doing useful contributions. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:01, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Jair Bolsonaro

I see an issue involving Jair Bolsonaro has been resolved. However, shouldn't the edit summary be RD3'd? Scorpions13256 (talk) 01:26, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that is a reasonable request. I have removed the edit summary[1] per BLP concerns. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the redaction. I hate people who don't care for the rainforest, but that was concerning. Scorpions13256 (talk) 06:08, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Danny Cevallos

Apologies. I'm not well versed in Wiki minutiae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5c2:300:62e:1802:1de0:663a:28f5 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

No worries. By the way, to sign your comments put ~~~~ at the end of your message. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:54, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I've made many edits over the years, by the way. Just all of them as an anonymous IP editor from various locations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5c2:300:62e:1802:1de0:663a:28f (talk • contribs) 02:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Please bring back my page.

Excuse me, you'd better bring back my page right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyNigro1 (talk • contribs) 08:00, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Please read the notice at the top of your talk page. Writing an autobiography is not an appropriate use of wikipedia. It would not be better to bring it back, it would be better to leave it deleted. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:02, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You're a liar

I would be worse to be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyNigro1 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

This sentence does not make any sense. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Nothing I make in umabitious

My page was 100% ambitious, so I could add more detail. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyNigro1 (talk • contribs) 08:03, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

You have zero positives contributions and are rapidly becoming disruptive. Read the notices on your talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disruptive.

Excuse me, I'm not disruptive at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeyNigro1 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

That is enough of that. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

My side of the story

Hello. How can I send you an email and tell you my side of the story? Thanks 4nn1l2 (talk) 11:59, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Unless there is a very good reason it is far better to keep things on wiki. I really don't have anything further to add to this dispute. I don't think I will be posting anymore to that thread. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:12, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work recently

Hello HighInBC! I just wanted to thank you for your quick reaction to my report at WP:UAA, for your prolific activity at ANI, and for several user talk pages where I've seen you around. I particularly appreciated this intervention and this one. You're doing great work! I hope you do take your time to catch a break when needed though. Thanks again, ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 12:05, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh thank you. I can't tell you how nice it is to see the new talk page message and it not be somebody complaining about something. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Fauci BLP Violation?

I was just about to add a comment to this discussion before you deleted it. I do not see how Thepigdog’s proposed edits violate WP:BLP in the context of COVID-19 investigations, so I think you made a mistake in deleting the discussion. There has long been a debate about safety and responsible conduct WRT Gain of Function Research of Concern [2], and Fauci - who has been director of the NIAID since 1984 - is right in the middle of it, and has been since before the outbreak of COVID-19. Fauci has long held a point of view that the benefits of GoFRoC outweigh the risks, while other scientists such as David Relman hold an opposing point of view and want oversight to be shifted from Fauci and his NIAID colleagues, to a newly formed Independent agency of the United States government - similar to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees studies of radioactive materials. Fauci’s decision to end the funding pause on Gain of Function Research and the debate around the COVID-19 lab leak hypothesis has turned the GoFRoC debate into a fully fledged scientific controversy, covered by many reliable sources. I described this controversy in a fairly succinct post directed at Bradv in the recent WP:AE [3], which resulted in a topic ban imposed on an editor who - like Relman - tried to describe the unique COI aspects of this controversy. There is a lot of crazy that feeds into this controversy - like this guy with a bow tie on TikTok claiming that Fauci spent "$191 billion on gain of function" for the "bioweaponization of viruses against humanity" [4] - but there is also a lot of good neutral coverage in reliable sources. As to whether Fauci lied under oath before a Senate committee is a matter of debate, and as a public official, he has a duty to conduct himself with total propriety, which he has allegedly failed to do. Antonio Regalado of MIT Technology Review has described the NIH and Fauci’s response to journalists as "disappointing" [5], though I am not suggesting we use this. Professor Richard Ebright is reported as "countering" Fauci’s testimony and quoted as saying it is "demonstrably false", which I would suggest for inclusion in articles where it is WP:DUE, - using WP:INTEXT attribution - citing these sources too [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]. There are plenty of quotes from scientists countering Ebright’s WP:OPINION, which we can cite for WP:BALANCE, also with INTEXT attribution of course. CutePeach (talk) 14:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)