User talk:HighInBC/Archive 11

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.

DusterBot not working

Hi, It seems that User:DusterBot stopped working some time in October. Could you take a look? Is he back? (talk) 21:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, there is a bug I needed to fix and I never got around to it. I am doing some paid code work right now, but when I have time I will get it working again. Thanks for reminding me. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. Is he back? (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

Acknowledged. `'Míkka >t 18:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RNS_System

Hi there -

I'm dealing with an OTRS ticket asking why this article was deleted. Clearly, it's unsourced. No disagreement there. I'm not sure, though, that it's truly spam (and you deleted it G11). Can you give me some insight into what you were thinking so that I can pass it on to the OTRS correspondent? - Philippe | Talk 18:03, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for coming to me about this. I seem to have been in error, while this article can use a more encyclopedic tone, it is not "blatant" advertising. Please convey my apologies to the user on otrs. I have restored the article. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:28, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your help. I'll convey such to the user, and also educate them about referencing, etc. Thanks for your quick response! - Philippe | Talk 15:44, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it turned out to be a copyright violation. _(1 == 2)^Until 07:10, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IAR and admin actions

I've taken some time to think about what others have said about that incident. The unblock more of me being bold, and I've considered it, and I don't think it was the most appropriate move. I've decided to read through the blocking policy, and similar policies (ie protection, deletion). I didn't intend to have that action rub off as wheel-warring. I could make excuses all I want for this post, but I was simply a bit annoyed at Marskell because of the tone, and made a hasty statement. I think I'll continue being bold, but that doesn't mean I plan on repeating that action. Maxim_(talk) 00:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that is all I can ask. Thank you. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal RE: User:Mikkalai's vow of silence

You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.

The proposal can be found at: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposed resolution (Mikkalai vow of silence) Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:Ignore all rules

Hi there. I'm sure that, for you, the current problems with Wikipedia:Ignore all rules are part of a long, exasperating conflict, quite possibly with exactly the same users as before. However, I felt that the tone of your reply to me was rather condescending (outright lordly, actually), and it is my observation that speaking to people in such a manner is almost always counter-productive. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 05:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but when I see a quacking feathered water bird, I call it a duck. Just like when I see a brand new account that seems to have only one purpose, I call it a single purpose account. In my comment of 04:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC) my tone was meant to sound like a rebuke, that was my intention. I think that rebuking counter productive behavior is productive.

As for my comment of 05:03, 3 March 2008, that was just me disagreeing with you by explaining that the community does not agree with your opinion that policy protection is harmless. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, and your disagreement was clear. I felt that you arrogated the identity of the community, and that's a bad practice, as it's essentially a display of interpersonal power. The message that the other person hears is that you are not part of the community, not that most people in the community disagree with you. It's a bad practice to refer to a community rather than the discussion consensus, past or present, anyways, as anyone's understanding of a 'community' of this size is necessarily fractional and incomplete, and again, it comes across as a flourishing of arrogated authority, rather than a discussion amongst equals, which, I hope you remember, is what we are. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can speak for the community in areas of common knowledge, and I was correct in speaking for the community in saying protection should be avoided. I can also say a bunch of other stuff about what the community wants which is well established, but it is not relevant now. I agree that in areas of controversy one should not speak for the public at large, but the "ability of anyone to edit articles without registering" is a foundation issue, and not subject to opinion. Protection is an undesirable outcome, period. _(1 == 2)^Until 20:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it unlikely that protection will be the outcome of this dispute. I cannot say that I know from experience, but I suspect, that the best way to resolve such disputes in the long term is to retain as fair, calm and impartial a position as one is able.

I think I might join you in staying quiet for a while, as the User:Chardish and the User:Newbyguesses thing is out of control, and besides the misunderstanding between ourselves, I have no cause to argue with anyone. I'd really rather find out why WP:IAR ended up as a twelve word sentence, and why it is so less informative than other policy pages, and whether I should seek a consensus on making it more informative and useful. The current version, to my eye, reads a lot more like "Why should I have to justify my swift delete of your obviously non-notable article?" that "It's okay, go ahead and write down what you know about Yak butter manufacture, you don't need to worry about any rules, or be registered to edit an article."

There have been several thoughtful comments made by various people that have been drowned out in the rush to address User:Chardish, and I am considering if it might be useful to collect them on a separate page, in the meantime, for when tempers have been spent. It seems like they are unlikely to be reigned in.

You might perhaps check the edit history of Special:Contributions:69.49.44.11 as well as that of User:69.49.44.11, for the full record of my involvement in the Wikipedia. As to this particular disagreement[*], I think I started out with a fairly innocent comment, having wandered over from pointing out that it is inherently pejorative to accuse another person of using weasel words. I'm not above loosing my temper with anyone, over here on the other side of the keyboard - I'm rather thin skinned, actually - but as far as I can tell, I'm doing absolutely nothing sinister or suspicious in any way, and I have attempted to address people civilly, when I have found myself unable to speak to them kindly.

Given a great many people, a small number of them are bound to behave in uncommon ways, you know. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[*"...on the the IAR talk page..." just back from watching Michael Clayton, to correct a bad link, and it occurred to me that I should, for the sake of clarity, mention that no-one has either ever quick deleted anything I have written or accused me of using weasel words. 69.49.44.11 (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)][reply]

Until(1 == 2), Strongly agree with your edit here. thats all ;)--Hu12 (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Be sure to say so on the talk page hehe, there are those who wish to portray those essays as more than essays despite the lack of consensus to do so. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't know?

You missed a helluva party! ;) ~ Riana ⁂ 14:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Review for Puck bunny

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Puck bunny. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. _(1 == 2)^Until 17:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IAR

Thoughts on this ?--Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:IP making bot edit bug.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:IP making bot edit bug.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly bot, it clearly says it is GFDL. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:08, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:T'Keyah Crystal Keymáh Leading Lady Headshot Small.jpg

Hi. Regarding Image:T'Keyah Crystal Keymáh Leading Lady Headshot Small.jpg, which you deleted, I thought I had justified the fair use of this image. This is a crop of the subject's one and only "Leading Lady Headshot". Please reconsider your deletion decision, or at least get me a copy of any changes since I created User:Jeff G./Fair use sandbox#Image:T.27Keyah_Crystal_Keym.C3.A1h_Leading_Lady_Headshot_Small.jpg in preparation for uploading that image. Thanks! — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find the original reason for disputing the rational of the image because it was not made on the image talk page. I have undeleted the image and returned it to the article. Not sure what led to the deletion in the first place, I could dig about for a while and find it I am sure, but I am rather busy outside of Wikipedia. Peace. _(1 == 2)^Until 16:52, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for undeleting that image. I am interested in eventually knowing what led to the deletion in the first place, however you or another reader of this page can provide that information. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 08:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This was a learning experience, indeed. EcoordinatorUCP (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Provoking editors

Please do not try to provoke drahmaz by such peculiar wordings in your edits that are related to Giano. You know perfectly well which edits and which questions would help and which questions would do the opposite. Try to stick with the former if you can. --Irpen 23:21, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano needs no provocation to violate our policies, and when he does so I will ask him not to. Frankly I never know when he will pop up and drama will ensue, so I have to disagree with your insinuation that I do know.

There is nothing special about Giano that allows his actions to go without review, please remember that. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to say no more. Clear enough. In that case please remember to cut down on your calls for quiet and calm. As you act now, you cause quite the opposite effect. --Irpen 23:29, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not called for quiet or calm, but for civility. And I assure you that my urges to Giano to be civil will have a positive effect on the civility levels on Wikipedia, it may be Giano choosing to be civil, or it may be that Giano cannot do this and must stop editing here. Either way, it will come to an end, and urging the user not to violate the policy is an essential means to that end. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You fundamentally misunderstand the policies themselves (their letter and the spirit) as well as your role in Wikipedia. This may be due to you spending too much time at IRC. Your edits at Giano's page could not have possibly promoted your stated goals. That so many of your past edits there were removed by several different contributors as baiting should have hinted to you on how they are widely perceived. --Irpen 04:31, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure that you would defend Giano regardless of how right or wrong I am. _(1 == 2)^Until 04:52, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are being mistaken. But does it occur to you that your own entry above may actually provide a clue? Give it a thought. --Irpen 06:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response

"I didn't do that, but I don't need to actually do that to show that your theory has extremely large gaps." That line makes it clear to any reader that it was not true. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't you you understood my concern, regardless I ask that you consider your words more carefully. _(1 == 2)^Until 14:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there was a problem, the person the quotation was directed to could have responded. The person who it was directed to saw the obvious disclaimer that there was no real situation as the aforementioned proposed situation may have suggested to those who did not read said disclaimer. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Enough

Please do not escalate drahmaz. --Irpen 00:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in your opinions on my interactions with Giano, because I already know them and they don't change. If I see a comment that looks like a threat I am going to respond to it. You are without justification to ask me not to enforce policy here no matter how polite you ask me. Just a couple days ago you accused me of lacking objectivity because I use IRC, now you want me to talk things out there instead of on wiki. No, in this matter I want a public record. _(1 == 2)^Until 00:56, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to take your bait. Nor your arguments look any serious. --Irpen 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bait? Who the hell asked you to even talk to me? I am not baiting you, I am asking you to stay out of it. _(1 == 2)^Until 01:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.