User talk:H/Archive 27

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.

Task 3 for the helperbots has been approved, and I've posted the code. Could you full-protect WP:AIV/I (if you think that's appropriate - I certainly think it is) and add an appropriate note similar to the one you've placed on the Special IPs page? There hasn't been any commentary or editing of it, so I guess everyone's happy with what I came up with. Let me know if you have any problems with the new code. —Krellis (Talk) 04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kick ass, keep up the good work. I protected the page and left a note. I will update the source before I go to bed. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bah, unneeded redirects are fun! (Okay, so I was lazy ;)) Now I just have to pass an RFA if I want to edit those instructions ever again! :) —Krellis (Talk) 04:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the talk page and the {{editprotected}} template. Once you have a few more thousand edits under your belt I am sure you will make a fine admin. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:49, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know, I was just joking. I don't think that's something I want to put myself through (plus I don't think I'd have the time, I already spend far too much time here) - I have no desire to deal with things like XfD, etc, and I've seen what happens to candidates who try to RFA just to fight vandalism (which is just about all I actually do on wiki, when I'm not hacking on bots). —Krellis (Talk) 04:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. me too :) Deiz talk 07:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating this bot. It's made my WP:AIV work so much easier. - Richardcavell 07:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC) (admin)

No problem, it was fun to make. User:Krellis has made wonderful improvements to it recently. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 07:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1] and [2] I have found few other pictures of Muhammad with very good citation of Museum Topkapi Museum. This could be a replacement of the un-velied image in case arbitration decides so. --- ALM 10:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another in Los Angeles County Museum of Art at [3]. --- ALM 10:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least now no-body should say that veiled images are less cited as compared to the image they are pushing at the TOP of article. Can we agree on this fair point that there are veiled image with good citation available as replacement? Please? --- ALM 10:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have already agreed that the lead image can be veiled, but not as a method of removing the existing picture altogether, it can be moved if replaced. Of course I am but one person, you should seek further consensus before making such a change. I appreciate that you have found these images that can be used to expand the article. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:38, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something doesn't quite parse in your comment on AN/I: [4]. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did make a small typo, one instead of on, I fixed it. Does it pass the parser now? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I found the other typo, an important one, able instead of unable. Thanks for pointing it out. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was pretty sure that was what you were getting at, but copyright is confusing enough.... Cheers! TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've read at the Community noticeboard, written by you, that Essjay has already provided an apology. Can you please link me it?

Thanks and Happy Editing by Snowolf^(talk)_CON^COI on 16:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, it is his most recent edit: [5]. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I accidently removed the " List begins BELOW this line -->" line from AIV now your bot has gone crazy--VectorPotential^Talk 16:07, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that is a new one. Looks like Krellis has stopped the craziness, thanks for the quick notification. We will work on a bug fix. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I just reverted 1.3 megabytes' worth of garbage added by the bot. Somehow it doubled the number of reports each time. Perhaps a sanity check to stop editing if the number of reports exceeds 1000? (and start again if it drops below, to prevent vandals screwing it up). At least then we'd be spared almost having our browsers crash trying to revert it :) – Qxz 16:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A sanity check does seem like a good idea, I think we will do just that. Thank you for your patience. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly sorry about that, it seems that losing the end of the comment indicator but not the beginning is the one case I managed not to test in my extensive sandbox work on this feature. I'm testing a fix now, as well as adding in a sanity check per Qxz's suggestion, and won't re-enable FixInstructions on AIV until HBC and I are confident it's fixed. —Krellis (Talk) 16:35, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [6], should be bl;ocked for user name etc, SqueakBox 18:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, perhaps a reference to Dick Butkus. Perhaps WP:RFCN should take a look at it. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, no need, it is a vandal only account and can be blocked on sight, which I will do now. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Recently you may or may not have noticed a really high rate of vandal reporting at WPAIV where the vandalism is neither in progress nor has occurred after a {{test4}}. Most commonly people will test4 an ip and then report them to wpaiv even though the vandal stops after the test4. I generally don't like to block that kind of vandal and enjoy even less having to explain it over and over. I would like to modify the instructions in the green box, just for wording, to emphasize (maybe in bold?) the concepts of IN PROGRESS and ALREADY RECEIVED A FINAL WARNING, just to see if that will cut down the work. (Of course, it will be nothing compared to how much work has been saved by your bot deleting the blocked ips - again, thanks). Can you show me how to edit the instructions- I can't even figure out where they are being generated. Cheers, Kaisershatner 20:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions are kept at Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/instructions. The page is protected to prevent vandalism, but you can make suggestions on the talk page and they can be implemented. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:58, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave valid reasons for WP:U violation: "inflammatory". You may not think so, but that is just one POV (like mine). Please let it evolve normally. Most RFCNs last for days, not for hours. This case is especially contentious, and POV-pushing will not solve it. NikoSilver 21:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think there was clearly no indication that a consensus to disallow was likely, I think it should be closed. I will not revert you if you bring it back, but I stand by my decision. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, please let it stay there for a day or two, and we see if you are right. I'm reverting and citing our conversation as a reason. NikoSilver 21:50, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, RFCNs rarely last days, and are usually done in a half day or so. It is not unusual to close them this early. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last closing was on false reasons. Please see Ryan's talk. I don't get it why you all have this itch to close it so fast! If you are right, then there won't be consensus and it will finish. Why not wait? What are you afraid of? NikoSilver 00:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lack of acceptance of the consensus. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any thoughts on the Indexerbot's signature now that it's been renamed? I changed it (temporarily) to "^{HBC Archive Indexerbot}", but I'm not a huge fan of that... I liked the short HBCBot, but it doesn't quite fit with the new name. HAIbot? HBC AIbot? I haven't come up with anything that I really like yet, so I figured I'd see if you had any thoughts. —Krellis (Talk) 19:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how about "^HBCAI"? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess that's not bad. And if people can't figure out what it is, they can always mouseover or just click to see where it goes. I updated prefs and did a run, it looks decent enough. Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 19:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Details please, sounds interresting, SqueakBox 19:24, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is User:HBC Archive Indexerbot, I add this line[7] to a page and next time the bot runs it goes through all the archives and makes links to each heading and lays them out on one index page. Here is an example: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive index. I somewhat abandoned it a while ago, but User:Krellis has started working on it and has improved it significantly. Next time it runs an index should be generated. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there it is: Talk:Cannabis (drug)/Archive index ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the name change has been completed, what do you think about semi- or full-protecting User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/default template? On the one hand, I'd prefer semi-protection so I can still modify it w/o using {{editprotected}} or bugging you, but on the other hand, the more popular the bot gets, the more risk there is that the template could be used for bad things. I suppose there's also some argument for going back to an off-wiki default template, with the on-wiki copy just being for reference purposes - after all, if anyone wants to change it, they can just create their own template and call it from the OptIn (once I document that feature, anyway :)). Keeping the actual default template on-wiki seems more in line with wiki-philosophy, though. What do you think? Code-wise, it really makes little difference, of course. —Krellis (Talk) 19:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will protect it, you can bug me if it needs to be changed. People can make their own if they want it modified, and if they have a great idea for the default they can use the talk page. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sounds fine to me, and for testing anything I want to put into the default, I can do the same, using my own version and then only bugging you when I'm done. Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 23:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Prussianblueduo.jpg.

You can see why. It's disgusting. Acalamari 22:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, taken care of. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you: somebody replaced the entire Prussian Blue (duo) talk page with it. I'm surprised it wasn't deleted last time the talk page was replaced with it. Acalamari 22:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user that uploaded it and replaced the page has been indef blocked as a vandal only account. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:46, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did see that; thank you again. :) Acalamari 22:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• That IP you just blocked; they vandalized my user page just before you blocked them. I guess you saw the vandalism anyway. Acalamari 22:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I have your talk page on my watch list. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered that, thanks! I'll add your user and talk pages to my watchlist then. That way, if I see any vandalism to you, I'll revert it. Acalamari 23:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldtraveller blocked? Can't believe it.

In what sense does (this this [8] or this) constitute harassment? Bloody hell. edward (buckner) 12:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing. Why is an editor with hundreds of fine articles behind him, a fine stylist and clear thinker to boot, being blocked for some harmless (and apparently well deserved) comments about someone who spends most of his time writing trivial crap like this. There really is something very wrong here. edward (buckner) 12:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He was blocked after being asked to stop over and over and over. The diffs you present are not the same diffs used as the reason for the original block. It was only a 24 hours block, one which I did not give. I gave a second block for personal attacks, also 24 hours. He is welcome back when that time is over. I appreciate you do not think the block is needed, but me and the other admin disagree. You are welcome to make a post at WP:AN/I if you think it is unfair. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was randomly browsing and came across the chronic pain article. It seems like it should be an article of value to lots of users yet it seems vary under worked on. I was just wondering if either you could tell me the best ways to get the article noticed for more work (lists ect to put it on) or if you could do it your self. Thank you. Lonjers 14:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, by putting templates from here: WP:TM/CLEAN onto an article you place it into categories that people can find the article through. For example the {{unreferenced}} tag can be added to an article without references and that will place it in Category:Articles lacking sources. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you read carefully what I said, which was that you guys seem to be behaving like f---wits, you will see it was not a personal attack. It was a comment on your strange behaviour. edward (buckner) 15:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot just put a conditional after your comment and insult away, the warning stands, I suggest you take it to heart. "Yes well you are fuckwits, it seems to me."[9] is a personal attack. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't do that. And stop behaving in this pompous way. edward (buckner) 15:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't call me pompous, that is also a personal attack. Please argue the merits of my ideas and not resort in insulting me(or anyone) or you will be blocked the very next time you do it. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, High. I don't want to bother you if you want to be left alone, but neither do I want to post about your dbuckner block on ANI without first giving you a chance to do it yourself. Anyway. I see you have blocked a user for offensive remarks against yourself for the second time today. The first time was when you extended CBD's block of Worldtraveller. Now you've gone on to block dbuckner for calling you, and you alone (no other admins involved this time) a "fuckwit"--as is pointed out on dbuckner's page, he was repeating, as an obviously rhetorical device, a word you yourself had just used. I suppose you believe in what you're doing, but surely you must realize that that's a controversial block? One that other admins are likely to protest against? I ask you to please unblock dbuckner. If you choose not to, please at least post your block on ANI for review. If you don't, I will. Bishonen | talk 22:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

If you read the diffs I gave as evidence for that block you will see it was not me that he was insulting, I gave 2 warnings for insulting me and other admins, the third personal attack was not against me. Geez, I gave him 2 final warnings, and he kept violating policy. I can't believe this shit. No personal attacks is a policy, if people break it I warn them, if they keep breaking it I block them, that is proper. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be a good idea if you unblocked everyone, then has a nice cup of cocoa and an early night, don't you? Giano 22:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no interest in your comment Giano, unblocking everyone would clearly be disruptive use of my tools. If you have anything useful to contribute I will gladly listen to you. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just an alert that I removed your prod on Afghan Hip-Hop after adding some sources. The article is still in dire need of cleanup, but I think the two sources listed may prove sufficient notability. One other possibility would be to delete this article and instead create one on DJ Besho, who appears to be the primary subject of both articles, as I'm not sure how widespread the genre is at this point beyond his music. Comments appreciated. JavaTenor 00:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've read your posts and appreciate your trying to "clean up any mess I made." Your post on BunchofGrapes' page is the one I feel I must reply to. If you didn't notice that specifically your block was the last straw that drove off a great editor—if you see that as "simply a dispute over policy interpretation" and wonder how anybody can be mad at you over such a thing — then I think you're demonstrating lack of awareness of your surroundings right in that post there. I remember how you thought this ANI post was about you leaving Wikipedia in disgust[10]... No, it wasn't, it was about somebody else doing that (Worldtraveller. Not you.) And it was about your role in making him leave. I'm sorry to have to say this, but there again you came off, to me, as a little unaware of other people and simply zooming in on you. What can I say? I don't know you, I'm absolutely not out to dismiss or flame you. I hope my impression isn't representative. I hope you're mostly a thoughtful admin, and slow on the block button. Bishonen | talk 10:23, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It may have been the last straw, but it was only a straw. I didn't make him leave, he decided to leave. I am glad that the animosity I have received is starting to fade. I don't think I am the reason he left. It was more likely that this decision was a long time coming. I suppose I could have held his hand an explained for a fourth time that personal attacks were disruptive, that may have stopped him from leaving, but I doubt it, he was already pissed off about the first block. People don't leave long term projects over little things like the, but more over a more long term problem.

I think he left because he did not get the answers he demanded, the apology he received from the other admin was not enough. I think he left because the dispute resolution process was not compatible with what he wanted. I think he left because he thought of his peers as fuckwits.

"In extreme cases, even isolated personal attacks may lead to a block for disruption". This was not an isolated personal attack, he received several warnings over weeks, then insulted every admin that was involved including the one he was asking an unblock from, this is extreme and disruptive to me. Perhaps the wording of NPA needs to be less subjective.

It is still my hopes the Worldtraveller comes back, I left him a message explaining how to use his e-mail to reset his password, he responded by saying his e-mail was disabled. I still hope he comes back with a new account, but if he does he needs to follow our policy, and if he cannot do that he may just leave in a huff again.

If I have to choose between a person breaking policy leaving in disgust, or people not breaking policy but receiving insults leaving in disgust, I will choose the one that breaks policy first any day. Insults drive away good editors, and without some sort of recourse to policy, I would have left long ago. The only reason I put up with the daily abuse from people is that I know it is against policy.

Without the NPA policy having force and effect we will lose our good users and be left with those who use nasty words to gain an advantage in debate. Regardless, I am not going to be performing any personal attack block until I do some real research. This will include discussions, and looking through the blocking log of admins I respect, including you. While I disagree, I will accept the community consensus in this matter. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're back so quickly. It's like you almost never left! :) —Krellis (Talk) 18:20, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recover quickly. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed an update to your userpage on my watchlist and headed over to say the same. (I'll be honest and say I'm not sure why you took so much flak over what appeared to me to be perfectly reasonable blocks for some pretty heinous PAs, but such is life on Wikipedia.) —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 18:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:32, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise—glad to see your level head still here. --Ginkgo100^talk 00:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, couldn't figure that out, was playing with it when you got it. ThuranX 01:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I learned that during my rfa. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

testing testing 1...2...3... ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing unneeded code. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tweak. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please support current compromise. You have support it in the past many times. Thanking you in anticipation. --- ALM 13:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still undecided. I kind of like the existing consensus. While I do support the compromise, I prefer the consensus that currently exist for the existing page layout. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please ... for the sake of ending this dispute. I wish to work on other things but cannot do anything else since this dispute has started. I request you. --- ALM 15:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Need help ask me" is not linked to your talk page. --- ALM 15:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does link to my talk page, just not when it is on my talk page. Any link to a page you are already on shows like this: User talk:HighInBC, thanks though. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You keep saying "end this dispute", but it is you that will not give this up, 71 reverts man[11]. We are simply attempting to continue our normal editing practices, while others try to convince us to do otherwise. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In 6 months and two different articles? --- ALM 15:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should never have to revert anything that many times. In 6 months you should have realized that people don't want that change, and stopped doing it. If you have the same agenda for 6 months and keep pushing it then that is a campaign. In regular editing, you would not be making the same changes over and over, you would either accept them as not being consensus, or the change would not need to be made because it has been made.

In ten years you should not be removing information you disagree with 71 times. Instead of removing that warning from your talk page you should have seen it as a sobering reminder. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is consider harassment to mess with someone talk page. He has given final warning I have received and delete it from my talk page. Now if he and his friends keep reverting it back then it is NOT good. However, I know you will never warn them and even if User:Proabivouac has same number of revert in 6 months you do not care. edit by Proabivouac You do not care if he leave above on User:Funnypop12 which is vandalism of his User-page and you do not care if they give personal attack on my talk page. It is because your glasses have very focus and narrow vision. But who cares when I am already consider to leaving. --- ALM 15:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You speak to soon, I just gave warnings to both people that you are allowed to remove such warnings. I am not picking on one group of people, I think you are upset because people are not agreeing with you. If you can collect a giant list of diffs, then I will take a look. However, I am too involved in this to be handing out edit warring notices myself, I suggest WP:AN/I if you think you are being treated unfairly. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly is "is that how you would characterise the arguments of others who have maintained this stance?" considered a personal attack? I have been accused of detecting personal attacks where others see none, yet that is not even close. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One has to have good neutral vision to see clearly. Which you had previously but now you have lost it. Sorry if you consider it a personal attack but that what I feel now. ALM, your appeals to policy may be aptly characterized as a cynical lie.Proabivouac 10:27, 6 March 2007 (UTC) See above edit again for this. --- ALM 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see the source of confusion, you linked me here, not to that comment, my good neutral vision does not let me see what you did not link to. Yes, that is a personal attack, I suggest giving a NPA warning. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so what about this one the only thing fake around here, ALM, is your shamelessly insincere appeal to "undue weight," an expedience necessitated by the lack of a WP:TABOO.Proabivouac 10:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC). I do not believe in you and not is this system any more. I do not believe any more that there are more good people around than bad people. I am giving you these diff that you continue to point towards me and ignore other side of facts. You have changed. --- ALM 16:47, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that everyone is against you strongly enough, eventually you will make it true by your own force of will. You are welcome to post warnings about personal attacks, and if they continue you can report them to WP:ANI. I change everyday, it is a good thing. My actions from when we met, to when you supported my admin request, to now, have been consistent with Wikipedia policy. I dare say you have changed, you have become more combative and accusatory. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have changed: From demanding no pictures to accepting 3 pictures even one veiled on the top and You have changed: from accepting One veiled image at bottom to declining 3 picture even one veiled on the top. Both times was you with policy or you were against policy at first. Right? And you are pushing with people who go to faith freedom and group themselve that I they can have even unveiled on the top. --- ALM 17:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't even know what "faith freedom" is. If my position has changed it is because the longer I look at this debate, the more I realize that the arguments for removing/burying the images is not based on policy, but personal preferences. I see arguments change, but always the goal of removing/burying the pictures remains the same. Arguing with you is like trying to hit a moving target, you shift your point every time I try to address it. I have extensively addressed your undue weight concerns and it is now reaching the point where we are repeating ourselves to each other.

I understand you were planning on taking you undue weight argument to arbitration, I am still looking forward to that. If I am wrong and you are right, and you can support your claim with citations and policy then arbitration will see that, I have faith in their neutrality. I suggest you continue with that course of action. But you have said "I do not believe in you and not is this system any more", so I don't know what to say about that, this is the only system we have available to you. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:55, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign my autograph page. A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I don't see what that has to do with building an encyclopedia, it looks like a raffle of some sort. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a raffle - I just want you to sign it. PLEASE??? A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 18:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says the magic number gets the prize, that is what a raffle is. I am not interested. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want the prize, that's fine with me. But please sign! You have made me become a better Wikipedian! PLEASE????? A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 19:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to repeat myself. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE??????? You have such a great signature, too! A•N•N•Afoxlover PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 20:54, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ANNAfoxlover, I would stop asking that; continued discussion like this can be considered harassment. Acalamari 21:14, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing potential trouble with my bot: I've responded at your question at my talk page. --Tuvic 21:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

seems to be a nice little nifty thing, but there is something i miss, parameters in template for date, for example first post and/or last post in archived section. _→AzaToth 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(replying because I'm currently maintaining/expanding the indexerbot) Thanks for the suggestion - that gets a little bit tricky to do "right" / completely because of the possible variations in timestamps. I suppose an easy "close enough in most cases" approximation would be to assume the standard timestamp format provided by ~~~~/~~~~~, and just ignore unknown timestamps. I've added it to my to-do list and will see what I can come up with. —Krellis (Talk) 04:49, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Krellis, while people can customize their signatures, timestamps are always in the same format, aren't they? Any other timestamp would not be a timestamp of a comment. I was going to suggest the same idea myself eventually. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen some (small number, admittedly) people who actually include a timestamp in their signature (using {{CURRENTMONTH}} and the like, and then signing with ~~~). It's probably few enough that it's safe to just ignore them, though, so I'll look and see what I can come up with. —Krellis (Talk) 15:21, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every other bot will be ignoring them as well. I think it is rare enough to ignore. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:25, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you've closely read the latest proposal: it states that two images are to be placed near the bottom of the article for no particular reason except the obvious same-old same-old. We got a very strong rejection against censorship in mediation. We shouldn't throw that away just because anti-depiction editors have been more active over the past few days. Also, several "yes" votes are obvious socks. There's no inevitability here at all. Finally, recognize that we will be stuck with socks attacking the article no matter what is decided; there is nothing we can agree to which will avoid this.Proabivouac 04:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I did not read the proposal properly, I did not realize it was limiting the depictions to those specific ones/places, rather I though it was discussing the layout of just those images. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it is, honestly. I suspect it was meant to (otherwise, why support from Virtual etc.?), but then it also mentions only one image of calligraphy, so, go figure. Either way, it's ridiculous to push Image:Maome.jpg down to the bottom - for basically no reason - when it's its the best depiction we have, the very one that gave rise to the mediation, and the one which a very substantial majority supported including in the lead. Though I'm personally fine with having it in the overview, it's still a significant departure from the prevailing sentiments of the community.Proabivouac 04:43, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just had an edit conflict with you trying to welcome User:LetTheSunshineIn. How wierd! SqueakBox 20:05, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, great minds link alike. So do we apparently. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic User talk:C.m.jones#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay on his talk page might interest you. Basically he has no idea how consensus works, instead thinking it means argumentum ad tenacity with the more persistant edit warrer "achieving consensus". --tjstrf talk 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to explain, I was referred to literature. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he mentioned the same book before. He also tracked me down and randomly insulted my age in a different discussion. This is why I don't work on contentious articles much even though I have a high interest in many of them. --tjstrf talk 00:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The topic User talk:C.m.jones#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Essjay on his talk page might interest you. Basically he has no idea how consensus works, instead thinking it means argumentum ad tenacity with the more persistant edit warrer "achieving consensus". --tjstrf talk 23:47, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to explain, I was referred to literature. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he mentioned the same book before. He also tracked me down and randomly insulted my age in a different discussion. This is why I don't work on contentious articles much even though I have a high interest in many of them. --tjstrf talk 00:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there - I'm wondering, since you seem to be following the discussion on the talk page of the Essjay controversy article, if you might be able to archive some of the resolved threads there. I've never archived before, and I have a feeling it wouldn't be the right page for me to be experimenting on. Thanks. Risker 02:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your "new message" edit. (→Netscott) 02:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi High! So, it seems like there's a pretty good consensus for a few things-- one is that the religious objections to images are not, by themselves, enough to justify automatically deleting all such images. The other pages that have dealt with this issues have come to similar conclusions. So, it seems like it might be worth just writing up a little short thing saying that, and propose it as a policy/guideline, just so future pages won't have to go through that part of the discussion again.

Could you look the page over and see what you think? I've never really written a proposal before. I certainly wouldn't expect it to be a deciding factor in the debate being held on Muhammad-- the undue weight arguments, for example, would be unaffected, and I think it would be disingenuous to try to propose a policy just to turn around and cite it in a preexisting content dispute. That said, if written correctly and if it were something that people would support, it would probably save Wikipedia a lot of trouble in the future.

Anyway-- see if you think it's something work working on, or if it's just an instruction creep best left to the individual articles. --Alecmconroy 02:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think policy wise that is already covered by Not Censored. I do the value of such an essay that explains how existing policies and guidelines effect the issue, but I don't think it needs to be a policy or guideline itself. I like the idea as an essay a lot. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We've had our disagreements on other issues, but I think this whole ArbCom case is a joke, and I've presented evidence in support of your actions (and will post more). - Merzbow 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will watch with great interest. Thank you for the info. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Terribly sorry about that. I created the ads in question; Real96 decided to try to push for my work used in a way that I never intended – I would be firmly against having them outside of userspace – Qxz 11:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you may want to self-revert. I demonstate in the logic that I am fully aware of that. (→Netscott) 15:43, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, I see. Damn my speed reading. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HighInBC, I've filed a 3RR report on the matter. Given that you are an involved administrator I would recommend that you remove your warning on his talk page. (→Netscott) 20:11, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, he's been blocked for 12 hours by an uninvolved admin regardless. See you. (→Netscott) 20:55, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. My involvement in this situation has been as an editor, I have not taken any administrative actions. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a number of new users at Talk:Sparta (where "Gzus" last edited) with all sorts of rudeness. Could you kindly see for the possibility of multiple socks... Especially check:

• 70.16.117.242 (talk · contribs)
• Immortals (talk · contribs)
• Kanejad (talk · contribs)

Also, may I bring to your attention that users Nayan Nev (talk · contribs)'s and Iblardi (talk · contribs)'s actions in that talk and article were criticized by multiple users. It terribly looks like there is an association between one of the two and these above. Thanks. NikoSilver 20:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very good at investigating sock puppets, GZUS was blocked for username violations though. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason you deleted my comments re cuddlebitch? just wondering, --Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:00, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries...I see it was an error. Peace,--Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya beat me to it, yup, simple mistake, fixed it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All is well. I appreciate your focus and effort to keep wikipedia civil and effective. Kukini ^{hablame aqui} 03:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed you comment on Misza13's talkpage. Looks like the Bot got all the archiving it did at 02:35 wrong [12]. It may need to be blocked until Misza can fix the problem... WjBscribe 02:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, small bug, big mess. I put a cork on it. This should be a quick fix. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is only when veiwing your userpage and talk page. Mathmo ^Talk 10:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I never noticed that! Is it new? Hehe, now I feel like doing something like that too....--C S (Talk) 10:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hehe, I am watching. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of your subpages, User talk:HighInBC/Temporary page indexes/WP:ANI is showing up on CAT:CSD. I'm not sure why. Am I correct in assuming that if you wanted it deleted you would have done it yourself? I figure there's probably something on the page that's accidentally listing it on CSD. Kafziel ^Talk 15:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ack, I got it catching the templates in nowikis, I need to add category links, thanks. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These indexes are really useful.Proabivouac 17:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got the idea when a desire for an archive of WP:RFCN was demonstrated, WP:RFCNA being the first application of the idea. The advantage is that no actual effort is needed to create the archive. I find it very useful for users who delete their warnings. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the post on my talk page; goodness, what a fright that gave me! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could have a look at your bot again for the RFCN archive? It seams to have stopped working. Cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 12:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is ran manually at this point. I will run it now. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I laughed my ass off at your joke, good one. :) RJASE1 ^Talk 14:51, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I accomplish nothing else in this world, at least I was a smart ass. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you have smallest signature on Wikipedia. I therefore award you the worlds smallest barnstar to honour (honor) this. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

lol, I will move it to my barnstar page. I was worried it was too long. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dude. The Rambling Man 17:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)the original, and still the best[reply]

No problem. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:04, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I submitted a response in the noticeboard. It's kinda long, and wikilinked with diffs and examples. I decided to not only let you know I had, but to explain that while my comments, taken out of context, were uncivil, I felt awfully provoked. I guess that isn't really an excuse, but the user in question really makes me uncomfortable. I have been stalked before in RL, and the similarities with User: Mardavich's behavior kinda took me back to that place. Please understand that I am not like this, and am pretty friendly, civil and helpful with just about everyone (of course, not everyone, though). Maybe that explains a bit about what set me off about the user. If it doesn't, I am sorry to have taken up space here.Arcayne 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Peace. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A question: what should we do to keep this guy off our backs? He doesn't seem willing to back off. At all.Arcayne 17:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would follow WP:DR for content disputes, report to WP:ANI with evidence for complex policy related issues requiring admin attention. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again.Arcayne 18:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He already has returned, see User:SciAndTech.Proabivouac 17:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have my suspicions, but I am not sure. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is unquestionably ALM scientist. See [13], [14],[15], [16], language usage, technical interests/expertise, uploaded diagrams, etc.Proabivouac 17:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I have my suspicions, for the very reasons you laid out. I am still not sure, however even if it is him, if he is only using one account in the debate at a time then I don't think it is a problem. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no misconduct here; it's just an observation.Proabivouac 17:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I noticed that as well. I agree with HighInBC's logic... obviously if he starts "doubling up" relative to what User:ALM scientist has already expressed there'll be cause for further investigation. (→Netscott) 17:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider it observed, I am watching. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is certainly interesting: [17], followed by this: [18]. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't believe I missed that one! That's hilarious. Maybe someone should warn ALM not to vandalize SciAndTech's user page again?

The thing that I do find very questionable about this is that this account appears to have been created primarily to run for adminship.Proabivouac 20:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HighInBC: just for aesthetics, can you make the links to the archives be with spaces instead of underscores? (Like User talk:Mets501/Archive 1 instead of User_talk:Mets501/Archive_1) I love the bot by the way. —METS501 (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask, and ye shall receive. To be honest, it had never even clicked in my mind that it was displaying with underscores rather than spaces, because with default CSS, the link underlining masks out the underscores. Indexes will be updated without the underscores the next time they need to be updated, and it looks like yours and HighInBCs already have been. Enjoy! —Krellis (Talk) 19:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dam your fast. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been sitting here staring at the code, beating my head against the desk trying to figure out how to get rid of the gotos in fetching pages, while still being efficient, smart, and not absurdly complicated. It was nice to have an easy request to just do instead :) —Krellis (Talk) 19:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know gotos are evil, I first programmed on Applesoft BASIC about 20 years ago, and I am still unlearning bad habits. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not true, I also programmed on my Commodore VIC-20 with tape drive, some time earlier. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, BASIC... I played around in MS BASIC long ago... thankfully, I don't think I've written a goto since. Time to start breaking down the problem into modular sections... that should help, I think. The biggest problem is that I don't think it's possible to exactly replicate your algorithm without goto, so I'm having to write a new algorithm, too. I shall soldier on, though, and hopefully it won't break too many people's indices too badly while I'm working on it :) —Krellis (Talk) 19:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks for the change. You two can now continue your conversation :-) —METS501 (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the nowiki tags on the index template aren't required, so if you want you can leave them off, and you should actually get an idea of what the rendered page will look like. I put them in the default mostly so that it's easier to see what the code should actually look like. —Krellis (Talk) 20:50, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to suggest that if possible, the edits by blocked user User:Gateway22222 be removed from the article history since they name a student (probably) and make highly insulting remarks about her. I don't know if it is possible but if so, it should be done. Thanks. - Dan D. Ric 22:19, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they are already removed, anyone can change the article using the "edit this page" button at the top of each article. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:20, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think he meant oversight. Dan D. Ric, you can follow the link on that page to send a private e-mail to the people with access to that function who can take care of it for you. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow I had no idea I was on your talk page... thought I had clicked AN/I in my watchlist. Sorry for butting in, HBC! —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I always enjoy people helping out here. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:23, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I sent an email to the Oversight people. Hope it doesn't take long. - Dan D. Ric 22:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They are pretty quick about things like that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been removed from the history. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw. Thanks, 'cause I didn't know how to do that. - Dan D. Ric 02:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As part of my rewrite away from goto, I changed the logic for the Indexerbot to look for new archives added to the ones it already knows about, and wanted to see what you think of the new logic. fetch_pages now considers jobs one-by-one, and, within each job, masks are considered one-by-one. For each mask, it will first try to fetch 5 pages after the one(s) it already has (if any). If it successfully fetches all of those, it will try to fetch 10 more. If it successfully fetches all of those, it will try to fetch 15 more, continuing to add 5 to the number of pages it fetches, until it gets less than the number it tried to get. Then it will move on to the next mask or job.

This increases the number of special_export calls (at least one for each mask in each job), but decreases (significantly) the total number of pages it tries to fetch. I'm not sure if that's a good tradeoff, as far as wiki load goes, but it's much easier to parse things this way. If the number of requested pages in each special_export doesn't matter so much as the number of calls, one thing I can do is increase the base fetch size and the increment to the fetch size. That way when loading a large set of archives for the first time, it'll get them in fewer calls. It still doesn't reduce the overall minimum number of calls - to do that would require a lot more complicated looping and data maintenance structure. If you have any thoughts, I'd be very interested to hear them. I've updated the code to my latest version, so you can take a look if you want. —Krellis (Talk) 01:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea. But you need to take into account that if you ask for more than 100 pages from special:export you will only get the first 100. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It'll still never actually send more than 25 at a time to export, even if it sends more to the download subroutine. That's a limit I kept from your code - any particular reason you used 25? If not, I'll probably up it to at least 50, do more work in less actual downloads. —Krellis (Talk) 02:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I set it to 25 while doing WP:ANI's archives(they are very long), but I realized the report would be longer than the maximum page size. A maximum of 100 is fine as that is what the developers have limited it to. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Well, the bot has gotten considerably less CPU efficient, but I think, overall, it's much better, and still doesn't take too long to run. I think I've also reduced some uploads, because I'm now caching reports locally, so if a report doesn't change, even if an underlying page did, the report won't be uploaded. I've got some more items in my to-do list that will improve some of the CPU inefficiencies, though. We'll see if I manage to actually get them done :) —Krellis (Talk) 02:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, the user 24.172.118.10 is getting pretty intense on my talk page over changes to the external links in Charlotte, North Carolina, and I'm not sure how to best proceed without making the situation worse or starting a revert war. Any advice or help you can give would be appreciated. Thanks Matthew 21:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've intervened, though if you want to review the situation go ahead. Acalamari 21:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi HighInBC,
Serial vandal/attacker User:206.126.80.121 etc. is evading his block; see User:206.126.82.92. It's only been 24 hours.Proabivouac 00:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you were supposed to sign the page as you clicked the link. If you can't have a little bit of humor... Don't take life so seriously, man. I sometimes get fooled by my own banner ^^

Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 10:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, where how did you came to my userpage? I don't think I have ever seen you around before. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 10:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on your userpage. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What, now we're forbidden to put templates that look like those annoucing messages? It's my user page after all. It's an attack on no one! And you were supposed to sign the book... Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 17:54, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed; there have been several discussions about this joke. It's not funny, and if I'm on someone's user/talk page, I have to make a habit of putting my cursor over the box to make sure it's not some joke. I'm sure other users have to do something similar. Acalamari 18:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So what should we do? Forbid this from being put on user pages or whatever? I think that if it doesn't harm the people who watch it (like pornography could ruin a kid's sex education or a fair use picture on a userpage could cause Wikipedia some trouble), then there is no reason to take it off. Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 18:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really now, this is not a problem. If you are even slightly unsure about if it is a really message box or not you just have to wait until you pass over to the next page. Of if you do pass your cursor over it will take merely fractions of a second to do. Mathmo ^Talk 06:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mathmo. Now, HighInBC, go sign my book. :) Zouavman Le Zouave _{(Talk to me! • O))))} 07:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is not forbidden, it is very much discouraged though on WP:USER. While I appreciate that I can work around this hack by checking the link, I don't see why I should have to. Wikipedia has a set of messages, and I should be able to trust them without being redirected to some page unrelated to the creation of an encyclopedia. I am not signing your book.

Yo, I'm still pretty skeptical about the Shelbyyoung "verification". I posted my concern at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/User names, just a heads up. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 15:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw, did you see the picture? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question. Am I allowed to delete conversations off of my talk page? I'd really just like to keep the "Welcome to Wikipedia" post on there. If not, that's fine. I saw someone else tried to delete stuff and you said it wasn't allowed, but was that just because they're not me?

Just curious! Still pretty new here :]

Shelby 19:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are allowed to delete stuff from your talk page, though you may wish to archive it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:05, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I enjoyed the "credentials" bit on your userpage so much that I totally ripped it off. Cheers! Wachholder 16:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, my only real credential is that I am a smart ass. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I always say when I'm called a smart ass - "Better than a dumbass!" :) —Krellis (Talk) 18:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have stopped, but the bot did this weird thing and then merged them as duplicate entries. Not sure what that's about, but I thought you might want to know. Natalie 00:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's expected behavior - if the instruction block is changed, the bots will automatically reset it to match the contents of WP:AIV/I. If you want to change the instructions, you need to change that page, and the bots will automatically update them (after up to 30 minutes lag - they only check WP:AIV/I every 30 minutes). Because you made changes in the templates, the bot assumed they were improperly placed actual reports, and moved them out of the comment into the main body, then merged them as duplicates. This is also sort of a side effect of the fact that the bots don't do full template syntax parsing - they don't know "1=" isn't part of a username, they just assume anything after the "|" in the template is the username. If the use of this syntax becomes more recommended/prevalent, we will need to update the bots to understand it properly. —Krellis (Talk) 00:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then may I suggest using "1=username" in the vandal/userlink examples in the template, and as the standard format the bot expects to encounter? Only if the username ever does not start with "1=", then-and-only-then will the bot parse that field without it? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 00:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, what I was thinking is that we would update the bots to specifically understand "1=", without trying to parse full template parameter passing syntax, and just assume that anything that doesn't start with "1=" is a username, anything that does start with "1=", strip off the "1=" and assume that's a username. The one problem then is if someone actually creates a username that starts with "1=", and it gets reported as {{vandal|1=idiot}} rather than {{vandal|1=1=idiot}}, but as long as the instructions are clear and the admins and others servicing the page understand, they can always just add the extra "1=" or remove the entry manually.

HBC, since we are on your talk page (heh), do you have any thoughts on that? I'm going to be out of town next week, and may or may not have time to implement this before I head out, but if it sounds good to you, I can add it to my list and see if I can. Otherwise, you certainly can, or I'll look at it next time I have a chance (I'll also double-check right now and make sure I don't have any local source changes for the helperbots that aren't uploaded... I don't think I do, but I occasionally forget minor things). —Krellis (Talk) 03:33, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It can always try "1=1=idiot", then "1=idiot", there is a slight chance of false positive if both users exist though. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that slight chance is probably slight enough that we can ignore it. I've made updates to the code, the one thing I need to test is a (blocked) user that starts with "1=" or "User=". Do you see any problem with me creating such an account just so you can block it for me and I can test it? (I checked Listusers and don't seem to see any such usernames existing.) —Krellis (Talk) 21:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say go ahead and create a test user or two, mark them as such with your account, and I will block them. I can't think of a policy against it, and if there were I would ignore it, as one should if a rule prevents you from improving Wikipedia. You can create them logged under your account with the create user page while logged in. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've created 1=KrellisAIVTest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 1=KrellisAIVTest2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). If you could block them (indef is probably good, that way I can't be accused of using them as socks, not that they aren't blatantly me anyway), that would be great, and then I can make sure the new code removes them properly. Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 22:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, and I will remember to turn off Prevent account creation and Block this user's last IP address, and any subsequent addresses he/she attempts to edit from. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, done, have fun. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, yes, turning off autoblock and account creation block is much appreciated :) Looks good, all the variations I tried were successfully removed. There's one slight bug/feature, in that if the same user is listed as {{vandal|1=1=KrellisAIVTest}} and {{vandal|1=KrellisAIVTest}} those two will NOT be merged as duplicates - for duplicate checking purposes, I'm only considering the version with the "1=" or "User=" stripped off. If the user is blocked, though, they will both be removed, either together or individually. I'll post the new code shortly, the changes were pretty simple. —Krellis (Talk) 22:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sir those pictures are not of Muhammad. Miraj.jpg is picture of zoroaster. Maome.jpg is picture by al beruni of persian king of 15th century. Funnypop12 17:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it up on the talk page instead of just removing them every few days. There is a consensus there, and we have reliable sources saying they are Muhammad. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I want to use talk page but some people dont like when i write something there. So help me. last time [User:Proabivouac] did personal attack against no administrator noticed it which is quite unfair. I am always peaceful want to use talk page of article. Thanks alotFunnypop12 17:19, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use the talk page. If someone makes a personal attack against you ask them not to. If they continue report it to an uninvolved admin. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? I cant write any thing when i am banned. I get banned too much. Funnypop12 17:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are not banned now. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Automatically placing the article in Category:All articles with unsourced statements should only be done when you actually can find no citations anywhere near the statement, and certainly not just because you're pressed for time. Asking about something at a talkpage should always be the first step (or at least be done in conjunction with the tagging) and can never be deemed to be rude, pedantic or intrusive. I welcome any questions whether they be based on ignorance ("this is just strange!") or informed doubt ("I read somewhere that this is actually wrong"), and I try my best to be patient with people that have no previous knowledge of the topic.

I made this addition to try to make it more obvious that people didn't drink olive oil.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:48, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the addition, I disagree with the level of community discussion needed before adding a {{fact}} tag, it is a minor edit that does not need a big thing first. If in the future I add another {{fact}} to that article please don't take it so personally. Those sorts of tags only help improve the article. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:51, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Asserting your ignorance in article space because you can't be bothered with checking the source or engaging in dialog on the talkpage first is somewhat disconcerting. That you can't check a fact with a few mouse clicks doesn't mean that the whole world needs to be informed of your doubt.

Peter ^Isotalo 15:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go. For gods sake the {{cite}} tag is used all the time without people taking it personally. It was not a major rewrite or a controversial change, I see no need to go to the talk page for such an edit. I was not "Asserting my ignorance", I was pointing out an area that I thought needed a citation. You say "That you can't check a fact with a few mouse clicks doesn't mean that the whole world needs to be informed of your doubt.", I suggest you read our WP:V policy as I do not need to search for a citation before requesting one. Let it go. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, the fact (that you misread) was cited, you just didn't notice it. If you're too lazy to search two measly paragraphs for a citation you have no business inserting those tags. Nothing personal, of course. Just my concern for the well-being of Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, if you are just going to throw around words like "lazy" and "ignorance" I will just ignore you. This is "no big deal", I added a tag, it turned out I was mistaken. It is not evident that the citation further down applies to the sentence I tagged, it is an offline reference so I could not really check even if it was evident. I really did not do anything wrong, let it go. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm terribly sorry. I clearly misjudged your ability to comment on an article on historical cuisine. Please, do keep specifying your informed doubts about that article.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot imagine why you would say something like that, and then immediately revert the fact tag again. You are not really being consistent. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quite frankly, because you asserted yourself by fact-tagging instead of just asking about it first. Pardon my bluntness and sarcasm, but you joined a long and fairly crappy tradition of sprinkling footnotes as a way of engaging in dialog. I'm glad you could be persuaded, though. Hope we both learned a lesson from this...

Peter ^Isotalo 22:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, the preferred way of teaching a lesson is to point out the relevant guideline. What I got from you was some sort of hostile resentment devoid of explanation. Thank you for finally making yourself clear, it settled everything right away. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ya, just me being a smart ass. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:07, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has vandalized my user page in a month! Is the wiki broken? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Darwinek 2‎. Even though this dispute is only a few hours old, I feel his responses, both on the RFC page and on the talk page, demonstrate that he lacks the judgement needed to be an administrator, at least regarding topics related to Czech nationalism and ethnicity. I have filed a request for arbitration; you may wish to comment there. Thatcher131 20:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will think long and hard before posting there. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:33, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand your concern over my ridiculously high edit count to RFCN. I too, am concerned about my edits there; so I have limited my presence there, and have spent more time working on other Wikipedia-space pages. A few months ago, there was a time where my mainspace edits barely made up 20% of my edits; so I worked more in the mainspace, and have been able to get them up to roughly 43% of my edits. Regardless of the outcome of my RfA, I will listen to every !vote carefully. I hope I am taking a good approach and attitude with that decision. Acalamari 23:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not worried about the amount you have participated in RFCN, more the amount of wikipedia namespace edits outside of RFCN. You seem to be on the right track. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of CineWorld (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/CineWorld 1. -- Real96 08:05, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! I don't know how that happened! How embarrassing. Thanks for fixing it ... - Alison^☺ 21:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The server does not always catch edit conflicts as it should, that comment was added after you hit the edit button but before you saved. It happens sometimes, no fault of the user. Easily enough to fix when it is found. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad that it happened to occur on someone's RFA. I'd looked through the vote count & just updated the tally & I guess SaxTeacher's vote showed up in between somewhere. Thanks again! - Alison^☺ 21:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply to comment on my user page) Hi there. Yeah, I realised right away that I made a mistake and tried to revert it. I think the bots got it first. I tried to put a hidden comment on the page to suggest a format for the {{IPvandal}} template. Somehow my sig ended up all over the page, and I have no idea how. My lessons? 1) No hidden edits on the AIV page (nor in WP space unless I check first). 2) Use Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/instructions to suggest changes, as you suggested. Once again, mea culpa. Shan't happen again. Regards, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 02:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happened is that you put an html comment inside of an html comment. Your open tag was ignored, but your close comment tag closed the first comment. The ~~~~'s that were in the instructions were then seen as your signature. Complex eh? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The road to [somewhere bad] is paved with good intentions, right. Crap. I felt really stupid about it. I had hoped that I'd acted quickly enough (like within a minute) to make all better. *sigh* Lesson learned. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 02:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To ere is human. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Flyguy649^talk_contribs 02:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, indeed it is... would that have been "to err", by any chance? :-) --YFB ¿ 03:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is perfetc. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROLFMAO --YFB ¿ 03:19, 24 March 2007 (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.