en User talk:HiEv Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions with User:HiEv. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

I added a few notes to some entries for my use. They'll be the text in boxes with the dotted lines around them. -- Hi Ev

Main talk page
Archive #2

Hello.

Hello, and welcome to WP, we need you. Usually a new user gets an official welcome, but I see you haven't gotten one. (I'm not part of the welcoming committee.) I saw your addition to the article on the JREF. When I click on the podcast, the QuickTime logo shows up, but then there is a "?" in it, and nothing happens. My QuickTime is up to date. Do you know what the problem could be? Bubba73 (talk), 18:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yup. The audio is Windows Media Audio compressed with some crazy audio codec called ACELP. The codec was meant for voice compression, and it does a fairly decent job (it, or variations on it, were/are used for some cell phones) but it never really caught on for computers. If you're using Windows there's a codec for it at this site[1], but if you aren't using Windows then you may be out of luck. I think they began to realize that problem themselves, because the episodes after the July 31st, 2003 one (the one I cited) are also available in MP3 format there[2]. I converted it to MP3 for myself, but I don't think I have the rights to openly distribute that copy.

...Oh, and thanks for the welcome. :-) -- HiEv 22:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Note: The article referred to is the James Randi Educational Foundation article.

I too wish to say hello.

I had a feeling other(s) might have noticed the sock puppet issue and couldn't think of a valid reason to contact you for any other reason until now. (Showing up to say thanks for noticing sounded desperate any way I tried to write it without having something else to say.)

Did you happen to notice that at least three of the identified accounts appear to have stopped posting as of the 12th? (COFS, CSI LA, and Misou) I'm also curious to know your reaction to the ultimate resolution of the situation being an outside observer. Anynobody 07:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I dunno. There seem to be a bunch of odd coincidences that suggest that they're all the same people, but on the other hand, there are a few other things that suggest that they are unaware of some things that they each have said. I kind of wish Justanother wouldn't have kept flipping out in the Signpost suggestions area. He just kept assuming that the report would be negative, instead of realising it could actually clear up confusion about what occurred. That's honestly why I requested it there in the first place, I was hoping someone would investigate the whole thing, read through the various discussions, talk to the parties involved, and impartially report on what really happened in some concise form. All I can really say is that the user(s) of the COFS and Misou accounts had problems with following the rules many times before this happened. CSI LA didn't seem to, but had stood up for Misou here and also took over arguing for COFS immediately after (s)he was blocked here. There could be legitimate reasons for that, or it could be the CSI LA account is meant to be used as a "good cop" when the "bad cop" that COFS and Misou seem to be playing gets into trouble, but then again that didn't happen very often. In the end, I really don't know, so I'm going to have to assume good faith for now, but keep this history in mind. If they're not sock puppets and it really is a Scientology proxy meant to censor the Internet for Scientologists or monitor members' activities, then I think this is just yet another way the CoS has shot themselves in the foot due to trying to be too controlling of their members. -- HiEv 20:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, actually knowing for certain what the situation was would be impossible. I can honestly see them being different people as easily as I can imagine it being a single user. Either way seems to be editing in a way contrary to policy. I don't have anything against the CoS, but I think a lot of the general negative perception they seem so concerned about is of their own creation. As I said on the Signpost, Justanother's actions tend to perpetuate the stereotype but it isn't just him, the whole organization seems to do the same thing.

Thanks for the prompt reply, I hope he doesn't follow me here to give you a hard time. Anynobody 22:12, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Resurrected Signpost suggestion

I'm not sure if you have heard about Wikipedia Scanner, but it brought the sock puppet ring issue (in general not just CoS) into the news. However because of the earlier suggestion's prescient nature I brought it up as a subheading of a general discussion. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions thought you might be interested. Anynobody 08:11, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Reply to post on my page:

It's cool, I didn't expect you'd want to jump into the actual mess, I dunno who would want to. I knew you'd probably appreciate the fyi though. Anynobody 04:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: Many details on the issue can be seen at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/COFS.

Deleting Category:Wikipedians who don't own automobiles

The category, Wikipedians who don't own automobiles, in which you are listed, is being considered for deletion. You may share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page. --DieWeibeRose 20:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: The discussion can now be found here.

The "Wikipedians interested in the Car-free movement" category is now used.

Archiving of Talk:Atheism

Hi HiEv, I apologise for my mistake. Long talk pages trigger the message at the top of the editing screen, and I do know how having a long talk page filled with old discussions can affect users viewing the page. I decided to archive, and the previous time I archived the page I received no comments on wrongly archiving active discussions, so I went ahead and archived. I hope you see this from my side and realise that I did not intend to archive active discussions, and my only intention was to archive and remove lagginess from the talk page. Thanks, –Se bi ~ 01:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Response given in the original venue: User_talk:Spebi#Thanks_for_being_bold -- HiEv 03:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I ment I have archived Talk:Atheism before without any problems. The user that had a problem with my archive to the Manual of Style and posted a message on the MOS talk page about my premature archiving, and tried to make it look like I commited a crime. You on the other hand, confronted me and told me the mistake that I have made in a completely civil way. Thank you for that. In future, I will check before I archive. –Se bi ~ 03:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: Ironically, I ended up archiving it a few months later. Talk:Atheism/Archive 37
The archived conversation can be found here

Spermacabra

Actually, this link you left on my talk page is the deletion log. I most certainly did not create this article. It was created by Stefanrares (talk · contribs) at 22:44, tagged for speedy deletion at 22:47 by Mendors (talk · contribs) and deleted by myself at 23:31. Pascal.Tesson 03:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Actually, if you're not an administrator, you will not be able to figure out who created pages that have been deleted. Although I'm curious to know: how do you know what was on that page? Pascal.Tesson 03:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I accidentally confused the deletion log page for the history page and thought you had created it, not deleted it. My mistake. (I also responded on User_talk:Pascal.Tesson.) -- Hi Ev 03:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

(You caught me mid-edit.) I knew some of what was on the page because some of the original text was still readable in the edit summary on Special:Newpages. Sorry again for the mixup. :-) -- Hi Ev 03:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Note: One of my more embarrassing errors.
The other half of this conversation can be seen here

Hi

By your userpage, we share a number of interests but you left no e-mail. --Leocomix 21:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't like handing out my email address to people, especially total strangers. I have enough trouble with spam as it is. Did you have a specific question or something? -- Hi Ev 21:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I share your interest in Marvel comics, Asimov, Lovecraft and your philosophic ideas. You can e-mail me with the function in the left-hand toolbox (nobody ever sent me spam through it). This function does not let you know my address (unless I reply) but will let me know yours. --Leocomix 21:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: I tell him I don't hand out my email address to strangers and he asks for my email address.  Yeah.

Nationality discussion continues

As a compromise i wrote to Andropov Soviet in the nationality (though i still claim nationality is an ethnic group). Nevertheless, out of interest i would like to continue the discussion on the talk page. The case itself is closed, but if you want you can continue to take part in the discussion here just out of interest, sort of a free stage. M.V.E.i. 20:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: Nothing more fun than arguments over semantics.  :-P

Yell&Ice

Simply read the article to determine its notability - it is an album by a notbale band with a Wikipedia page; it is the follow up to a critically acclaimed album of 2007; it contains songs with highly respected and world-renowned musicians.

Simply read it and click through the other links and you will be able to see why you are wrong in adding a speedy deletion notice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The ted (talk • contribs) 05:09, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Just because a band or the musicians are notable, doesn't mean all of their albums are notable. The notability of a previous album does not make other albums notable. If you think I'm wrong then simply use the "hangon" tag and explain why it's notable on the talk page. Furthermore, I'd recommend you read through WP:MUSIC to see if it really does meet Wikipedia's standards of notability. -- Hi Ev 05:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. The criteria for noatability for albums in WP:MUSIC actually SAYS: If the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.

Judging from that, I would surmise that YOU have not read the notability guidelines in WP:MUSIC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The ted (talk • contribs) 05:21, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe you have overlooked the key word "may" there. It also states, "Individual articles on albums should include independent coverage." Where is that independent coverage? I am not sure if what you've given is enough in this case, hence my reasoning behind adding the tag. Please don't get mad at me, I think we're both trying to do the same thing here, make a better Wikipedia, we just have different ideas on what that is.

On a separate note, please sign your comments on my talk page with four tildes. Thank you. -- Hi Ev 05:34, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

You are an idiot. Why don't you go and read through the thousands of other album pages of NOTABLE artists that don't contain 'independent coverage' and add deletion tags to them? I'm not overlooking the keyword 'may'. Just as it 'may not' suggest notability, it also 'may'. And why say I'm overlooking the word 'may' when you seem to think that the word 'should' means 'must'? It only 'may' mean 'must', and you 'should' think and read more befor eyou make such rash decisions. 'Alright'? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The ted (talk • contribs) 05:51, September 17, 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks, they do nothing to support your argument. Second of all, the fact that other bad pages exist is not an argument supporting why your page should exist. You should note the next "bad argument" listed on that last page as well, notability is not inherited. Also, I'm not saying "should" means "must," I'm questioning whether this particular article needs it or not. Please don't take my questioning of this so personally.

Also, I should point out to you, if you weren't aware of this already, that you have violated Wikipedia policy at least twice already (here and here) by removing a speedy deletion tag from a page you created. See WP:SPEEDY where it says, "Any user who is not the creator of a page may remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this[...]". Please be aware of this in the future.

Finally, I ask you again, please sign you comments on my talk page. -- Hi Ev 06:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This section is related to the two following sections.  IMO The ted probably bears watching.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/The ted

I feel that the checkuser request you have made is unnecessary for two reasons: 1) Checkuser does not serve for minor incidents (but rather for serious ongoing vandalism and other abuse); ~~2) Duck test. Obviously the user forgot to log in when editing the article, and corrected the mistake on the second edit.~~ Just post a notice on his talk page and/or at WP:ANI. - Mike Rosoft 10:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like I was wrong on the second count, but I still maintain that a checkuser is a waste of time here, regardless of whether or not the notices were removed by the same person as the article's creator. - Mike Rosoft 10:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:Db-song

After considering all the facts, I not only agree that the article is not a speedy candidate, but have also deleted the template due to misrepresenting policy. Songs and albums are not listed in the speedy deletion criterion; while albums made by blatantly non-notable bands could be speedily deleted under the criterion (on the grounds that an article about an album can be considered an article about the band that made it), mere lack of assertion of notability of the album itself is not sufficient. Please use {{db-music}} instead when appropriate. - Mike Rosoft 10:30, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

If you still believe the page should be deleted, please nominate it at articles for deletion. - Mike Rosoft 10:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

My response on Mike Rosoft's talk page:

Thanks for looking into the whole Yell&Ice/The ted issue. For the article I just wanted a second set of eyes to look into it to see if it met notability criteria or not. I thought that the (now deleted) "db-song" template was policy. As for "The ted," I wanted someone to look into what he might have done, since he had clearly violated policy twice and had possibly done so again in a worse way, but I didn't quite know where to report it. I'll use WP:ANI next time. Thanks again. :-) -- Hi Ev 19:45, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks...

Thanks for helping me edit my signature. I am not used to Wikipideia formatting. But now that I will have a cool signature, I will be a cool editor. :D Trevor "Tinkleheimer" Haworth 02:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: User link = Tinkleheimer (talk · contribs)

	This user likes to play Role-playing games.