User talk:HighInBC/Archive 16

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.

re: Beamathan

All of this evening's exchange with Beamathan was I believe in 'jest'. I have no previous experience with this user but a block for this exchange seems a little excessive in my opinion. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Since both of you say it was in jest I will unblock him once he understands that it is not an appropriate type of joke and agrees to not do that. Threats are a real problem on Wikipedia. Chillum 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, there has been so much vandalism on Boston Red Sox lately that it appears there is a race to see who can revert it first. Have a good evening. --Captain-tucker (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Hello. He mentioned me too so I guess I'm involved. The last time I met him, I thought he was joking about racing me in reverting edits to Boston Red Sox, a wikiproject where both, Captain-tucker and me are in I believe. I think he was joking, I'm not so sure though. -- RyRy (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Your block and Subsequent "advice"

Please see my response, it's important that you understand the severity of your poor block.

Please goto User_talk:Beamathan#Threats and read what Keeper and then I say in response to you wanting me to take your advice to heart. Beam 02:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

That block was your fault. The block was because you were performing actions that looked just like threats. Even if they were not threats they looked like them and were not acceptable. I can see that you missed the whole point there. While Keeper is welcome to his opinion, it is just that an opinion. I think you need to take a bit of credit here. Chillum 13:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

No. That's ludicrous. You couldn't take the 3 minutes to see what was really going on? And now you won't admit that? Great. Beam 16:56, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Since I was 1/2 of 'the' conversation let me offer my opinion, I think that the issue Beamathan has is that your first action was to apply a block, not to ask questions. A simple note on my talk page asking me if I felt that the conversion was a threat or asking if this was all just simple fun would have resolved the entire issue. I understand that from the outside his remarks could be viewed as threatening but I think it was the block first and ask questions later method that was the problem. In my opinion blocking a user should be used when there is a true violation not just the perception of a violation. And one can not determine the difference without asking questions of both sides. --Captain-tucker (talk) 17:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It appeared you were receiving ongoing threats and abusive comments. The block was to prevent that from continuing. I immediately initiated communication with both parties after that. Once I was told it was a joke I immediately offered to unblock once it was clear he understood that it was not a good joke to make here. I still don't think he understands that. My only regret is that another admin came and reversed the block before I could, but if an admin does not bother to confer with me prior to reversing my block as the blocking policy requires then I can't help that. Chillum 18:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You should not have blocked me in the first place. It was a bad block that 60 seconds of thinking on your part would have prevented. Your lack of will to admit what happened was wrong and to see the consequence it has is disheartening. Beam 03:26, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Are you still on about that? What did you think people would think when they saw that ranting? If you don't get what you did wrong by now then I am not going to explain it further. Thank you, good day. Chillum 04:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We've never crossed paths before

Hello Chillum. I don't believe you and I have ever had any interaction before, on or off Wikipedia. So in that sense my comments now are coming from an unbiased place.

I have read the current content of your talk page, and read some comments you have recently left on the talk page of another user. Based on the content and tone of those comments, I question if your blocking other editors is the best way for you to be contributing to our encyclopedia. Perhaps you would benefit by getting input on your recent actions and comments from more experienced administrators. Have you considered requesting input of that type? (sdsds - talk) 23:00, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

You will need to be more specific for your criticisms to be constructive. Are you saying that if I see what appears to be one user threatening another that I should not block? Or are you saying that it is okay to joke around in a manner that looks just like threatening another user? As for finding more experienced admins, most active admins have not been serving as long as I have, but as always I welcome constructive criticism from anyone with a good understanding of our best practices. Chillum 23:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank-you for being welcoming in your response to my comments! The issue regarding one user threatening another was not what brought me to your page, but lets take that interaction as an example. Specifically, let's look at the sentence: "What did you think people would think when they saw that ranting?" Can characterizing someone's contributions as "rants" make our encyclopedia better? It would definitely do so, if it led to that contributor "ranting" less! Is that the outcome you expect in this case, based on your prior experience? As regards my use of the phrase, "more experienced administrators": I apologize if this seemed to imply a lack of experience on your part. Rather than "more experienced" I might better have used, "calmer" or "more encouraging". One of the major challenges I see us facing is the need to convert new and disruptive contributors into seasoned and constructive contributors. My personal thinking, which I believe is consistent with policy, is that we should do that primarily with encouragment rather than confrontation. Taking a dose of my own medicine.... I recognize your admin duties bring you into interaction with disruptive and ill-tempered contributors. I appreciate the work you do in that regard, and encourage you to continue using restraint and good judgement in your interactions with them. Thanks, and keep up the good work! (sdsds - talk) 23:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you taking the time to encourage me. I will pass it on in kind. Chillum 23:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ringleader: Mixtape Volume III

Hi Chillum,

I only noticed that you deleted The Ringleader: Mixtape Volume III after the deletion discussion was archived. I believe this mixtape to be notable because it does have "significant independent coverage in reliable sources", although this was not demonstrated in the article before it was deleted. Here is a sample of reviews of the mixtape:

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

I hope you will consider re-creating the article.

Thank you,

Neelix (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome to build an article based off of reliable independent sources. The previous article was pretty much just a track listing, so there is really not much to restore. I think a fresh start is the best way to go as a track listing is by no means an encyclopedic article. Good luck and thanks for the effort to bring this subject up to standards. Chillum 13:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to intervene

Japanese calligraphy by Satow. The kanji read (from right to left) "敬和" (Kei-Wa), literally "Respect and harmony".

Please consider looking over a very difficult controversy at Talk:Hyūga class helicopter destroyer. My single sentence edit to the second paragraph of Hyūga class helicopter destroyer has been reverted several times thus far; and the demonstrably futile defense of that single sentence has relied on the in-line citation which accompanies it. The talk page defense of that edit is marred by claims that I have been uncivil and that I've engaged in personal attacks. See for yourself how WP:AGF WP:Civil are used as threats, as blunt instruments which are intended to thwart any hope that an exchange of views can lead to a constructive outcome. If you choose to intervene, I would ask that you bear in mind my view that Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation seems worth trying in a situation which is rather more serious than can be easily grasped without a background in Japanese history, modern Japanese constitutional law, and the international naval treaties of the 1920s and 1930s.

In short, without any effort to give too fine a point to my words: "Who's kidding who?"--Tenmei (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I will look into this tomorrow morning. Chillum 05:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. This seems a bit beyond my range of expertise, so I will sit this one out. Chillum 19:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Your comment

I found your comment on my page very inappropriate. By what rights do you presume to have a better grip on good manners than me?! And by what rights do you presume to interfere in a discussion I am having with another editor by lecturing me on the form of my speech rather than its content?! If I will feel in need of advice on manners in the future from you I will ask you, though considering your deficient grip on what constitutes proper behavior, I do not think that will take place any time soon. If this is the caliber of people who now are admins on Wikipedia, and if they are allowed to run around unsupervised in this manner, it is not a good sign. Haiduc (talk) 10:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I simply gave my opinion. That guy apologized to you and you just went another around at him. I stand by my position that apologies should be encouraged. This is not about "rights", this is an open forum, people can and will make comments on your actions. I will point out that the tone of your comment here is pretty much exactly what I was talking about on your user page. No need to be so hostile. Chillum 14:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rlevse

Just to let you know, as you appear to be online, you have double voted in this RfB as both neutral and support. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops! I will fix that, thanks for letting me know. Chillum 18:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Indenting

While normally this doesn't bother me too much, could you attempt to practice correct indenting when participating in large discussions? You keep outdenting at WT:RFA and it makes the discussion hard to read. Thanks. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Correct indenting? I though I read most of our guidelines, I never heard of that one. I was not aware that there was a correct method, do you have a link? Chillum 18:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

See how I've indented here? It's not usually so important for one on one discussions, but in that large discussion over WT:RFA, it is confusing as to who you are addressing when you don't properly indent. Do you see what I'm saying? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any good reason to indent one further for each comment. I think things are much clearer when you go one indent further for each person, then keep that indent level. I realize I used no indent in a couple of comments when I should have used 1 indent(as I was the second person to post in that thread) so, oops. Regardless no single indenting method will avoid confusing everyone, I find the "indent one further for every comment then eventually reset to zero indents" to be rather confusing. I just happily accept it because I don't think there is any agreed upon standard. Chillum 18:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK addresses it, and Wikipedia:Indentation goes into more detail. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I will look over those links again, perhaps they have changed since I last read them. Chillum 18:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see some recommendations, and a link to an essay, but I don't think it is a hard and fast rule. I don't really see the common practice being reflected by that rule set either. I think it is best to just do what makes the most sense. Chillum 18:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't come here to tell you how you have to indent, but to let you know that it's hard to know who you are addressing. For example, here you outdented, yet appear to be addressing a specific editor. Because you outdented, we aren't sure who you are addressing. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that is good. I was replying to the post directly above mine. I look at that thread and I see people just indenting one more each post, then going back. I don't see the system described on those pages being used in this thread. It seems that people are just doing what they want. Some people are using that system, others are using another system. I thought that my post being next to the one I was replying to, in addition to the context of the two posts would make it clear. Chillum 19:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry you did not like me altering your indents. I think if you look through my archives you will see that I am not making a point but that I arrange all my talk page conversations that way. It lets me tell at a glance which blocks of text are by which people. It is my talk page, but if it bothers you I will leave it. Note however I will indent it the way I like when I archive it. Chillum 19:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's fine I guess, but in the context of this discussion, changing my indents didn't make too much sense. Indenting on user talk can be whatever... generally its no more than a few users talking, and most of the time just 2, so there is no confusion with indenting. I'm not actually sure how your altering of my indents improved anything, but I guess whatever floats your boat... my suggestions stand for large discussions areas like the noticeboards or WT:RFA. If you are addressing everyone, outdent, if responding to a specific editor, indent one after him. I don't see the complications, but maybe I'm just used to it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been indenting this way since Feb 2006, and this is the first time I have heard anyone being confused by it. While the system you suggests may have merits, it does not seem to be in common usage and it is not the only way out there. Chillum 19:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

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.