User talk:HighInBC/Archive 50

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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.


Deletion of legal threats

I am not any kind of admin, so maybe this in none of my business – but I wondered about your deletion of legal threats, as you mentioned here. I read the threats before they were deleted, and it helped me to form my view of the now indeffed User:AustralianThreston. Why did you delete them? It's not like anyone was going to take them seriously. Maproom (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read WP:NLT and found it says "it is important to ensure that any possible factual basis for such a threat is not ignored or obscured". So it looks like I should not have removed it. I have returned the legal threat so as not to obscure it.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Chillum 07:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, HighInBC. You have new messages at Hell in a Bucket's talk page.
Message added 07:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hell in a Bucket (talk) 07:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You who?

You left a message on NYB, doing what I did twice: delete the section header in the edit summary. I am not sure if you are aware who made that section header. Please address the "you", for clarity. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have clarified who I am talking to thank you. Also thanks for pointing out the edit summary. Chillum 21:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How very interesting. The same user who complains here about not being notified of a conversation when it was very obvious she was already following it, now fails to notify me that I am being discussed right here on this very talk page. How very, very interesting. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 23:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there something specific you wanted to contribute to this discussion or are you complaining that you were not invited? I was just having it pointed out to me that your section heading had made it into my edit summary(sarcastic thanks for that by the way). I appreciated the notification and deleted my summary under WP:RD2. Why do you think you should have been notified?
This user was not even sure who I was talking about and wanted clarification so how can you say that you are being talked about at all? We were discussing the section header and that is about as close as it got to being about you. That was all 5 days ago anyways and over and done with. Chillum 00:27, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Drizzyruiz is at it again.

Charliebroand01 (talk · contribs) was just created and is, again, doing the same that Drizzyruiz and their sockpuppets were doing. I suspect 2602:306:C5F4:DA90:895A:E4A3:49CD:956B (talk · contribs · WHOIS) may one of his IPs but I have no proof just based on one edit. Do you think you could also take care of the open SPI I linked to you on one of his sock talk pages? The master account (Drizzyruiz) is currently blocked two weeks btw. Thanks in advance. Erick (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am very drunk now and try not to use my admin tools while drunk. Please ask another admin. Chillum 01:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Magiciandude: I have looked this over and have decided that I am not going to take any admin action. I am okay with choosing not to take an admin action while drunk, but it being 5 hours later I am much more sober now. If another admin disagrees they are welcome to act otherwise.
The fatjoe guy tended to freak out in edit summaries but not Charlie... perhaps just two people trying to add the same unconfirmed rumor? Often information comes out prior to reliable sources and you get more than one person trying to add the same thing.
While it is very possible they are the same person I choose to assume good faith that they are not. I know I may be wrong but I prefer the consequences of not lumping them together over that of assuming they are the same. If Charliebroand01 continues similar behavior after an appropriate set of warnings then you can report it to me or AIV. Chillum 06:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Naturally if a checkuser shows them to be the same person then it will be blocks all around. One does not have to assume good faith when it is no longer reasonable to do so. Chillum 06:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very well then. I will inform you of the situation if anything else comes up. Erick (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, HighInBC. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello. I have read your mail. In the interests of transparency I prefer to discuss such issues on wiki. Chillum 05:27, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No response necessary. I just wanted to know it was received. Lightbreather (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the C Word

I've had 5 years of that particular IP editor repeatedly calling me a dopey fucking cunt, when I complained was A) told I had to discuss my edits with them in talk and B) it was OK as most of their edits were constructive. Your sanctimonious warning conclusively proved what I've been saying for a long time, that any named account behaving in the same manner would be blocked but its apparently OK for a foul mouthed idiot to stalk my edits as its just too difficult to deal with. Please in future respect my request that you refrain from posting on my talk page. WCMemail 09:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wee Curry Monster, please don't modify my posts. The purpose of the warning was not to renew to restart the current issue. Its purpose is preventative, so that if it happens again in the future there is no doubt that you were informed.
Just because someone else calls you a name does not mean that you can call someone a name. It could be a newbie, a long term troll or even willy on wheels himself and we don't act like that here.
Personal attacks are against the rules. There are no special list of exemptions like "He said it first", or "I know that guy and he is a jerk" or "Banned editors can be insulted". If the person is that out of line then insulting is going to accomplish exactly nothing.
It is not your talk page, the page belongs the community and is a place for them to talk to you. You don't get to forbid people from using it. As an administrator I am required to communicate with the people I am considering taking action on. Despite your altering of my warning and eventual removal from your page I am considering you fully warned regarding NPA.
It is true that there are admins that ignore personal attacks, I am not one of them. I believe the policy enjoys consensus and the community wants it enforced. If this IP is insulting you then I will hold them to the same standard, just point it out to me instead of joining in. Chillum 15:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding what you said " A) told I had to discuss my edits with them in talk and B) it was OK as most of their edits were constructive.".
I will say right now that if admins told you that then they certainly don't share the same understanding of policy as me. I would never expect someone to talk it out with a person who is resorting to abuse, and I don't give one whit about how good a contributor is they will be treated equally under NPA.
Constructive edits do not give some sort of insult credit you can use later. My concerns about NPA blocks include what is in the policy. Has the person had a warning that it can lead to a block? Has the person retracted/apologized either on there own or by request. Was it a particularly nasty attack. These are the questions I ask.
I promise you that this other person will be held to the same standards I am holding you to. Just draw my attention to rather than taking his bait.
I appreciate that you stepped back and retracted the edit summaries. I certainly don't think a block is called for at this point. Please read the story about myself I put in ANI. I think this person is playing with you and trying to get you to get

Ruth Kearney page

Resolved

A nephew asked me why there is no en.wikipedia page for Irish actress Ruth Kierney. I know you were involved in a deletion; any thoughts on what must be done to fill this gap (which is present, e.g., in the german wikipedia, but not in the English, where her professional acting work resides)? See, e.g., [1] and [2]. Cheers. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you create a link so I can see the state of the deleted article? THe point is to not waste time on any further subpar submissions (and to produce one better than the subpar German article). Cheers, ta. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though it should not matter, this is me. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It seems to me what happened was that as a result of this debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Kearney (2nd nomination) the article was redirected to Primeval. A vandal came along and vandalized it and it was incorrectly deleted.

It is now redirecting like it should and the page history shows the prior versions of the page like here. Chillum 05:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Manchester United F.C. and List of Manchester United F.C. players

Resolved

As the edit war has been going on for days and is still continuing at the time of this message, you may perhaps wish to have a quiet word with the editors involved. cheers. LRD NO (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rape statistics / Finland

Resolved

Check talk page, Chillum. I did talk with other man. The source is real flawed.

The center Finnish study, does not talk about percents, but of other stuff.

The study is mostly, about domestic violence, little about rape.

--37.136.114.182 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing IPs to evade a block is against policy. I have blocked this IP. Continued block evasion and edit warring is unlikely to convince anyone.
If you have argued your point and failed to get consensus then just let it go. Being stubborn does not work well here. Chillum 22:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


He is stubborn too, he edit warred with me too, yet he not punished?

Is he teacher's pet? His edition being spared, but not mine, oh no.

Honest heart struck down, is this what the truth is like, small favoritism?

--37.136.48.66 (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior is out of line. If you continue to switch IPs we will just semi-protect the page. You are accomplishing nothing.
Teachers pet? I don't know who you are talking about. Consider the possibility that it is your actions that have led to this response and not some sort of conspiracy against you. Chillum 23:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yourself in trouble. It is called trolling. Chillum 16:13, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to apologise unreservedly for my earlier remark as one made in haste without really thinking. One of my own personal rules is to avoid responding to messages when annoyed as (and I note this on my own talk page) a text message as no nuance and it is all too easy to infer a meaning the original poster never meant. I broke my own rule, I responded angrily and I should not have done. I thank you for your kindness in responding as you did in a calm manner.
I don't believe there should be exceptions to WP:NPA and have no problem in being held to those standards. Regards, WCMemail 17:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. Chillum 19:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Question from Supersaiyen312

Chillum, can you do anything about this As of today, dispute/argument ended, but the fighting did not. Can you please put an end to that? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 03:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being on ANI there is already a lot of attention being given to it. I don't see any area where I personally want to take action at this time.
While I firmly believe that these types of bickering battles are a waste of time I really need to pick my battles or I would be jumping into piles of drama all day long. Chillum 03:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can it just please be deleted as disruptive? Does that kind of argument belong on ANI in the first place? Only one admin (Nyttend) commented at all, and that was at the last minute. The only discussion "ongoing" was on his talk page, which I do not want to be part of. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 05:04, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no special authority to remove content on ANI, and I don't want to close it as I am not familiar with the case. 05:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, alright. I thought administrators were able to. Like I said, the dispute/argument is over, but the fighting was not. I didn't think something like that belonged on AN/I, at all. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 05:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying I don't have the authority to remove text, I am saying I don't have special authority. Anyone can remove text, you might get reverted but you can. I'm not going to. Chillum 05:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. But for example, what happened here? (the diffs striked out)[3][4][5][6] Is there anything an admin can do to make me have nothing to do with him at all, and avoid him? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 05:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Dude just walk away from it. betafive 05:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, I never knew this kind of drama belonged on wikipedia at all. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chillum, I sent you an email. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer to discuss things on wiki where there is transparency. I don't see an e-mail. Chillum 08:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My email isn't working apparently. Anyway, could an interaction ban be imposed for example? Supersaiyen312 (talk) 08:38, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IBANs are a community ban and not decided by an admin. It takes a community consensus to impose such a ban. I am running out of ways to tell you that I am not interested in being involved in this dispute. Chillum 16:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. It's pretty much over now anyway. Supersaiyen312 (talk) 22:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

69.178.x.x IP block

I see you blocked one, but here's another 69.178.195.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). –Fredddie™ 00:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, you didn't do the blocking, but it's the same M.O. as the other IP, so it should probably go as well. –Fredddie™ 01:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like someone else has handled the range block. Chillum 02:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Ruth Kearney page

Resolved

A nephew asked me why there is no en.wikipedia page for Irish actress Ruth Kierney. I know you were involved in a deletion; any thoughts on what must be done to fill this gap (which is present, e.g., in the german wikipedia, but not in the English, where her professional acting work resides)? See, e.g., [7] and [8]. Cheers. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:11, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could you create a link so I can see the state of the deleted article? THe point is to not waste time on any further subpar submissions (and to produce one better than the subpar German article). Cheers, ta. Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 05:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Though it should not matter, this is me. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It seems to me what happened was that as a result of this debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruth Kearney (2nd nomination) the article was redirected to Primeval. A vandal came along and vandalized it and it was incorrectly deleted.

It is now redirecting like it should and the page history shows the prior versions of the page like here. Chillum 05:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on Manchester United F.C. and List of Manchester United F.C. players

Resolved

As the edit war has been going on for days and is still continuing at the time of this message, you may perhaps wish to have a quiet word with the editors involved. cheers. LRD NO (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rape statistics / Finland

Resolved

Check talk page, Chillum. I did talk with other man. The source is real flawed.

The center Finnish study, does not talk about percents, but of other stuff.

The study is mostly, about domestic violence, little about rape.

--37.136.114.182 (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing IPs to evade a block is against policy. I have blocked this IP. Continued block evasion and edit warring is unlikely to convince anyone.
If you have argued your point and failed to get consensus then just let it go. Being stubborn does not work well here. Chillum 22:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]


He is stubborn too, he edit warred with me too, yet he not punished?

Is he teacher's pet? His edition being spared, but not mine, oh no.

Honest heart struck down, is this what the truth is like, small favoritism?

--37.136.48.66 (talk) 23:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your behavior is out of line. If you continue to switch IPs we will just semi-protect the page. You are accomplishing nothing.
Teachers pet? I don't know who you are talking about. Consider the possibility that it is your actions that have led to this response and not some sort of conspiracy against you. Chillum 23:20, 20 August 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:HighInBC/Archive_50"