User talk:HighInBC/Archive 54

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.

Possible WP:BALL article (in haiku) - XVII International Chopin Piano Competition

The titular page

Could have broken WP:BALL

What needs to be done

Should it be drafted

Or should it be deleted

Much thanks in advance

--Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely poetry. I am not sure I am the one to deal with this, I don't know the subject well. Chillum 07:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naughty Words

I agree. My four-year-old granddaughter is smart enough to be able to figure out how to make minor changes to naughty words to express frustration. Coming from a kindergartner who is merely annoyed, it is charming, but it would simply permit hostile adults to find ways around the rules. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There are those that say civility cannot be defined and thus not enforced, but the fact is that most children know what is and is not civil. The idea of treating each other with a basic level of mutual respect is not some nebulous concept, it is a very basic social skill most people learn at a young age. Chillum 07:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What you're doing, Mr. admin Chillum, is slander against an editor (directly implying that Eric Corbett "didn't learn at a young age"). I would drop this. (Not only is it slander, UNCIVIL, but wrong and even stupidly wrong.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What the fuck are you talking about? There are a lot of people who feel this way and bringing Eric up is just drama mongering. Stop trying to stir up shit where there is none. I have no beef with Eric and I am tired of people trying to stir shit up between us. I am not going to bite. Chillum 08:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read my post again as many times as necessary to understand "what the fuck [I'm] talking about". Thanks. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, civility is a basic social skill, it is not an undefinable concept. It is something children understand. If you think that is slander then do what you need to do but please do not come to my talk page and fling shit. Thank you and have a nice day. Chillum 08:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help

Could you take out the IP that is going wild on my user talk and several others? AIV is backlogged. Iselilja (talk) 08:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone got there before me. Chillum 08:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello ADMIN, Sitush is sexually harassing me

Hello ADMIN, Sitush is sexually harassing me Romana Busse (talk) 06:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are evidently a sock puppet. If there is any truth to your claim I imagine someone else will notice and do something about it. I suspect you are just trolling though, poorly. Chillum 07:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move & overwrite request

I would like to move two articles in accordance with Naming conventions (capitalization) guideline. Could you move & overwrite Jaffna Fort to Jaffna fort and Galle Fort to Galle fort? --Anton^Talk 15:04, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Fort is part of the name of the unique place I would say it is a proper noun. The lesson on proper nouns specifically mentions a place called Red Fort being a proper noun. Basically if it is part of the name of a unique place it is capitalized. Chillum 16:43, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay --Anton^Talk 17:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kuimoko/Reguyla

I recommend that the editor-in-question's alternate user talk-page privillages be revoked, for his own good. Also, AFAIK, he hasn't been socking/evading, so please don't reset his block/ban timer. GoodDay (talk) 06:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have always been of the opinion that blocking someone's talk page access obviates the preventative value of increasing the block. While the community has demanded six months of zero disruption I would not personally reset the block expiry unless there was a clear consensus from the community to do so. It seems so far the community is divided.

While I will revoke talk page access if it is further abused I will not alter the block length myself, another admin is welcome to act contrary to this without complaint by me. What I will do is start a discussion on ANI about a week before the block expires to examine if there really has been 6 months of zero disruption.

I appreciate your input and it has tempered my intended actions to some point. I am reminded by you that blocks are preventative and that blocking talk page access or increasing block length can be preventative but doing both is logically not solely preventative.

Thank you for you reasonable comment, I treasure them more and more as they become more scarce. Chillum 07:35, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upon learning of the faked story of Arbcom contacting his employer. I now suggest his block/ban be reset. His apparent refusal to stay away, is unacceptable. GoodDay (talk) 19:03, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The community is divided on resetting the block despite the terms being very clearly broken. I have given a warning that any further personal attacks will result in loss of talk page privileges. If the decision was solely up to me I would be consistent with the closing and reset the block, but the discussion about this is still underway. Chillum 19:06, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Understood :) GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It appears this matter has come to its natural conclusion. Chillum 20:38, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Changing your comments

Chillum, I actually hadn't changed your comments, I just linked them to the Disney song by the same name, so your comments weren't changed at all. It was just a joke, that's all, and no , I wouldn't change it back if you;ve already done so. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:40, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I understand it was a joke. But yes, you did change my comment by just linking to a disney song, so my comment was changed. The other user changed my meaning more but changing my text to link to a song changes the meaning also. It was a closing statement with sensitive users involved. Chillum 07:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NOT retiring

Sorry to put the burden of blocking me on you, but I'm Back! Wiki is kinda the only thing that keeps me sane. TF ^{{ Contribs }} 15:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No burden, no block. Sanity is nice, but be sure to explore the alternatives. Chillum 16:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A "Reason" is specifically required in the Cleanup notification.

According to the automatically provided template (a very user-friendly Wikipedia procedure which I applaud) a "Reason" is specifically required in the Cleanup notification. Do you deny that a reason is required? I have supplied the "Reason" as specifically required. Odereiugif (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is way to long. It is like a page of text. You can put a cleanup tag but be brief and make your main argument on the talk page.

Can I ask if you are new here or if you have previous experience with Wikipedia? Chillum 19:35, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to give a reason. The reason why a cleanup is required is because no government in the world uses Cagan´s definition. Surely you understand that. Why can I not state that in the reason part? Please tell me why I cannot state that the reason why the article needs a clean up is because no government uses Cagan´s definition? Please tell me why I am forbidden from stating that in the reason section as required by the Wikipedia template? Please, I sincerely ask you, why am I forbidden to state that in the reason section as I was specifically requested by Wikipedia? Please tell me why? Odereiugif (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you want to block me because I am giving the "REASON"? Great!! You know, I did not know I had to give a "REASON". I only found out about that because I was kindly informed by Wikipedia. Do you understand that? I was informed about it BY WIKIPEDIA. Now you want to block me for complying with, or doing what Wikipedia told me to do? That is not reasonable, is it. Please state directly to me in your words that you are going to block me because I supplied the reason for the cleanup as required by Wikipedia? Odereiugif (talk) 20:05, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you can get blocked for failing to understand basic concepts like discussion happens on the talk page not in the article. I have explained this to you to the point of exhaustion. I have given you my advice, and I have given you a warning. I will not engage you further but expect someone else to come along and tell you the exact same thing. Chillum 20:08, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, you admit that you deny me the opportunity to give a reason as I was specifically requested by Wikipedia? Yes? Odereiugif (talk) 20:10, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I said I will not engage you further I meant I am not going to talk to you anymore. I am leaving this to others to deal with. Chillum 20:12, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict × 2)What Chillum is saying is discussions about the content of an article belong on the corresponding talk page e.g. Talk:Hyperinflation. To get agreement on changing the text, you'll need to show the article doesn't accurately reflect what reliable sources say about it -- in other words, it's an exercise in research, not rhetoric. NE Ent 20:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically asked BY WIKIPEDIA to give a reason why the Hyperinflation article needs a cleanup. You all deny me the opportunity to give a reason. That is very strange. Odereiugif (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you so much against me giving a reason? Especially when I was asked by Wikipedia to give a reason. Please allow me to give that reason. That would be very kind of you. Thank you. Odereiugif (talk) 20:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've just blocked Odereiugif as a sockpuppet. —C.Fred (talk) 22:20, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I sort of suspected this user was not as inexperienced as their contribution history indicated. Chillum 22:22, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IPeditor99

Why did you revert and block User:IPeditor99 after he or she made that sagacious comment on Jimbo's talk? Your summary says "abuse of multiple accounts", but that doesn't seem to explain anything. Could you elaborate? Everyking (talk) 23:53, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a brand new account to criticize another user is sock puppetry through evasion of scrutiny. If this person wants to give Jimbo their opinion they can use their regular account. WP:SOCK and WP:SPA are relevant. Chillum 00:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"frend"

He's been at this for a while.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see. They are like pigeons, if you feed them they never leave. Chillum 04:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

He's only been on my ass for like a year though.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:32, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THat other IP is still at it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User Eating Glass Is Bad

Hello. I know that in the past you have been in contact with that user so I decided to stop by for a chat with you on that. You see, on November 16, 2014, he have nominated an article Samantha Hess for deletion. Can you be so kind to come and see if the article is indeed need to be deleted? Because from his talkpage I can tell that this nomination was just another way of him trolling here.--Mishae (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. After reviewing the AfD and how long it has been going on I have closed it as a consensus to delete. Without further evidence I do not see any indication the nomination was in bad faith. Chillum 21:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per what criteria? Like there was Business Insider as ref, isn't that enough for a notability considering 2 keeps which were quite detailed? Plus, can you make me a favor and put this article into my sandbox or its now impossible to do so?--Mishae (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability was the primary criteria mentioned. Exchanging physical contact for money is not exactly a new idea and those participating in the AfD were not convinced by arguments that this topic was notable. Chillum 03:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I put a copy in your sandbox per your request. Chillum 04:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes, notability was mentioned but it was before I added Business Insider. I believe that we should re establish the article per Business Insider refs which were not viewed by consensus. Your thought?--Mishae (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that the AfD got more than a normal amount of time by a significant amount and that there was a clear policy based consensus for deletion. As an admin it is not up to me to make up my mind if it should be deleted or not, it is my job to interpret consensus. Chillum 05:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. Because my feeling here was that maybe you just didn't read the whole article. Some admins do look at the article's talkpage, count how many people said Keep and Delete but I think that's not how consensus suppose to work. If a whole bunch of Delete sayers say that this article should be deleted per one event and users @DGG: and @Neonchameleon: say that WP:1EVENT doesn't apply here, we suppose to look at situation differently. Am I mistaken? If so where? I would like to apologize though in case if my previous sentences before this line sound uncivil, but you probably getting the point. Like, I put Business Insider refs this morning. Nobody bothered to look at them for some unknown to me reason. I assume though that people have thought that the article would not get better, but Business Insider refs are more RS than Daily Mail. I don't know maybe Business Insider refs don't establish notability? Like, not many article use them. What's your thought on Business Insider as an RS?--Mishae (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that someone it notable for cuddling for money not being up to our notability standards is an opinion, one that did not enjoy consensus. The idea that being noted solely for an unusual occupation is not covered by WP:1EVENT is an opinion, one that did not enjoy consensus. The only event covered for this person is their cuddling business and that is a reasonable policy based interpretation that enjoys consensus.

Both the view points of those seeking deletion and those seeking keeping were reasonable, but those seeking deletion held a significant majority. AfD is not a vote count but that simply means that those who make unreasonable arguments can be given less weight.

I am not going decide for myself if the article is worthy, that would make me a bad admin. That is not how one closes an AfD, we judge the consensus of others.

If you think I have closed this incorrectly I welcome the scrutiny of the community as always. I am not going to change my mind on this matter so you can take it to deletion review if you want to pursue the matter. Chillum 06:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mishae has taken Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samantha Hess to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 9#Samantha Hess but forgotten to notify you. Cunard (talk) 04:03, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for notifying me, I appreciate the courtesy. Chillum 08:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

New helperbot code

Thanks for polishing up the new helperbot code - I have updated helperbot5 and hopefully it works a lot better :) — JamesR (talk) 10:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great, let me know if there is a problem. I would have mentioned the updates earlier but the code is a bit messy and I was testing. It has worked without incident for over a month now for me. Chillum 11:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been running for a few hours with no edits. Not too sure what it could be but I will stay close to the log feed. — JamesR (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Never fear. Restarted it and instantly got this edit. Might be because it's brothers are too fast this evening ;) — JamesR (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Lightbreather#Request to remove 1-week unblock extension

Edits from Special:Contributions/69.16.147.185 are very similar to Special:Contributions/91.232.124.60; that IP was edit warring against Lightbreather. Peter James (talk) 21:55, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you are trying to tell me. Chillum 21:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That there was already an editor using a proxy IP address to remove information about IP addresses and possible links to accounts associated with the same arbitration case, before Lightbreather was blocked, also that both IPs only removed content, and used edit summaries containing unlinked shortcuts - because of the similarity these could be the same person (and not Lightbreather). Peter James (talk) 22:49, 13 December 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.