User talk:HighInBC/Archive 56

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.

Requesting block for 94.98.228.105.

Hello. Can you please block 94.98.228.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) for several? The user vandalizes several unrelated articles by linking them without any source. Most significant that I note are for MetroTV, The Filipino Channel), Spacetoon (Indonesia), and Samanyolu TV. Most probably the Indonesian vandal, although the IP is based in Saudi Arabia. Please action ASAP. Thanks! PS: The user has already been reported to WP:AIV - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 04:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't understand the subject enough to recognized this as obvious vandalism. You may try at WP:AIV. Chillum 04:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oldid and Diff templates

Re your edit creating the "famously" section in Talk:I know it when I see it, I noticed you linked to a past version of the article using an external link, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_know_it_when_I_see_it&diff=640326482&oldid=626201819], rather than the more compact oldid template method, {{oldid|I know it when I see it|626201819|oldid template method}}. Also note my use of the template:diff in this message. I hope you find this useful; if not, never mind. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Handy templates. Thanks. Chillum 07:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(by talk page stalker) Yes, they are very handy – just be sure to get the "prev", "next" or "cur" correct if used as the #2 parameter/argument, and Happy New Year to both of you and yours! – Paine 18:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

India Against Corruption

Just to note that I just blocked Livewotans who you welcomed as an obvious India Against Corruption sock. Dougweller (talk) 06:53, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suspected as much. I said hello and put them on my watch list. Good catch. Chillum 06:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They are a real pain. One of my colleague's now put the website on the blacklist. And they are more than just a pain for some of our editors. Dougweller (talk) 13:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For a group against corruption they have no compunction about abusing the rules to get what they want. One could almost say they are engaging in corrupt behavior. If one cannot be true to their own self then they have already lost. Chillum 17:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WOW!

@Chillum: this IP character is a real piece of work! I have argued points before but it usually turns out the one of us finally understands the others point of view. Even after I clearly pointed out the WP:PEACOCK rule they still wanted to argue? You can't reach people like this and that makes for WP:BULLYING and violates WP:CIVILITY which they clearly seem to disregard. Strange seeing that they are such a guideline nazi! I think I am going to give myself a Barnstar for this war! LOL --Canyouhearmenow 19:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some look at the evidence and make up their mind, others make up their mind and then see only evidence that supports it. This happens a lot in content disputes. The fact that we have had a discussion and are coming to a very clear consensus means the IP will either have to accept it or will end up blocked. It is like talking to a wall though. Chillum 19:55, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just let me know if you need my help.--Canyouhearmenow 20:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would surmise that 46.37.55.80, 82.33.71.205 and 200.83.101.225 are the same person changing IPs over time. Chillum 21:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I looked the IP addresses up and they are in the same location. Makes you wonder if maybe there is a sock puppet issue?--Canyouhearmenow 00:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this is the person in question: Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP. Chillum 00:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw that earlier. When we were going around in circles I started looking at the history and contribs. I do have to say that some of their edits are legit and very on track with policy. It just seems that when he/she gets a burr under their saddle that's when they take off on these behavioral tantrums. That in itself violates several guidelines which makes their contributions on this platform a bit of a strange paradox wouldnt you agree?--Canyouhearmenow 00:20, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is likely that is why the user rotates IPs instead of keeping an account. Chillum 00:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We may want to move over to the administrators board because I see that the IP we were having an issue with is not on that board giving other admins a fit. I simply don't get it with this character? They simply do not get it! [1] --Canyouhearmenow 02:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was my last attack page CSD correct

I was just wondering if my last CSD, that attack page nomination was correct.NetworkOP (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And, I know I am new, but do you think I should continue with NPP. I learnt about it at UNI when doing a case study on wikipedia's infrastructure. If you want me to continue with NPP, leave a massage on my talk page. Else, tell me to stop.NetworkOP (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late response. If it was the one I deleted then yes it was correct. I have not looked at your others. Chillum 18:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Best known for" / "Famous"

I take it you're aware of Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Best known for IP? This has been going on for years, his edits are generally good, or at least within policy, but the edit warring and block evasion and resistance to register an account makes everything utterly awkward to deal with. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling this was a long term case. There is nothing I can do as an admin since I am currently involved in a content dispute with this IP. Chillum 23:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's going to have to be a thread on ANI then. (Not from me, I'm off to bed after checking a few GA reviews) Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 23:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also notice that @Ohnoitsjamie: unblocked this user based on the promise "I would be delighted to be entirely civil and not to edit war with anyone ever again." In the long term abuse case @Yngvadottir: mentions this promise as the basis for unblocking as well.

It would seem this was a platitude to get unblocked. Chillum 23:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User talk:Androidyl

I'm glad that the issue got sorted out. For the record, I would have discouraged unblocking. (I'm more pessimistic, I suppose.) ... discospinster _talk 18:51, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am generally willing to consult with the blocking admin when a lot of time has passed since disruption and consider the standard offer if there is no objection. However in this case the user was clearly being disingenuous. Thanks for your response. Chillum 18:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I may disagree with your conclusions re:inclusion, but your AfD nomination for Financial astrology was the best written and most in-line with actual WP policy I have seen for a very long time. Thank you for treating all topics in the Wikipedia spirit! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 15:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is always a pleasure to disagree with someone in a reasonable fashion. Chillum 21:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Financial Astrology

Don't worry, I know how you feel, the idea of Financial Astrology is beyond stupid, I guess the next best thing is to find scientific studies disproving it, and adding it to a critics section of the article. Would hate for someone to learn about this topic on Wikipedia and then start using or believing in it in real life. When I feel up to it, I might do just that. War wizard90 (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it should be a brief mention in the astrology article. I don't think I will get consensus for that though. Chillum 21:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Toq100gou

Can you handle this too because people don't seem to understand WP:BANPOL and WP:3RRNO.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It appears they understood well enough to decline the report. Speaking of not understanding I don't understand why you don't just wait for someone else to respond to these things instead of responding yourself. I have said this before and now I will say it again in bold and all caps: IF YOU TAKE THE BAIT EVERY TIME THEY WILL KEEP TROLLING YOU.

I don't like using all caps, but you seem to not hear me the first several times I mentioned that. Stop feeding the trolls, it is getting disruptive. Chillum 18:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfA tally bot

Hello! Are you the one who maintains Template:RfA tally ? I saw your name in a lot of the discussion there. I just wanted to call to somebody's attention that the bot seems to have a malfunction or something. In the two current RfAs (COI notice: one of them mine), it stopped updating sometime earlier today, and the count it is displaying is not current. Is this normal or a problem? Or is there someone else I should be asking? Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is not my bot. I tried to contact the operator a while back, but I was not successful. Chillum 19:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. Sorry to bother you. --MelanieN (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2015 (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.