User talk:HighInBC/Archive 68

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.

New block evasion on Talk:Serbs of Croatia

IP editor 5.144.98.84 has restarted the semi-edit request that was previously discussed. Their IP comes from the same general location as the previous ones. Per your request, I wanted to let you know. I have also rejected the request. Thanks. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. HighInBC 15:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Stabila711, it's obvious you just carried out the request by this admin to deny my edit request. Your reason that you do not see the consensus in the only RfC that is closed on the very same page, a few scrolls above is really pathetic. I hope you realize that you carried out a request that is really against the whole principle you stand as an admin. I hope you realize that and that you apologize. You've seen my response where I point out to the consensus, and you ignore it. Which reason do you have to deny a request to implement a consensus established in a RfC, closed by another admin. You haven't even contacted the admin who closed the RfC, so that says everything about you not seeing the consensus. Please go to the talk page and look at the closure of the RfC that was done by another admin and reconsider my request. We can even contact the admin that closed the RfC, but don't just carry out unreasonable request only because they come from another admin. This admin is clearly in break of his rights and he makes deeply immoral acts. He is denying the implementation of a valid consensus, and he is helping another user in his disruptive behavior. He even offered him to restrict any page he wishes in the below section. I think that says all about this admin. I hope you realize your mistake. 194.226.8.147 (talk) 17:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

MOS:IDENTITY is being revisited: How should Wikipedia refer to transgender individuals before and after their transition?

You are being contacted because you contributed to a recent discussion of MOS:IDENTITY that closed with the recommendation that Wikipedia's policy on transgender individuals be revisited.

Two threads have been opened at the Village Pump:Policy. The first addresses how the Manual of Style should instruct editors to refer to transgender people in articles about themselves (which name, which pronoun, etc.). The second addresses how to instruct editors to refer to transgender people when they are mentioned in passing in other articles. Your participation is welcome. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

I thought we already settled that with a giant RFC that had a clear result... I will check it out. HighInBC 15:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Asdisis socks

This one as well. He is using countless IPs and accunts. FkpCascais (talk) 11:33, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

This guy really wants to rewrite history. At this point I am willing to semi-protect whichever pages he is being most disruptive on. Let me know where that is. HighInBC 15:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Dear lord what happend here? OK HighInBC, this user is totally obsessed, he uses several accounts often even impersonating someone else agreeing with himself. I lost the account already of the IP adresses he uses, but ever since he said that he will be using different IPs and no one will be able to stop him. I am also suspicious about the IPs alegedly opposing him, all I trust are the establshed accounts. Regarding his last socks, they are all the IPs found today and yesterday at this dscussions: Talk:Serbs of Croatia, Talk:Novak Djokovic, Talk:Yugoslavia, Talk:Austria-Hungary and User talk:FkpCascais. This is becoming socking of monumental dimensions. FkpCascais (talk) 01:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais: I have semi-protected Talk:Serbs of Croatia for a week, it was the only one that currently has continued block evasion since your last message. Let me know if they become active on the other talk pages. I consider it likely, however do with to minimize the amount of active protection. HighInBC 18:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Very persistent IP

HighInBC I will consider to report you if try to do that. You very well know what is the procedure to deal with socks. You also very well know that you can't say someone is a sock without any misconduct present. I do not exhibit any misconduct. I opened a request for edit and other editors agrees with my suggestion and the RfC I opened was successful. In fact the only present misconduct are personal attack this user is making against me. You are also exhibiting a misconduct by helping this user to deny the implementation of a consensus on the Serbs of Croatia article. You are very aware of my request , and you denied it without any reason provided. You then asked another admin to deny my second request. You are working directly against a valid consensus and that's no way an admin should behave. Even If I were (and I am not) a sock, your actions are shameful. If you try to restrict the Serbs of Croatia article, that will be the final straw. You along with other editor who is calling me a sock in several discussions instead of making a report, will be reported. Also your open hand offer to another editor to protect any page he wishes is against the rules and you should know that. Especially since he is trying to ban everyone who doesn't agree with him, not just me. Go and look at the discussion on Serbs of Croatia article. Not only that is against the rules, but it is highly immoral to let the other editor who is trying to block numerous people have the power to protect the article. Especially this user who is discussing in bad faith. I'm warning you in good faith to come to you senses. If you protect the article you will be reported because you assist another user in his disruptive behavior.194.226.8.147 (talk) 17:17, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Seems they're having another sock (registered account): look at [1]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.19.175 (talk) 22:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

That unfortunately is a legit user that doesn't know what hit him, but I continued his discussion because a POV pushing user tried to do the same thing to me and another user of Serbs of Croatia article. I'm glad I brought that to the attention of other editors who agreed with me. 188.242.144.157 (talk) 22:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

A legit blocked sockpuppet user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.19.175 (talk) 22:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Not really. However you, even if you are not a sock, you exhibit misconduct. You are not allowed to change other people's comments. You could be banned only for that, not even going into whether you are a sock. I'm not being accused by any of other long time experienced editors that I'm a sock, not am I being accused of any misconduct. They all agree with my suggestion and FkpCascais and you are the only one who are disruptive. There are at least 5-6 editors in all of the discussion I've participated in the last month, and no one of them complained on my behavior nor anyone said I'm some king of a sock. That leaves you dear IP the only one who suggests that along with the FkpCascais. So I'm sorry if I jump the gun. 188.242.144.157 (talk) 22:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Not really - time will show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.105.19.175 (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Look, as long I'm editing in good faith you can't even open a SPI. As I said, I'm being supported in virtually every discussion I opened in the last month or so, only this one user constantly wants to block me. How do you explain that other experienced users didn't have any complaint towards me, but supported my suggestions as valid? I'm sorry this admin doesn't see that only one of all editors that participated in now 4-5 discussions with me had complained and without any good reason. He simply said, yep that's him, let's block him, and this admin believed him. Well I hope he reconsiders because he is helping a disruptive editor and that's not just my word, but also the word of at least one of that experienced editors that participated 2 discussions along with me and FkpCascais. I know my ip changing makes some suspicion, but what can I say to you. Go and complain to someone who invented these things. I for sure haven't. Everyone's ip change. In fact, when someone has the same ip for a long time it can indicate he is using a proxy. I'm afraid that if I make an account it will be blocked, like the account of Recihal who has no connections to me. 188.242.144.157 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, so you are versed in changing IPs matters? A good sign of a sockpuppet. --77.105.19.175 (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

No I'm not. 188.242.144.157 (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Happy Canadian thanksgiving folks. HighInBC 01:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course Im not supporting myself. I have the support of all senior editors. You are the only one who is trying to block me. Not just me, but others as well. As other senior editors have confirmed, you are not discussing in good faith. 194.152.253.46 (talk) 07:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.15.178.97 (talk)

---

Here you go, dear admin. A clear disruptive act by this user. Why do you choose to support him in this clear disruptions? An experienced editor who closed the RfC opens a discussion to tell about the consensus and this disruptive editor is directly misleading the discussion so to prevent the consensus to be applied. Even in this post he is making personal attacks on my behalf, like I by myself "established" the consensus. Please remove the restriction from the talk page. I'm unable to say that the RfC followed a discussion which yielded no consensus. Even if the first discussion yielded a consensus, which it had not, then the RfC which followed would still be the present standing consensus. I would like to ask that disruptive editor to point to the present consensus, but I can't because you restricted the page. 176.111.41.12 (talk) 19:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

You are getting your RFC reviewed, don't come to me if you don't like the response. I looked at that diff and I don't see a single inaccurate word. You just are not very good at sock puppetry, you are very obvious. You are like someone hiding with half their body sticking out going "You can't see me!". These silly games are disruptive to the encyclopedia and we have no intention in engaging with you in your revisionist version of history. HighInBC 20:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Reviewed? Where? 176.111.41.12 (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Right where you yourself linked too: Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Clarification_of_RFC. HighInBC 21:11, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

?? This isn't a review. Apart from that you are not able to read and understand, you as an admin should know that a review's of a formally closed RfC's are not done in such manner. 176.111.41.12 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry my understanding it not up to par with your perception of the world, that must be awkward for you. HighInBC 21:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I was pinging the editor to deal with this misunderstanding, yours or mine. You would have done the same if you were acting in good faith, instead of making this mild insult in the meantime. I don't think this behavior is decent of and admin. 176.111.41.12 (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I am familiar with your opinion of admins, I have read your various posts at ANI. I have no interest in this RFC one way or another, so why would I contact Albino about it? You are the one interesting in this RFC, and it is getting attention. HighInBC 21:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Sadly it looks like I am being dragged into this farther than I would like. The section I opened was a clarification of the RFC, not a review. AlbinoFerret 21:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I also feel I'm being dragged. It was obvious that that is not a review. 176.111.41.12 (talk) 21:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I meant review as in "examine or assess", the word is accurate. I think our friendly IP is splitting hairs, the RFC is being looked at. HighInBC 21:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand, and just want you to know in case your not aware that "review" has specific meaning when dealing with RFC's. AlbinoFerret 21:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Do we? I know Wikipedia:Administrators/RfC for an Admin Review Board was proposed and rejected. I thought that "reviewing" and RFC essentially involved looking it over, do we have a more formal process? HighInBC 21:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

This still doesn't excuse your insult on my behalf. You now made another mild insult and/or discredit attempt by putting this whole section under "persistent IP" title. How is that going to look if I made a report against you and provide a "persistent IP" section of admins talk page as a proof of your behavior? Who's going to bother to read it? You also made me bother AlbinoFerret again, for no reason at all. I for sure am being presented as "persistent", the exact thing the disruptive editor is suggesting. I wouldn't be "persistent" if you were acting in good faith and accept an established consensus. Why do I need to be "persistent" to apply the established consensus to the article? You are the one along with the other disruptive editor who prevents that, for whatever reason, since you haven't participated in the discussion itself, yet you claim you have no interest in this.176.111.41.12 (talk) 21:47, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "Reviewing" an RfC usually means a thread on WP:AN, according to this. See this for an example. Kingsindian ♝♚ 23:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

But IP, may I ask you how are you planing to do anything if you are facing 15 reliable sources saying "Tuesday was sunny day in LA" with zero sources saying otherwise and just one souurce saying "John was having a sunny day in LA on Tuesday"? Yes, you have a bunch of people not liking the fact that it was sunny that day in LA, and you all prefer to say that it was just Johnny having sun adding a subliminal tone of suspicion on John like if he was some crazy guy and who know how weather was actually that day in LA, but that cant do much for you without sources. What is your point? FkpCascais (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

We already went trough that in the RfC which is being closed now. I shouldn't have to enforce that by being "persistent". I bugged the editor who had done the closure to confirm that my request is according to the consensus and he had confirmed that is true. I really don't see any valid reason for you to object, nor for this admin protecting the page because I asked a consensus to be applies. Kingsindian maybe you could share an opinion on this. I feel I'm being dragged by this admin and FkpCascais. FkpCascais, just face it that you "lost" the RfC. 176.111.41.12 (talk) 23:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

IP, you are more than welcome to make a report against me, I am ready to defend me calling you persistent and anything else I have said. In fact I have added a "Very" for you to use as evidence against me. I am really not sure why you are filling up my archives, I have no interest in this RFC of yours. I will say though that if you really did have consensus then you would have no problem getting your edit implemented, any autoconfirmed editor can edit that article it does not even have to be an admin. HighInBC 00:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.15.176.6 (talk) 17:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Two quick notes

1. I don't think I can write note #2 in haiku, so I guess I'll have to get second priority.
2. User talk:166.171.121.70 — this is clearly a Kumioko address (check the IP's fourth edit), although given his demonstrated ability to change addresses, sockblocks for the two IPs wouldn't help.

Nyttend (talk) 11:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Fairly likely I would say. Not much to do other than RBI. HighInBC 15:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case proposed decision posted

Hi HighInBC. A decision has been proposed in the Palestine-Israel articles 3 arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 20:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk))

Interesting. HighInBC 21:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Asdisis

Here editing article, along with comments clerly his. FkpCascais (talk) 00:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

AN

I believe you if you say you know him for having a long history of good closes, but what happend there is the strangest situation possible. It is a highly politicized issue, however rules are being crushed in order to get my sourced content out. The funiest is the use of the excuse how the content of my sources dealing with the loss of constituent nation status of Serbs in Croatia is irrelevant when in fact what more relevant for Serbs in Croatia can be that their status in the constitution? Dont know what to say, I have gathered 20 reliable surces and added the content with extreme caaution to comply with neutrality and to be as fair as it can. I coudnt do better. I will really like some admin to review it, sorry but I dont trust Albino, he didnt even knew if the case was about contituent or constitutional, once asked he escaped, dont trust him at all despite what you said. Where can I ask for help for a review? FkpCascais (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not going to take any sides in this content dispute, if I do than I cannot act as an administrator in this area and this area needs uninvolved administrators. Please remember that reliable sources need interpretation and that we interpret through the lens of consensus. While the block evading IP has been very aggravating take care not to express your frustration at good editors who simply see things another way.

The RFC is being reviewed by administrators at WP:AN. Everyone there is trying to help the project including Albino, an adversarial stance against good faith editors is only likely to sour people's opinion on your position. Keep up the good work and don't shoot yourself in the foot. HighInBC 16:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

An user came there and ended up lying in the ugliest fashion. This is serios matter. Say nothing to me, just see what the sources say and what she wrote there. Ugly stuff I am facing, WP regarding serios politcal matters doesnt have the strenght to deal with them. FkpCascais (talk) 01:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Brief Editorial Review

Hello HighInBC! Hope you've been having a good week. I wanted to request a quick review of my contributions for any issues that you may see, whenever you have a chance. Thank you --JustBerry (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Whenever you get a chance, no rush. If you don't have time, that's fine too. I just wanted to check-in; that's all. --JustBerry (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you not have time? --JustBerry (talk) 22:47, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

It's on my list of things to do. HighInBC 04:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of User talk:RjwilmsiBot

Would you clarify re deletion of User talk:RjwilmsiBot page please? Page should have redirected to my own talk page, which I thought it was, though I now can't see page history to verify. Thanks Rjwilmsi 15:04, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That is odd. It seems the tool I used has a bug in it. Sorry about that I have restored it. I will try to figure out what went wrong. HighInBC 15:09, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I have filed a bug report. HighInBC 15:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

They have identified and fixed the bug: [2]. Thanks for helping identify this @Rjwilmsi:. HighInBC 15:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Concerned

I am seriously concerned that User:Sandra opposed to terrorism is not mature enough to edit here. Maybe you know this editor better than I and can assuage my worries. -- {{u|BullRangifer}} { Talk } 19:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you point to something specific? HighInBC 20:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Never mind I see. HighInBC 20:07, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Has the word "mature" changed its meaning? Eric Corbett 21:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

The edit in question certainly showed a lack of good judgement. HighInBC 21:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Relisting Smart File System for deletion

Hi, sorry to ping you about something you had no involvement with, but I thought you might provide some insight. This article is up for deletion and has just been relisted for the second time, even though "a clear majority are in favor of keeping" (quote from the first relisting). The second relisting goes as far as suggesting that it's just giving "keepers" "one more chance", i.e. the article would otherwise be deleted.

I thought that, when there is no consensus to delete (and here there clearly is no consensus to delete, and a rough consensus to keep, however "local"), articles should at least not get deleted. Even one person who was quite skeptical about keeping it has changed their mind and !voted "keep".

The first relister claimed there were no policy-based arguments for keeping, but I see policies and guidelines being mentioned by the "keepers", if only to suggest that they may not always apply (that is a policy-based argument too, as the policies/guidelines themselves state that).

A "deleter" (one of the two deleters) says "Doesn't pass notability criteria, and searches turned up nothing to suggest it does". Is this a policy-based argument, when in fact, other people have been searching and including sources? They then claim the arguments to keep were "well-through out" but not "policy based". How is that even possible, and even if true, wouldn't that highlight a flaw in policies?

Doesn't it verge on gaming the system when an article for deletion has a pretty clear "keep" consensus, yet keeps being relisted to make sure, until at some point the balance is swayed towards the deletionist side?

LjL (talk) 13:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It is fairly normal for an admin to look at an AfD and decide to ask for more discussion. Extending the discussion does not favour one side or the other. User:Black Kite has a solid reputation for interpreting consensus, and I really don't think they have a vested interest in a particular outcome. I don't see a pretty clear consensus to keep or otherwise, and don't think there is any gaming going on. Consensus if determined through the lens of policy and counting votes will often give a different result than a policy based analysis.

An opportunity has been given to address the policy based concerns presented, it is a good thing. Any closing admin would be correct to give little weight to arguments that take the position that certain subjects should have relaxed standards.

User:Swarm put it well when it was extended last time: "The requirement for policy-based arguments merely represents the greater community consensus. A local consensus that is not rooted in community consensus cannot be interpreted as a valid consensus. So, while a clear majority are in favor of keeping, I don't see policy-based arguments in response to the policy-based arguments in favor of deletion. Those in favor of keeping need to make a better argument or their comments may be discarded.". That fact still remains. HighInBC 14:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It's an opinion though, not a fact... the "keep" arguments bring policy as much into cause as the "delete" arguments do, if not more so. Policy is being interpreted differently, and, at best, there is no consensus on their interpretation with respect to deleting the article, and I quote WP:NOCONSENSUS: "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, page, image, or other content being kept." LjL (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Those demanding a demonstration of notability are making a policy based argument. Arguments that compare to other articles, suggest that it has inherited notability from its parent company, or to relax the notability requirements are not based in policy and in fact run contrary to policy. A local consensus at AfD cannot override the much greater consensus of policy.

I have explained how consensus at AfD works, as has Swarm and Black Kite. You don't have to take our word for it. However any admin worth their salt will close it with a similar reasoning so my advice is to take this time to demonstrate notability as our policy requires of a subject. Also consider the possibility that this filesystem may not be notable, and may not be suitable for an encyclopdia. HighInBC 15:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I will just point out that there is no "parent company": this was an independently-developed filesystem, which was later adopted by three operating systems made by separate companies/groups because of its open-source nature. Anyway, I find it a shame that articles that can be useful to Wikipedia readers and took work from Wikipedia editors and can't possibly cause any harm to Wikipedia need to be deleted because of overarching policy that is meant to be flexible but is treated as inflexible. LjL (talk) 15:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. We reject all kinds of information that may be useful to some people. Our standard isn't "is it useful", our standard is "is it encyclopedic".

If you can demonstrate that it is notable then do so, but can't open the door for non-notable software. Do you have any idea how much non-notable software there is? We could fill a Wikipedia with just that. HighInBC 15:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how cheap server space is? Wikipedia is patently not the same as the Encyclopedia Britannica or other paper works like that - in very many ways (are we so sure those encyclopedias wouldn't include more information if it weren't impractical for them to to do?). Besides, it's not like the article completely lacks source, including book sources, however in-passing, and the oft-requested "computer magazine" sources. Anyway, I guess we may drop the inclusionist debate, it would never end. LjL (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Our inclusion standards on not based on concerns about hard drive space. HighInBC 16:29, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Then what's the point of mentioning there is "much" non-notable software? Whether it's one piece or one billion shouldn't make any difference. I'd also say that a filesystem that's been included in three operating systems and is available on more isn't on the same level as the next piece of shareware, but whatever. LjL (talk) 16:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

You came here for my insight and I gave it to you. You are welcome to disagree. HighInBC 18:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi!

Thanks for the good faith reverting of the trolling by User:Poker chip on my talk page. I have restored it, since having these items at hand has proven useful in the past when a certain tick by a new user jogs my memory. No need to respond to this, just letting you know why I reverted. μηδείς (talk) 21:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your kind words about my Quality improvement efforts to Wikipedia, in your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise.

A couple updates:

1. The discussion closed as Keep.

2. The Wikipedia article The Last Voyage of the Starship Enterprise is now rated Good Article quality.

Thanks again ever so much for acknowledging my efforts to improve the Quality of articles on Wikipedia in this manner.

— Cirt (talk) 03:22, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Kitten! YAY! HighInBC 03:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Tee hee hee. I want one for real but perhaps at another point soon in life. :) — Cirt (talk) 03:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 03:55, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. HighInBC 04:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

FkpCascais ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

I can't control this anymore, and he's starting removing tags again and even my comments on the talk page.

LjL (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

I will keep an eye on it. HighInBC 00:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors arbitration case opened

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Vested contributors/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 01:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Vested contributors retitled Arbitration enforcement 2

You may opt-out of future notifications related to this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Notification list. You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by November 5, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. For this case, there will be no Workshop phase. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Pity, the first title got far more to the root of the issue than this one. HighInBC 15:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Picki u dusa listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Picki u dusa. Since you had some involvement with the Picki u dusa redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Place Clichy (talk) 10:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

RfD created at your request. That way, we will see if calling an entire nation pussies and tramps is offensive, or useful to the encyclopaedia. Thank you for your input. Place Clichy (talk) 10:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is Bosnian for "Pick a Soul" or "Picture of soul" or something like that. Hard to tell. Thanks for taking this up at RfD, they will sort it out. HighInBC 15:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Flower of Life

Since you were involved in the closing of the last AfD of Flower of Life, you should know that someone unilaterally moved that page to Flower of Life (manga), and another editor (Tom Ruen) created a disambiguation page at Flower of Life (disambiguation), which links to the recreated page Flower of Life (geometry) on the presumably non-notable geometrical figure. I guess Tom Ruen decided no consensus was needed following this discussion, and it doesn't appear he went to WP:DRV as suggested. clpo13_(talk) 21:37, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Tom Ruen didn't move Flower of Life (geometry) to mainspace. That was Disc303 (talk · contribs). clpo13_(talk) 05:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to this person about this yet? HighInBC 05:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Asdisis again

... on Serbs of Croatia. Can you please semi-protect the page? Cause he is fighting to insert his POV already twice, see edit-summary. The issue there is over, LjL made the changes and finished the matter, now he is wanting more, you remember, he just keeps on and on. BTW, any news on how and what to do with him? Regards, FkpCascais (talk) 23:39, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

It looks like another admin go there before I could. Should be good till May, unless they make an account. If they make an account it should be obvious enough though. HighInBC 05:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Apologies....

.... for you having to step in to the silliness. Your action was appreciated. – SchroCat (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No problem. I am glad you can appreciate that I am capable of restraint. HighInBC 17:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow!

I was browsing through the Bureaucrat noticeboard, and saw your sig there. It was a long time ago, but when I was a teenager and first created my account at wikipedia, you switched my school's IP block to a softblock so I could login and edit at school. This small action most certainly helped me to continue working on Wikipedia, to this day! For some reason, your username stuck in my head.

I just wanted to say congrats! I don't know if you were a crat then, but you must have been an admin, and I can imagine all the hard work that entails. My edits haven't been major, and I've been mostly lurking in the background, making small edits here and there, but I would really love to become an admin at some point, so I'll need to get down to business and start making more major, constructive edits, especially around my area of expertise (electronics engineering).

Thanks again, and remember that even small actions can have great reactions! Air ♠ Combat _What's^{up, dog?} 13:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Glad to have been of service. HighInBC 15:41, 9 November 2015 (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.