User talk:HighInBC/Archive 37

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.

ANI notice

Hello, Chillum. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive_editing_by_Off2riorob_after_multiple_extensions_of_good_faith. Thank you. --Cirt (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL

I was wondering whether you thought that I'd broked the said guideline here; another user seems to think so. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not the most helpful thing to say. Perhaps it was not your intent, but saying "Some Appreciated WP:COMMONSENSE" could be interpreted by some as implying that BlackAce48 lacked common sense.

The fact is that a brand new user diving into AfD is 9 times out of 10 a reoccurring troublemaker and that BlackAce48 was very justified in taking a second look. I am glad that you are the exception to the rule. However innocent you are you are going to draw attention to yourself by doing things that new users rarely do. ^Chillum 22:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protest

Relax, turn off your mind and float downstream......

Chillum, I wish to protest at your intervention on my page re anti-(some)nationalisms campaigner (and Admin) Moreschi. His attack on me went unremarked by his fellow Admins. His refusal to retract went unremarked by his fellow Admins. His sneering response went unremarked by his fellow Admins. His suggestion that he can ignore Wiki civility policies went unremarked by his fellow Admins. But my defence brings you into play in seconds. Explain please. Sarah777 (talk) 23:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are less disruptive ways to deal with situations than how you are going about it("Check it out HERE! 'Cos he can't handle it THERE!", really is that helpful at all?). Clearly you are not accomplishing anything productive in your discussion with Moreschi. Instead of going back and forth with tempers flared please seek greater scrutiny by uninvolved people or let it go. ^Chillum 00:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done my temper-control thingy. All is cool - but I wish you'd intervene with the originators rather than the responders. I will leave you the pic. Sarah777 (talk) 00:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah, I have been speaking to Moreschi about civility, you should know that being on that users that page so much. I am not about to give a second reprimand to the same user right after having to deal with your words. Now I am asking again that you either let this matter go, or seek scrutiny of people not so involved. ^Chillum 00:16, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is let go and forgotten - I didn't realise you'd spotted the other editors incivility. No need for any further scrutiny unless I'm attacked at some ANI thread that I'm not even involved. Thanks for putting in a word. Regards Sarah777 (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate it. ^Chillum 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dugout (smoking)

This article and the related AfD might interest you. It looks like you're mentioned? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:37, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't pipe technology interesting? ^Chillum 04:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe technology? Indeed. I always find it a wonder that sink drains and toilet flushing work as well as they do. The technology sure beats outhouses and trenches.

As far as dugouts go, I'm more familiar with the canoe style. It seems like the smoking device article could use some work. Are there other sources than Dangerous drugs: an easy-to-use reference for parents and professionals? Maybe a merge to a broader subject, bong? pipe (smoking)? or something like that would be best? ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:23, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They are all just a Series of tubes. ^Chillum 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I usually unwatchlist a user talk page if I hadn't had any interaction with the user for a few days, but your talk page is just to interesting to pass up lately. I was able to add an image to this article, although I haven't used the thing for years as I became concerned about using pipes that contain aluminum. Beeblebrox (talk) 09:02, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generic vandal ANI Vcrmaster; time to hide in the corner...

Re: This. I have the most stale sense of humor, I entirely confess, and my last comment there wasn't at all intended as a jab at you in any way. The irony of a swift vandal user block while IPs can head out for a drink after? At least I hadn't seen it quite like that before. ...And of course the IPs could by dynamic or they might be separated but 50 other possibilities, etc.; That IP blocks are generally frowned upon unless something is ongoing at the time of report since it might mean a block to any other person who might end up with the same dynamic IP 30 seconds later. At least I think that's what the all the ANI and AIVs I read almost daily tell me. See, I even try to evade when I can't focus. I'm truly sorry for the subjective nature of my posting, and if I didn't have anything but the best of intentions I can't imagine why I'd wililngly spend my Saturday night at ANI :) Cheers~ ♪ daTheisen (talk) 06:03, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. It is true that IPs by their nature change owners, while usernames are the same person each time. This does lead to some invulnerability, however that is why we have the rollback button. No offense taken, ambiguity of words is a common problem in all text environments. ^Chillum 06:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution

I may be wrong, but I thought that dispute resolution is the place to discuss issues with other editors, as I said, this user has repeatedly acted in this manner and the retraction of this one comment is not resolving my issues with the user. I don't think the issue is resolved at all, I opened the thread as I wanted to resolve the issues and closing it prematurely is not helping at all. Off2riorob (talk) 06:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Gerardw said it better than I can. Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is about deescalating a situation, not dealing with long term patterns or taking action. See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#Overview for more details on what that page is and is not for. ^Chillum 16:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did read the page and imo that was the correct place for my issue, I wanted what was written at the top of the page there...

"This noticeboard is an early step in the Wikipedia dispute resolution process. It is an informal non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors. Uninvolved editors are encouraged to give their perspective, advice, offer informal mediation."

As it was I didn't get any of that and still have the issues unresolved now. I objected to the early closure and you closed it again with a message letting me know not to open it again, this user has repeatedly been commenting in a bad faith way against me and repeatedly referencing my block record without cause or reason, where do you suggest I take my concerns to, that would have been better than that page? Off2riorob (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did you continue reading to the section titled When to avoid filing an alert? It says <to avoid filing an alert> "if you're filing a report to complain about the same issue that was already closed here. If this is the case, then please read why that report was closed and if appropriate consider taking your issue to a relevant noticeboard." This links to Wikipedia:DR#Ask_for_help_at_a_relevant_noticeboard. So, you could take it to more appropriate noticeboard. There are also several other steps at WP:DR beyond going to a noticeboard. WQA is not about handling long term patterns of incivility, it is about deescalating a current issue. My advice would be to leave it until if and when it happens again. ^Chillum 17:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this kind of comment ok? This comment was just the straw that broke the camels back, I can go get you more of the same style of comments if you want, I don't imagine you do...

"Here again I am moved to strongly protest the rapidity of changes here. We in the U.S. are in the midst of a major holiday weekend. Many of us here do not have the time to sort through the changes being made to this article by two previously blocked users"

IMO it is not ok at all, if I am wrong then tell me, if I am correct then please point it out to Justafax. Off2riorob (talk) 17:11, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look... the user retracted it. What exactly is left to point out? Do you want a pound of flesh? If you ask a user to retract an uncivil comment and they do so then that is a good thing, you have accomplished the goal of impressing on the user it is not appropriate. I am an administrator, not a referee, and even if I was I would say the situation is resolved. You are welcome to take this to an appropriate venue, but you are likely to be told "The user retracted the comment, what else do you want?" ^Chillum 17:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want any flesh, is it ok to make comments like that? If it is I will accept the comments if it is wrong then I will report such comments, in your opinion is it ok to have said this comment I have cited here? Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I will say it again, "I am not a referee". It does not matter if the comment is right or wrong, you expressed that you found it offensive and the other user retracted it. That is what happens in a happy little society. If the person were defending the comment then there may be a matter for an administrator to look at, but it was retracted. Why did you ask the user to retract the comment if you are not going to to satisfied by the user doing so? I really cannot figure out what you want from this situation. ^Chillum 17:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am here discussing it with you because you re closed the thread after I reopened it as I simply wanted to sort it out in a neutral place with the other editor, I know it was wrong to say it, it is a repeated pattern and imo discussion was needed to work it out, I have been denied that opportunity by the premature closure of the thread. If you didn't want to be involved you shouldn't have closed it. You seem unable to say if it is ok to make such comments or not, well, It is wrong and in bad faith. The early closure of the thread has done nothing imo except exasperate the situation. Thank you.Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Rob. The thread was closed because the venue does not deal with those sorts of things. I have already directed you to the next step in dispute resolution, as have the instructions at the top of WQA, you are not being denied anything. I don't have to "want to be involved" in something to close a topic that is no longer fitting for its venue, I see no logic in that idea. The only person exacerbating the situation is the only person still trying to talk about it. Either take it to the next step in dispute resolution or let it go. Come on man, when a person retracts their comment then that should be the end of the situation, if it happens again then that is another matter. ^Chillum 17:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, it is upsetting when acting in good faith to be repeatedly referred to in that way. OK, I'll call it closed. Off2riorob (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

pictures of Coca Cola cans

Hi there. Did you realize that you tagged some images for deletion that are on Commons like File:NewCokeCan1985.jpg? Regards So Why 16:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. An interesting technical issue. The image is clearly not public domain as it is a photograph of a copyrighted word, I really don't know enough about commons to correctly take it there. My primary goal is to remove from articles images that have incorrect licensing or lack a fair use justification. Any advice? ^Chillum 16:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you copy them from Commons to here, add the required FU rationales and then request deletion on Commons. It would be a shame to lose all those images... Regards So Why 17:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are being used in decorative image galleries. I don't think they meet our non-free content criteria, so I am not going to upload these copyrighted works to Wikipedia. There are plenty of good images out there, but if they do not have a compatible license then we should only use then for very specific purposes. ^Chillum 18:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not all of them are used in a NFCC compatible way but we do have articles on many Coca-Cola flavors. For example, the picture mentioned above is also used in New Coke where its use is easily within the NFCC rules. Regards So Why 15:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UserCompare

Your UserCompare key has been activated. β^_command 19:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you sir, I will use it later to go duck hunting. ^Chillum 21:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can I have one? please.Off2riorob (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

^Chillum gives Off2riorob a duck

Thanks, but there are so many guackers round here that it's the tool I need. Off2riorob (talk) 22:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking the wrong person, I am but a recipient of the tool not the giver. ^Chillum 22:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I have asked him. Off2riorob (talk) 22:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, HighInBC. You have new messages at Throwaway85's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For what it is worth

I have no problem with an editor getting blocked for a personal attack on another if it goes both ways, and in no way are my comments an attack on the blocking admin who did what policy states a bit long is all I would say about it, but your warning to the admin who started this and telling him to chalk it up as a bad day are telling. BigDunc 14:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Telling" huh? I suppose I am also part of this bias/conspiracy as well then? I am sure some people do have this bias, but to be frank you are seeing bias in people that are not showing it. ^Chillum 14:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, leaving all the messages of people that support your idea on your talk page, and reverting people who disagree with you creates a page that is biased towards the idea of there being a bias. These sorts of false accusations against the blocking admin, and your fostering of conspiracy theories make me regret finding an admin to review your unblock request, please don't ask me for help in the future if you are going to disregard me when you don't agree. ^Chillum 14:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a bias and your trying to make a laugh of it is indicitive of this place, Why was the the admin not blocked for what they said?, Why are socks that are British not indef blocked while an Irish one is? I have no hard feelings about the admins who blocked me when they were right and I was wrong but my block log is a lot longer than it should be in fact only 2 I would say were correct according to policy and the last one was one of them. BigDunc 15:02, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which admin did you want blocked and for saying what? We block socks all day every day, and we don't check their nationality before doing so. Like I said while their may be a bias, this bias had nothing to do with your block. I posted why you were blocked on your page and you reverted it. ^Chillum 15:05, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dont be disingenuous you know damn well who I am talking about and what they said and I know you block socks and I agree with the part and we don't check... as none were done on the editor I was talking about just an assumption. BigDunc 15:14, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First you revert me on your talk page, then you come here and accuse me of "telling" actions and being disingenuous. I don't think this conversation is being helpful. I will tell you that you need to back up your accusations of bias and conspiracy with evidence or you should not be making them at all. That is not only the expectation of the community and our policy, it is also good advice for life in general. You are basically being very careless and baseless with your accusations. Good day. ^Chillum 15:18, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will also say your sudden shift from an apologetic attitude when asking to be unblocked and this accusatory and hostile attitude as soon as your unblock is granted is disingenuous. Such duplicity will only hurt your credibility should you ever request an unblock again. ^Chillum 15:21, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall any apologetic attitude on my behalf and I have never apologised for what I said as I don't feel I have too then only thing I am apologetic for is letting myself get baited by an admin, and raising to it, and I have plenty of evidence it has been posted on numerous occasions by numerous editors, best BigDunc 15:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your lack of remorse. Since you have plenty of evidence, where is the evidence that EyeSerene's block towards you was the result of some sort of bias? You have not presented such evidence and until you do I will ask that you do not make such accusations. ^Chillum 21:20, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that people claim to have evidence of conspiracy, but they can never make that evidence "evident"? ^Chillum 15:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few disruptive editors who for want of a better word are "loyalist/british" in there editing style who are not blocked yet and while your at that page maybe you could look at the unblock request from that editor who after 1 revert and 1 explanation of said revert is indef blocked and obviously it appears this editor is from the "republican/Irish" side of editing style, hence indef block. BigDunc 15:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what that is supposed to prove. I asked you to provide evidence that the admin who blocked you was bias. You are saying "A, therefore C", you are missing B. Your conclusions do not follow your premise. This is most likely the reason that you are seeing bias from people who are not exhibiting it. ^Chillum 15:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have not read a single word I have said where did I say that the blocking admin was biased, diff please, in fact I said according to policy it was only the second block I had that was correct, now, having said that, I know I shouldn't have upset the admin who went to ANI, "with pleasure", they are an admin after all with a noted bias, but it shows there bias that they run to ANI and complain and then on the other had throw out personal attacks and then try to defend them. But he was just having a bad day wasn't he? BigDunc 18:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what it is that you want from me. ^Chillum 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty marked decrease...

...in activity surrounding that whole kerfuffle, eh? –xeno^talk 14:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that tends to happen when there are only two people keeping the whole thing going and they both stop. I think we have demonstrated consensus more thoroughly on that subject than any other debate I have been involved in. ^Chillum 14:58, 4 December 2009 (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.