User talk:HighInBC/Archive 15

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.

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		[1]

Well I wanted to give you a Barnstar of Good Humor for this, which made me laugh out loud. But apparently that barnstar doesn't like links inside of it. Kelly ^hi! 17:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, thanks. It did not work because the url has an "=" in it. I fixed it. I needed that. _{1 != 2} 17:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Hi

o hai. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 15:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giano II

Why do you think that two thirds of Giano II's blocks have been reversed by another admin? Stifle (talk) 09:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that there are those who would defend Giano regardless of the merits of his case. There is a long history of people enabling Giano's inappropriate behavior by reversion any attempt to enforce policy and abusing any admin who attempts equal treatment. It is a very real problem that goes well beyond just Giano, and the main reason I have decided to stop using my tools for a while. _{1 != 2} 12:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party

Hello. I have noticed you and you seem a fair and capable administrator. I was looking to get third party input on an UNDUE matter over at Circumcision. Garycompugeek (talk) 17:29, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I am busy today doing some work. Perhaps another person could jump into the fray here. _{1 != 2} 18:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid "fray" would be a good term to describe it. No worries. Good day. Garycompugeek (talk) 18:21, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I

Thanks. and you might want to look at my response there. DGG (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I rushed to judgment before the full context of the situation became clear. _{1 != 2} 19:33, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. DGG (talk) 00:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your post

here. I didn't clarify that it would be a reduction in protection for a short duration (perhaps a week at most). Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. _{1 != 2} 00:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notable ahoge characters

Unfortunately, an article cannot be prodded twice. Please take it to Articles for deletion so that the page can be deleted. Kariteh (talk) 21:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not notice it was proded previously, thank you for letting me know. _{1 != 2} 22:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

lol, thanks!

Welcome!

Hello, HighInBC, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! giggy _(:O) 04:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, just, no with that one!

This would be the case, had I posted it AFTER he was blocked, but seeing as I posted it before he recieved his block, I can't see it. Chafford (talk) 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well since your comment is directly after the block message, you could see how one may think that you did post it after the block. However since you used the new section button(which does not edit conflict) and the timing of the posts are so close I will assume that you did not know of the block because it was not there when you began your post. _{1 != 2} 17:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Admin Noticeboard

What sort of thing is really "dickish" exactly? Lra drama 07:53, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing. It was linked to just before my comment. I suppose I should have been more clear. _{1 != 2} 15:14, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on BLP/Speical Enforcement

I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed this comment you left at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons/BLP_Special_Enforcement. After making my own comment, yours just really put things in perspective. Can I quote you on my user page for my own sanity?

"Drama is just another word for human interaction, we require and thrive on it, and we must not waste it!" —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimMillerJr (talk • contribs) 05:02, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it. Consider it GFDL. _{1 != 2} 13:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ban proposal

See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User_VintageKits_breaking_terms_of_probation.3F — Rlevse • Talk • 14:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IAR

I've noticed you responded to my comment on the IAR talk page, and I've responded. Thanks for taking the time to respond to my first comment:-) Have a nice day!--SJP (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response given. You may also find the archives of that talk page going back about 9 months interesting. This topic has been raised before. _{1 != 2} 17:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Blocking policy

I reverted your movement of my comment on this page. My comment was placed where it was, deliberately, to show that it was not a response to what followed it. Edit conflicts or delays often create out-of-time-sequence posts, and my view, and common practice that I've seen, is that indents are used to show threading, so your movement and edit comment puzzled me. [2] To make the matter more clear, I added extra indent and a note regarding the movement. I hope this satisfies your concerns. --Abd (talk) 17:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was in response to Franamax, you moving it makes it look like I am replying to you. I suppose your note clears it up, if people get all the way to the end of your post. Either way it is not a big deal. _{1 != 2} 18:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I added extra indent, which really flags that there is something below. And then the note, but, if you would rather the note be at the beginning of my post, that would be fine, too, or you could add a note there yourself, if you still think there is a reasonable possibility of confusion. I am solely concerned with making it easy to follow as possible, given my problem with brevity or lack of same. Problem is, for me to write less takes far longer, and I only do it when I have a serious POV to push. Thanks for your understanding.

And, by the way, I'm hoping that you gain a better understanding of what happened to Tango out of this. If his friends were to "get it," and explain it to him, and he actually apologizes and shows that he isn't likely to do it again, I think he'd get back his bit rather easily, if he still wants it. ArbComm isn't about punishing admins for making mistakes. It is about preventing future ones, which is why an inability to recognize a mistake is far more often a cause of desysopping than mistakes themselves. When there is a problem as with Tango, users may tend to line up and support their friend with arguments that their friend was right, which actually makes it harder for the erring admin to see the problem. A friend who doesn't get caught up in the frenzy might say, "You know, we all understand that you were trying to do the right thing, and that was really a nasty response, but there are very good reasons, also, for taking seriously the rule that admins don't block when they are personally involved. How you confused this was very understandable, because the "offense" seemed to be the same one. But, in fact, there were two separate offenses, one where you were arguably uninvolved and one where you were involved. You were involved when you made a judgment that a comment about you was an insult and illegitimate and therefore blockable." I've explained this, as I assume you know, on Tango's Talk as well as in the page mentioned here, and if it isn't clear, we should work together to make it clear. If you don't understand it, please continue to question it until you do -- or I and the community revise the consensus. It's important that you understand it, if it is correct, or that consensus be revised, if it is not. It isn't a minor thing and it isn't just about appearance. Thanks for any attention you give this. --Abd (talk) 18:25, 9 July 2008 (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.