User talk:HighInBC/Archive 57

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.

Re: Winkelvi's block review

I'm a bit surprised at your comments. Winkelvi recently wrote:

Now I just feel duped, taken advantage of, and like a complete fool for doing what was asked. I believed it to be an actual agreement that would lead to being unblocked sooner. I don't like being made a fool of nor do I like being lied to. Because the other side of the agreement never materialized (and looks like it probably was never going to), I no longer feel obligated to follow through with my side of the agreement. The rest of what I stated stands. In hindsight, I should have known better but this has just turned into another lesson learned.

This is not somebody who deserves an unblock. He is obligated to be on his best behavior regardless of any agreement. Furthermore, he has once again accused another editor (this time an admin) of being a liar, when he has been asked not to do this. Frankly, I will be supporting an indefinite block if anything else occurs. Viriditas (talk) 00:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is a rather unblock large request and I started it with a request for clarification. It was not my goal to suggest that the user should be unblocked, rather to understand why not. This information is very helpful and exactly the sort of thing I was looking for. Chillum 00:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hess

The Wikipedia section about <redacted> is a lie. It never happened, period and is libelous. I have removed it twice but it was reposted. Please remove the item completely. Contact me ASAP if you have any questions or concerns. I really do not want to get an attorney involved so please work with me in good faith to correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisvetter (talk • contribs) 22:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I reverted a series of edits that looked to be adding unsourced information. I did not realize that you had also removed unsourced information at the same time. You are correct that we should not report this without a reliable source. Apologies for my error. Chillum 22:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

USER:Samsobot

Hello Chillum, I just wanted to let you know User:Samsobot did apply for a name change as per [1]. I do still believe the user is a sockpuppet, but he did apply for the name change.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 05:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Egad, I did not look far enough back in the contribs. Thank you for pointing that out. Chillum 05:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I'm writing to say that User:Jackchee is my close friend, hence we both have been editing pages on similar topics. Please do not mistake us for a sockpuppet! Please do let me know how we can avoid seeming like sockpuppets in future. Thank you! Samsobot (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are 2 issues that made it clear to me there was something fishy going on, one is your history USER:Samsotle, you created an account made 10 edits then disappeared for 2 weeks, there is nothing strange about this. Then upon your return instead of making edits you began to patrol new pages, which is odd, with only 10 edits under your belt, and the pages you were marking as patrolled were quite often not suitable pages or you had been marking them incorrectly. The next concern was when I began following through and cleaning up behind you USER:Jackchee came around defending your edits during your block. That type of activity is very suspicious, especially when both of you make the same claims at AFD, neither of which have any support to prove your points. - McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 16:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nice

Well done. Well done.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent decision on Keepitreal2

I just felt I should stop by to tell you that I respectfully disagree with your judgment in the matter of Keepitreal2. That said, it was your judgment to make, and I honor your right to make it and bear you no ill will over your decision--though I will admit to being rather upset when I first read it. I did not wish to see her blocked, but I had hoped that she would at least be admonished to be more civil in her remarks toward fellow editors. I felt that since I had mentioned on my talk page feeling "unjustly treated" (without mentioning any names there or what it was about), I owed it to you to come over here and tell you that "in person."

I will be stepping away from Wikipedia for awhile, as I need to get some distance from all of this and focus on other projects. Again, I have nothing whatsoever "personal" against you (and I hope you have none against me); you made what you undoubtedly felt was the best decision, and I respect that. My best wishes to you and yours. - Ecjmartin (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue had been visible for a couple of days to our active administrators, no administrator made the decision to make a block. I agree edit warring and sock puppetry are inappropriate as are personal attacks. It was my intention in my closing to make it clear that further inappropriate behavior will result in a block. If anything clearly actionable happens lets me know.

As far as warnings and admonishments go these are not the domain of administrators, any user can give a warning or admonishment. We don't have special authority just special tools. Chillum 18:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have removed the "unjustly treated" remark from my talk page; I realized this afternoon that I'm not "Mr. Perfect" either, and it's time for me to put this episode behind me and move on. Take care, and best wishes to you and yours. - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jetboil again

It appears the Jetboil article is devolving into near edit warring again. If you could keep an eye on the article and the talk page — and offer any advice and council, it might increase the chances of a positive outcome. Thanks.842U (talk) 12:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

When in an impasse with another editor it is often best to try to draw other users into the debate. Chillum 16:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, HighInBC. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 07:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

I have left a reply for you on my talk page which I rtge you to read but I will add more here so that you at least you understand what *I* am talking about. One thing that irtitates me is the pompous superiour attitude displayed by software developers. What irritates me more are admins who are software developers who display a 23:21, November 16, 2014‎ pompous, superiour, and unhelpful attitude and who then throw criticisms around without doing any research. FWIW, unless there is something wrong with our edit summaries, and again if there is it's not my fault either, I haven't edited a js page since 23:21, November 16, 2014‎, and it was my own. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to sound too harsh and I'll AGF to some extent, but your typical software developer talk did get me rather irate. I think what you were attempting to explain was that you consider placing a tag or CSD template on a js page to be 'editing' that page. In a way I suppose you are right, but to come to my page suggesting that all admins ahould be proficient in software code before they tag a page was a bit much. I apologise for being slightly grumpy, but you have been following me around a bit lately. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a confrontational situation. You have edited a JS pages recently[2] and it was not your own, this is from 06:05, 7 February 2015. I understand that a tool you used did this but you are responsible for the tool.

This has nothing to do with me being a software developer. I can only assume you are still misunderstanding me because I have not been critical of you in this manner. I have simply told you how to edit javascript pages without breaking the code.

I don't think you need to be proficient in javascript, but if you don't want to learn then don't touch the pages, use the talk page or talk to the user. You don't have to understand how fire works to know not to touch it. Chillum 18:10, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're probably right, it's got nothing to do with you being a software dev, it's just to do with you being pompous. Golly, and I thought *I* was old fashoned and grumpy. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Grow up. This is not an attack on you this is a simple request not to fuck up things you don't understand. Your reaction is really very childish. Chillum 19:02, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You really are an unpleasant fellow, aren't you Chillum. I hope you're open to recall. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting really silly. My recall criteria are here: User:Chillum/recall. I am not attacking you, I am not trying to be unpleasant I was simply trying to explain a technical consequence to one of your edits. This is much fuss over nothing, it is clear that we are only making each other more upset so lets just drop the whole subject? Chillum 19:18, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well you have an extremely strange manner of trying to explain things. Just learn to moderate your language, drop your characteristic authoritive tone, and try to be less scolding and more helpful in your attitude. I already dropped it once and apologised but you saw fit to go on and on like like a drill square serjeant major wih a chip on his shoulder. That's not what we admins are here for. Perhaps you just had a rare bad day at the office today. I hope that's all it was. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:48, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HBC AIV helperbot

Your bot hasn't been running for about 12 hours as of now and UAA is becoming cluttered. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 07:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out, it seems I have an error:

Not a HASH reference at ./HBC AIV helperbot.pl line 330.

I will look into that when I have some time. I have started it back up again. Chillum 07:44, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have a fix for this but I want to add code that shows me what is causing it so I can test the solution by reproducing the cause. I will try to keep it running in the meantime. Chillum 20:41, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Context

Re your note on my page:

Short story is I screwed up, bot did nothing wrong, sorry for any concern. I reverted my revert once I could figure out what happened. Sorry, my fault. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:33, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No worries at all. I was just trying to fix a bug and was concerned I had introduced a new one. I wanted to check with you before turning it back on so it did not edit war with you. If it ever is malfunctioning feel free to block it, you won't hurt its fealings. Chillum 21:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cncmaster: I think I have fixed the fault, if it does not crash in the next week or so I will publish the new code and raise the required version for the UAA page. Thanks for the report. Chillum 21:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

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

Talkback Smack

So you deleted my article on majhost, eh?

WELL, I'M PUTTING IT BACK!--LooneyTunerIan (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@LooneyTunerIan: If you insist on remaking an attack page without sources I will just block you. You have been here 3 years and you know how it works. Chillum 18:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Chillum: It is not an attack article, it was just for reference. Majhost.com is a real image hosting website. Just ask anyone who used it. And besides, don't you have to give the user some kind of warning stamp or something like that on their profile before you attempt to block them? --LooneyTunerIan (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I just did warn you. You need references and you need to make it neutral. Unreferenced entirely negative articles are deleted on sight, we don't host such articles. If you do recreate it please do not do it in its prior form, take into account our WP:V verifiability requirements. Chillum 18:29, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete talk page?

Seems I created it after you deleted the page. Heh, my fault. Anyway, I made it to justify the non-notable other CSD criteria since I wasn't sure of attack page covered non BLP. The website isn't notable according to alexa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Majhost ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. Chillum 18:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I should be thanking you for being faster than me. :) Cheers! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 18:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just don't...

Chillum while I understand your efforts to help another editor you are doing it for nothing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am well enough aware of the futility of my efforts. It was worth the try for the benefit of the project but nothing will come of it. Chillum 22:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interested?

Hi Chillum,
You must be interested in Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/National Names 2000 as you had a suspicion. - T H (here I am) 17:07, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did find those two to be a bit quacky earlier on. Since then it appears to have become more obvious. Thank you for drawing my attention to that. Chillum 17:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the extended block of 108.25.73.174

I tried to be civil to him. Really, I did. But due to his constant misdemeanor from the lack of understanding, he had to be dealt with severely. Thank you for that, he won't be causing anymore trouble for a lengthy time. 70.45.65.243 (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try to avoid calling other editors childish, even if they are. It is best to just report, block and ignore. Chillum 22:17, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will do so in the near future. I see now that there are vandals that can't be reasoned with and best to report instead as you told me. Again, thank you. 70.45.65.243 (talk) 22:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. Chillum 22:21, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you for reverting the vandalism done to my user page! :) JuneGloom07 Talk 02:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. Chillum 02:14, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Majhost

You deleted the page Majhost on Feb 8. I'd like to see the deletion discussion but have so far not been able to find it. Secondly, you may have used the wrong deletion reason. You cited "Negative unsourced BLP". However, that relates to people while majhost is an internet page. And maybe a thorough rework of the article would have sufficed. I'm not fond of hasty deletions. --Maxl (talk) 19:32, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Per Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Legal_persons_and_groups companies are seen as people by our BLP policy. While I have no objection to a neutral and well sourced article what I deleted was entirely negative and without any sources. Any article on the subject would need to be fundamentally rewritten. It was deleted under WP:CSD#G10. Chillum 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your quick answer. But where is the deletion debate? --Maxl (talk) 19:43, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions are done at the discretion of an administrator, they are not the result of debate. It was marked as an attack page per WP:CSD#G10 by an editor and I saw it in the category and upon review decided it was an attack page and deleted it at my discretion. Chillum 19:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. A speedy deletion. No wonder I didn't find a deletion debate... ;) --Maxl (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that clears everything up. Again, you are welcome to make a neutral well sourced article on the subject. The deletion does not prevent recreation in another form. Chillum 20:26, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An apology

Chillum, I want to apologise to you for this posting I made on my talk page a few days ago. It was unnecessarily rude and not even entirely accurate. I doubt that you and I will ever be exchanging Christmas cards, or our opinions of Gamaliel ever coinciding, but I don't despise you, and it was wrong of me to say that I did. Eric Corbett 18:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate that Eric. Thank you. Chillum 18:27, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I'm rather embarrassed I said that about you, which is why I came to your talk page, but what's been done can't be undone. Eric Corbett 23:13, 12 February 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.