User talk:HighInBC/Archive 20

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.

yvonne bradley

just wanted to clarify it was pjhaseldine who is doing the linking, not geo swan. i seem not to have made that clear. THF (talk) 15:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

ACK! That changes everything. Thanks for the clarification. Chillum 15:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/review/Yvonne Bradley. Geo Swan (talk) 21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Chillum 21:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Secret Page

Yeah, but my page was part of my userpage Vinson 21:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Your userpage is part of Wikipedia and needs to comply with WP:NOT. Your userspace is for improving the encyclopedia and not a personal sandbox. Try googling "free wikis" and you will find plenty of wikis that allow that sort of thing. Chillum 21:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Weird, cuz there are other users with secret pages and there not deleted. Its perfectly ok to have a secret page, the last time i checked Vinson 21:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC) And do you know of a page for reporting abusive admins? Vinson 21:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

You don't need the page for reporting abusive admins. You need the page for contesting deletions. Chillum 21:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

How do you get the original info from a deleted page? I apreciate it if my page was restored Vinson 22:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The place to argue that a deleted page be restored is WP:DRV. You can read the instructions there and start a review. Chillum 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Why?

Why this overturning without discussion? :) — Aitias // discussion 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like bad timing. You can set it to whichever you like. I won't charge with with wheel warring if you don't charge me ;). Chillum 22:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what I did wrong, I have set move back to sysop. Thanks. Chillum 22:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I think he/she did the right thing, because all they're going to do is come back and post the same stuff over and over again. The only problem I have is that move should be sysop not autoconfirmed. Versus22 _talk 22:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I think we both did the right thing at about the same time except I mistakenly changed the move level. I have changed it back to sysop. Chillum 22:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, while I generally think user talk pages should not be semi-protected indefinitely, in this particular case it seems reasonable. Thus, I won't restore my expiration. Best wishes, — Aitias // discussion 22:25, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case indefinite certainly means "duration not determined" as opposed to "forever". I have noticed that this particular vandal will note the expiry time of a protection to come back later. Better to just quietly undo it one day. Chillum 22:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

FP delist nom

A photo you (per this) nominated for FP is currently nominated for a delist and replace. Feel free to comment on the nom page. ~ ωαdεstεr16_♣T^C♣ 14:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for tracking me down. Chillum 15:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Re: Recall of admin mbisanz. Thank you for your comment, I spoke with him and got nothing of substance. He echoed comments about it being not notable, but ignored constructive suggestions such as marking the work "under construction." I know it's not a numbers game, but if I recall correctly, most were in favor of keeping it and improving it. My belief is that the subject matter was his problem and that doesn't sit right with me.Brrryce (talk) 15:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with you disagreeing with mbisanz, it is you calling for his head on a platter for disagreeing with you that I find repugnant. Disagreement is essential for forming a neutral encyclopedia, it should not be punished, it is not "abuse". The productive deletion review that occurred was the correct venue, not seeking to remove a quality administrator from his post. Please assume good faith when you deal with people here, and do not imply a racial bias in other editors. Chillum 15:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account

Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account, a page you have edited, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Vandalism-only account during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. -- IRP ☎ 03:37, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, what a strange reason for deletion. Chillum 04:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yvonne Bradley

Discussion of Yvonne Bradley's deletion review is now taking place here---PJHaseldine (talk) 12:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Haha

• Note Barnstar moved to subpage[1].

This one (for some reason I can put the link in the barnstar).--Giants27 ^T/C 15:32, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hehe, my real secret is that I am only 9 in leprechaun years. Chillum 15:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

100% right.[2] I'm from Kathmandu. 202.79.40.131 (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note Barnstar moved to subpage[3].

It is often unpopular to stick to the basics, so I really appreciate being appreciated. Thanks. Chillum 23:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Remember...

Remember April 30th, 2008? Ahhh, those were good times! ⚗ Dr. StrangeBong ⚗ (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

*sniff* ohh the memories, sweet sweet memories! Chillum 04:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

Heh, thanks, good to see my work doesn't go unnoticed. I do tend to get a bit soft at times, though, so I appreciate an occasion slap in the face. :) Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 05:37, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Keep up the good work. Chillum 05:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

User:PickingGold12

This user is most probably a sockpuppet of blocked user:Pickbothmanlol. Wuhwuzdat (talk) 16:17, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. He is sure a sock puppet of someone. Chillum 16:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism-only account#No consensus, not needed. -- IRP ☎ 17:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

GPG how?

How do I use this any programs out there.yousaf465'

If you are running windows then you can use GNUPG. The instructions on that page should be fairly clear. Chillum 04:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for it.will try.Altough I also use ubuntu.yousaf465'

Ahh, I use Ubuntu. Hold on and I will give Ubuntu instructions. Chillum 05:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• First you import my key:

gpg --import
<paste the key>
<hit ctrl-D>

• Then you create an encrypted message:

gpg -e --armour -r Chillum
<paste your message>
<hit ctrl-D>

And you will get an encrypted message which only I can decode.

• To receive messages you need to create a key:

gpg --gen-key

Then export the public key:

gpg --armour --export <your key name>

Then publish the key

• To read a message someone made for you:

gpg -d
<paste the encrypted text>
<hit ctrl-D>

I hope that all makes sense. If gpg is not installed you can install it from the Add/Remove menu. Chillum 05:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Notice

Hello, Chillum. you have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism-only account. I would recommend adding that page to your watchlist if you haven't already. -- IRP ☎ 03:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

On "Not appropriate"

Dear Chillum, it depends on how one interprets the word "mafia". The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives in its second entry of the word "mafia" the following interpretation:

"2. gen. Any group regarded as exerting secret and often sinister influence."

In using the word "mafia" I employed the above sense of the word and expressed my true experience: I was dumbfounded to discover that I was totally unexpectedly blocked for 24 hours, and further accused of a host of issues not known to me until the moment that I read the message left on my Wikipedia talk page. --BF 00:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not appropriate to compare editors here to the mafia. Quoting one of many definitions does not change that. Name calling is not allowed, I am now considering you aware of this rule. Also, nobody is being sinister or secretive to you, that is unfounded. Chillum 00:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Chillum: You blocked me for what you called "Acting abusively towards other editors". It is remarkable that you disregarded the abusive words by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise (hereafter FPS) at my address. Responding to FPS's remark that "Pursing [sic] my activities further, I just idly checked a bit for how long the name has been in use in English. It's quite easy to find ...", FPS responded by insultingly saying:

"Okay, I've seen enough of this. This has now been the third time I see you in action with this same disruptive style (one was the Unruled Paper (film) issue, one was the issue of the non-free images the other day). In each case, your behaviour have been a mixture of aggressive blustering, attacks, veiled threats, confused waffling on talk pages, failure to respond rationally to other people's points, and a downright refusal to heed Wikipedia's agreed policies. I am now putting you officially on notice that if I should see you stirring up the fuss again in similar ways, on this or on a different issue, I will block you for longish periods. – Now please stop posting here about the Shatt el Arab issue; your rants are not welcome on my talk page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)"

What could have justified this condescending and insulting language and behaviour?! (You may care to check the history of Shatt al-Arab and find out for yourself the actions on my part that possibly could have earned the qualification of being of "disruptive style". The entire thing turns out to revolve around my addition of the name "Arvand Rud", in three figure captions, after the name "Shatt al-Arab", with no change, whatever, to the latter name.) Who does this person think he is? Does he not know that "waffle" is the verbal form of "waff", referring to the yapping and yelping of dogs! (Please leave aside the colloquial speech, as FPS is neither a friend nor a person with whom I would possibly identify in any circumstance.)

You did not approve of my use of the word mafia, but it seems to me that there are two sets of rules governing Wikipedia, one for the people like I, and one for a select group of people who have secured administrative privileges for themselves. Why didn't you take action against FPS?! For some reason, of which you may be totally unconscious, you did not register that this person has been insulting me, which in my judgement is unforgivable. You seem not to be alone in this: a person by the name User:Hans Adler has somehow felt necessary to place an unsolicited message on my talk page, pontificating, point by point, why FPS has been justified in insulting me in the way that he has done! This Adler brazenly tells me that if I don't like it here, I must be leaving and editing somewhere where things are to my liking! This is the language of the Far Right, who say: "Foreigner Go Home!" In the course of the past week my Wikipedia account has been blocked twice and I am not aware that FPS has even been notified of his abhorrent and abusive behaviour; he has been calling for my exclusion (prior to having bothered to inform himself of the problem being discussed) and insulting me as a matter of routine.

This Adler further remarks that FPS were a linguist (as if it mattered a whit to me). Paradoxically, he continues his remark by saying that I should not have criticised the language of someone whose first language is not English! In other words, I should have accepted the insults by FPS because FPS were writing his insults in a language different from his mother tongue! What is going on here?! Who asked the opinion of Hans Adler? Who called the attention of this person to my talk page?

Lastly, I hereby request you that you query FPS as to his manipulation of the contents of my talk page today without my permission. As you can verify from the history of my talk page, this afternoon FPS has first removed a message posted to my talk page by an anonymous person (I happen to have read the message before it was removed) and subsequently deleted the message altogether. Yes, the message contained some personal information regarding FPS (part of which was indirectly confirmed by the details in the above-mentioned message by Hans Adler), but the question is: why FPS has been spying on my talk page? This person has never left any opportunity unused to call for my head (please just consult that specific talk page, about which I was left totally in the dark, where, without having informed himself of the details of my exchanges with User:Ev, he was calling me names and charging for my exclusion from Wikipedia). --BF 23:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC).

Thgoodsservice at UAA

About this edit, the bot report looks more like a borderline case than a false positive. I'm interested to know your thoughts on this, because to me it seems like a promotional username, although their edits are not disruptive. Wronkiew (talk) 05:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Without context the name does not seem promotional. I have given the user a stern warning about being promotional on Wikipedia and am watching the users talk page. The user is likely only here to promote his website and if the he decides to continue then they will be blocked. I see no harm in the user editing under their current name if he does so appropriately. I don't think many people will "get" that it is the name of something.

All that being said, if you would like to relist the name at UAA to be reviewed by someone else I will not take offense. Chillum 05:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense. Thank you for the explanation. Wronkiew (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Any time. Chillum 14:07, 20 March 2009 (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.