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.

User_talk:HighInBC/Potentially_not_notable_articles[edit]

Might want to kill this one too. -Patstuarttalk|edits 18:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, fergot that one. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 18:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: AGF[edit]

Comments such as 'I'm sure being gay and having a sense of humor didn't help either' are unhelpful and fail to assume good faith. You have been talked to about assuming good faith before. Please provide evidence when insinuating an admin is bigoted or is will be construed as a personal attack. If you cannot find evidence then keep it to yourself for the sake of civility, which is not optional here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:08, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It always tickles me when an admin lectures me on a guideline without actually reading (or reflecting upon) said guideline.

  • WP:AGF has to do with article edits, as was intended to protect edits from bad faith for the sake of the project as a whole.
  • WP:AGF -- Consider using talk pages to explain yourself, and give others the opportunity to do the same.
I was doing that until I discovered a reaching accusation on my talk page.
  • You have been talked to about assuming good faith before.
Irrelevant, and an attempt to marginalize. (Also known as a personal attack.)
  • Please provide evidence when insinuating an admin is bigoted
Can you provide evidence that would point to a particular administrator? If not, then you can't exactly accuse me of making a personal attack. What, we're not allowed to be critical of the system? A certain date in time comes to mind. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to this on you talkpage. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • is [sic] will be construed as a personal attack.
So you're allowed to constue my impersonal and indirect words as a personal attack, but I'm not allowed to construe the case against Timecop as anything but an act of justice as pure as the Virgin Mary? OK, I see. I better shut up then. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have responded to this on you talkpage. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 22:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You were insinuating that at least one admin, if not more were being bigoted towards gay people.
It's unfortunate that you've decided to spin what I said, and yes, I mean to say 'spin' because the meaning is severely shifted when you cut and paste selective parts of a single sentence. The complete sentence was, "I'm sure being gay and having a sense of humor didn't help either." Is there such thing as a bigot against funny people? No, that's just absurd - and it was equally absurd for me to suggest that him being sarcastic and silly was a real reason for his indef ban.
So what you're really accusing me of is attacking one or more admins of hating "funny gay people." I guess you're trying to be funny as well. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suffice it to say I respectfully disagree and my position remains the same. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my position on hyperbole remains the same. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit summary: I will spell it out. Please hold yourself to the same civility standards as you expect of others, otherwise I'll happly use "I'll spell it out" in all of my edit summaries. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:35, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were complaining I has used the term Personal attack when I was meaning to refer to a more general violation of WP:CIVILITY. I think you are a very intelligent person, and I saw you were using this point to argue against my position. So I clarified it, in other words I spelled it out. If you can explain how this is uncivil I will certainly listen. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:39, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don't have the patience to spell it out for you. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, thanks, I needed a laugh. Hey, no hard feelings, this is about policy, not about you as a person. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; points taken. Feel free to clean your talk page of this conversation. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:49, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the civility problem? Yaf has changed an article title without representative consensus and refused to rebut or even acknowledge the logical thought process for fixing the article. If there was at least a dialog, I wouldn't have to be so stern. I'm perfectly easy to work with if people with USE THE TALK PAGE as opposed to making edits without explaination. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If my "Guns/Fireworks" example would be disruptive to Wikipedia, then please address Yaf's edits to the article started as "Gun Control," and is linked from the subsection "Gun Control" from the dominant article "Gun Politics in the United States." Just look at the talk page there. I beg of you. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, by 'there' I mean Talk:Gun_(Firearm)_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Suggested_changes_to_this_page --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and implore you to read to the bottom of the page. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
...and please don't stop reading to address civilitiy issues. I lost my patience a long time ago, I realize that. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:55, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPA[edit]

Err, you mind sectioning off those nasty comments? I sure don't want them looking like they're mine. =) --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable, I would not want to be associated with that kind of thing at all. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something for you[edit]

Thanks for that, I really needed it. I assume the person is only pretending to be ignorant to get a rise out of me, sincerely ignorant people tend to act slightly differently. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, don't let it get you down. For every troll out there, there are at least 10 decent people (I like to think so, anyway). riana_dzasta 16:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"...in spite of everything I still believe that people are really good at heart." -Anne_Frank
HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your post to WP:AN[edit]

Please see my reply to your post on the administrators' noticeboard. Thanks, Newyorkbrad 21:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 21:23, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Block[edit]

hi, HIBC, just a friendly and official objection to your timecop block. I understand the list of points you raised on the talk page, but the block is I feel unwarranted and should be reviewed by uninvolved parties, although i understand that you feel a swath of admins somehow are backing up the decision. If you review previous AfDs initiated by the editor, you will find many strong nominations, well-supported, well substantiated to a degree that would make even brenneman proud. Other editors such as myself (Proto, Guy, etc...), with extensive authorships, article contribs, FAC work, etc.. etc.. across the wikispace, and with collectively tens of thousands of edits, can support and indeed have fully supported these efforts, the user's childishness notwithstanding. This is I feel a strong endorsement since were the user trolling, seasoned editors would not be likely to review and take seriously the AfDs that were brought forth. Cheers Please accept my apologies. Eusebeus 23:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not block this user. The user was not blocked for AfDs. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I blocked Timecop, not HighInBC. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STS-116[edit]

The STS-116 picture is now in an article. I don't know if this will change your vote, but now the reason you gave for not voting is null. Sharkface217 23:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, thanks. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:16, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"harassing" phone calls[edit]

plz respond --Jmax- 03:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is now a legal issue I am not about to go into details on wiki. If you wish to defend your friend I will e-mail you the contact number of the officer handling this case along with the case number. I welcome you to contact him and give any information you may posses. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is, once you set up an e-mail address for your account I will. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GNAA[edit]

I'm sick of them. Please, feel free to delete it, even though I maintain that it's a valid fair use image. I've begun to stop caring about this image, or any other aspect of this website. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to clear up that the copyright of that image, the original site now declared it public domain in the source code. Thanks, and congrats. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your block[edit]

Hello,

I, User:Srkris, dont need to change any IPs since my ISP allots dynamic IPs. By not logging in, I can still use or edit wikipedia. I had informed another admin about my warning which I left on User:Ncmvocalist's page. The next thing I see is that you extended my block, for warning him not to remove my comments from talk pages of articles. Please see reason. I am not a vandal, if that's what you're thinking! The original block itself was because this User:Ncmvocalist left bogus warnings on my talk page and one admin seemed to think they were real warnings. I dont know whether to laugh or cry seeing your actions. 59.92.46.152 15:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block you, I didn't increase the length of your block. Here is your block log. I declined your unblock request because you admitted to editing while blocked which is the reason for your most recent block.
I don't have time to investigate if the original block was in error myself as I am going on a wikibreak. Perhaps you can contact User:Durova(the admin who originally blocked you) or User:Alex Bakharev(the admin who increased your block for editing while blocked) with the E-mail this user button(on their talk pages) and explain the mistake. But I do recommend against editing while blocked(except on your userpage, that is allowed), even to discuss the block. Use the e-mail button. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:49, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Lol, I am not very good at going on wikibreak, this is my first, I may get better with practice. Thank you, insults and accusations may be a momentary disruption, but encouragement lasts. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 02:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timecop[edit]

Hello. I am concerned that your allegations about abusive telephone calls made by User:Timecop will be treated as a rationale for the block by others, despite the alleged phone calls being off-wiki actions. I have raised this concern on User talk:Timecop. - Mark 03:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it was Timecop, Timecop has a different method of confrontation, this person claimed to know him. Please see User_talk:HighInBC/Archive 16#.22harassing.22_phone_calls, if you wish to discuss this matter you can do it with the police. I am not going to defend my claims here as it is a legal matter and legal matters need to be seperate from the wiki. If you like I can e-mail you the contact info for the officer and the case number. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:38, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ta_bu_shi_da_yu/GNAA_test[edit]

I was going to work out how best to undelete the article, but decided against it as it would have been foolish and disruptive in the extreme. How this page got picked up to be vandalised - I have no idea! Do people have a watch on the new pages and filter for the words "GNAA"?!? Bizarre! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A comment about your userpage[edit]

Hey, I just noticed that all the images (I really like Image:Victoria harbor yin-yan.jpg) cause the edit links to bunch up much further down the page. Now, with this whole Timecop shitstorm brewing (I feel bad about you getting the brunt of the attacks for my actions), perhaps you don't want the edit links properly placed, but if you do, I'd suggest checking out WP:BUNCH. Example 2 is very easy and easy to maintain after the fact,. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good. That helps a lot. I will look into that. Those bunched up links were bugging me hehe. Thanks for the advice. Don't worry about the harassment, the same would have happened if someone else blocked him, they are targeting me because I started the discussion on the noticeboard(I assume). HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, much better, what do you think? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 16:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very nice. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:55, 12 December 2006 (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.
More