User talk:BigHaz/Archive 17

AFDs
Sorry about that. I thought I was being helpful. 14:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JASpencer (talk • contribs)
 * Not a problem. It's an easy mistake to have made - and an even easier one to fix. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

(Anesthesia) Pulling Teeth
I replied on its AfD debate page. Regards, - Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  19:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Message
sorry for calling you somone who thinks they are a wikigod that is not cool and you really rock in fact u rawk my socks off and i love y9ou man i shouldnt have saud wikigod cause jesus is the real god and thats not cool agian i am sorry i hope wer can be friends peace and love my brother i love you forevere and ecver dude u rawk heclls yeahs dude i lov you and you are awsome one of the coolest dudes on wikipedia i know and man that says a lot cause mosts of the people on here is lame as hellz u know lolz i love you due ok party on and rock n roll, see ya from etac —Preceding unsigned comment added by E tac (talk • contribs) 05:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll assume this was a compliment, although I'm not sure what half of it was meant to read as. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry man, I drank a little to much the other night. My apologies and you rock!--E tac 23:48, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought that might've been the case. Drinking and editing is something I've never tried. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's probably not a good idea.--E tac 06:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

new username
Hi BigHaz, thanks for the heads up, I will stop, don't really mind, I was looking for something to do that did not involve any brain power :) Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 08:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No probs, mate. I wouldn't have noticed except for the fact that there were three archives of mine you went through, and it's pretty unusual to see any edits to a talk archive at all. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Great work!
Just carrying on our discussion from last week about cleaning up some of the NN song articles. Congrads on getting the "sweep" going. It was long overdue. Most of those song pages were just magnets for original research and copyvio lyrics. I vandal patrol many music related pages. I see lots of good targets for your cleanup project. I expect you probably have a few in your sights already. It's a monumental task to try and undertake. Hopefully it gets some momentum and other editors pitch in. Even with "wave 1" cleanup over the last 2 weeks.... that's about 0.00000001% of the "fluff" that's still out there taking up space. GASP! :D. Good luck with your endeavors and thanks for all the hard work you've put in so far. 156.34.142.110 15:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's a long process, but I'm bloody-minded enough to stick to it. I guess it's the German in me :P BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just noticing that same of the kiddies at the metal project are feeling slighted that it's "their" songs that are being targeted for removal. I can think of a hundred bands that have an article for each and every song they do... and are chalked of unref'd OR and copyvio. Led Zeppelin and Rush both spring to mind. But, again... although not stereotype "metal", both are close to the sleeve for a lot of metal project members. The Beatles and The Rolling Stones may have a lot as well... Pink Floyd?... I am just picking bands out of the air that have some longevity. Sinatra, Elvis, Bing??? There's probably a lot out there. Have a nice day. 142.167.89.12 13:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Good point. I'll expand my theatre of operations at some point. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:53, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 03, 2007


Automatically delivered by COBot 01:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

More on Kill 'Em All
Hi there, you'll remember the eight songs from Kill 'Em All that you initially proposed for deletion and then brought to AfD (well, seven of them)? So you might be interested in this discussion and the resulting additional AfDs. Cheers. --Tikiwont 14:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Redeemer Lutheran College
Perhaps you would like to know, Warren Schneider was officially convicted today, and Richard Hauser the principle was critisized for his reactions against this event. Actually, it was on the news just a minute ago. Here is the full article

http://au.news.yahoo.com/071012/2/14nr2.html

Perhaps you would like to expand on the controversies section? Thankyou for your efforts Dengero 08:10, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw the report, and I'll have a bit of a look to see if there's more than needs to be done. Going on the Ch9 report, there's probably not a huge amount to add to the section. Regardless, we'll need a more stable link than Yahoo News, since those things tend to die about 3 weeks after they're published at best. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Message
I left a message for you on my talk page. Carter | Talk to me 08:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

query as to good faith
Hi BigHaz, not to make a big deal about it but I just came across this where the editor in question has used the edit history of my user talk page in order to identify the IP address of an editor with whom he is in dispute. This and many other links are under the seemingly devious title of "Evidence" (I refer to link 1 under the heading 1 x).

This editor (PJ) himself seems to have successfully enforced a gag order on Timeshift to prevent him from revealing what is apparently a huge conflict of interest of PJ's when editing Australian political articles. My impression from previous conversations is that PJ is content removed who edits on wikipedia for purely partisan purposes and Timeshift had proof of this but has been blocked by admins from using it in discussions because PJ has chosen not to volunteer his identify on wikipedia. Yet despite being the beneficiary of this policy of anonymity, this editor is using a dossier type technique in order to formulate an attack on another editor based on underhanded research such as researching the editor's IP address.

I couldn't be bothered going through all wikipolicy in relation to this but it must be against policy to do this kind of thing, probably the same policy PJ is using against Timeshift. Don’t wikipedia editors have a right to edit in peace without being researched as to true identity by editors with which you are supposedly having content based disputes with? Your thoughts? WikiTownsvillian 06:16, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Based on what you've told me - and bearing in mind there's probably more to the story than you know - I'd say it doesn't look too great, definitely. I don't have the time to dig through all of this as thoroughly as I'd want right at the moment, and there's already a discussion at WP:ANI about it which seems to have got a number of active admins interested in things. I'm unclear whether that discussion is still active, though. I don't have a huge amount of experience with the dispute-resolution procedures here and I'm not sure I want to get involved with them right at the moment either, but you might want to consider that process as a solution of sorts. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:30, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have now brought it up at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents, see what comes of it. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 07:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 15th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:13, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Countries
I see your intrested in going to Iran one day. I've been there and just to say, It's very intresting and hot country to visit. West Coast - Ryda 18:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Facepalm
I had to double check, because usually vandalism is reverted so quickly on that page. Recurring dreams 11:16, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there's still another 4 weeks of campaigning to go, so we can't afford to slack off now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

John Khetsuriani
Hi can you sort out John Khetsuriani thanks  ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦       "Talk"? 21:21, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No deadline on the copy-edit, I hope? I should have something done shortly, but in about a week I'll be able to have a more thorough run-through. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 21:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 22nd, 2007.
Sorry for the tardiness in sending the Signpost this week. --Ral315

You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 13:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

An important unblock
Could you please unblock the IP address 202.76.162.34? I need that address. I use it at school. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jc iindyysgvxc (talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Is there a reason you can't log into the account you've contacted me with? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 08:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I need to use that IP address at school. It's my school address, so there! Jc iindyysgvxc 09:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That doesn't quite answer my question. As far as I can tell, the block on that IP at the moment would allow you to log in using your account and continue to edit Wikipedia. The only thing you can't do at the moment is edit without logging in. Is there a reason why you can't log in from school? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can, but I don't want to. Jc iindyysgvxc 10:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's not a good reason to unblock the IP. It takes about 10 seconds to log in with an account, so it really isn't a major disability to you to do so. The IP in question has been blocked since it was being used repeatedly for vandalism, and unblocking it risks precisely the same thing happening again. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why am I even supposed to log in? I can do things that only accounts can do - and I don't really wanna do those things. Jc iindyysgvxc 10:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * This page sums it up better than I can. Among other things, you're able to start new articles and generally join the community if you log in. I note, for example, that you can't be an administrator unless you're logged in. Also, if you're logged in then you won't suffer any "collateral damage" when your school's IP is blocked. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 10:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
 * We might as well just shorten the block, then. 124.180.16.217 08:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Again, there's nothing to stop you registering an account, logging in and editing. Laziness is not a reason to lift or shorten a block. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But the year 12's at my school leave early. I need that block to be lifted before they leave. If they leave before the block runs out, something bad will happen to me. And now I hardly have anywhere to edit Wikipedia, because a few weeks ago, my computer broke down. 124.176.191.127 07:14, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I'm not buying that. Firstly, "something bad will happen to me" isn't a reason to lift a ban. What precisely will happen to you if the block isn't lifted before the 12s leave? More importantly, the fact that your computer broke down doesn't matter at all. See the thing at the top right corner of the screen which says "Log in"? Click on that and you'll be able to log in from whichever computer you happen to be at. The only circumstances under which you won't be able to edit is if you aren't logged in. Given that it takes about 2 seconds to log in, I don't see why we're having such a major issue about this. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * All right! But it's your fault - and the fault of every other administrator on Wikipedia - if that bullet that was shot into my head and will kill me in five months does so! Besides, it's my birthday in ten days, and you shouldn't be mean to someone on their birthday! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.181.132.145 (talk) 05:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC).
 * For the umpteenth time, why can you (or anyone else at your school) not take the two seconds required to create an account or log in with one you already have? I do it every time I come to this site and it's not an inconvenience at all. If you expect me to believe that one of the year 12s at your school shot you in a way that will kill you in five months, I don't in the slightest. I also have no intention of "being mean to someone on their birthday", but likewise neither does the fact that it's your birthday entitle you to take illegal drugs, commit murder, rob someone or break the speed limit. In much the same way, the fact that it's allegedly your birthday on a given date doesn't mean that an IP will be unblocked when that block was done entirely in a manner supported by policy. If you can come up with a single reason grounded in policy for the block to be lifted, I'll consider it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't think of one, though. Could you give me a couple of policy-related reasons for unblocking? 124.180.75.102 23:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


 * (resetting indent) Per the blocking policy, we see the following. Accounts/IPs can be blocked when there is persistent vandalism. That's shown clearly in the case of the IP you want unblocked. The only circumstances under which a block should be lifted are: (1) It shouldn't have been applied in the first place or (2) In order to change the manner of the block being implemented. We can dispense with the second option, since I have no intention of changing the nature of your block and neither should I without checking with the person who blocked you in the first place. In relation to the first reason, there was a clear pattern of vandalism from that IP, and the block was entirely justified. Given that you can edit from home and also are able to log into an account whenever you wish, you don't have a leg to stand on. Additionally, bear in mind that the account you have used has been warned on a number of occasions regarding its behaviour, so I would suggest that there is not only no evidence to assume that you wouldn't vandalise, but there is also evidence to assume that you would. Any questions? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry. They decided to change the day that the 12s leave, so I'm safe. That bullet has disintegrated. But I still can't wait such a long time for the address to be unblocked! Could you please unblock it now? Besides, I wasn't the only one editing with that address. Several other kids edited with that address as well! 124.181.253.139 04:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * You may have misunderstood. You're not going to have to "wait...a long time for the address to be unblocked." It simply won't be unblocked. There's no policy-based reason to unblock it, and I have no interest in going against the policies on this one. I'm not necessarily blaming you for the vandalism from that IP. All I'm saying is that there was vandalism from that IP, and the response to that vandalism was to block the IP. You can clearly edit from other IPs and even by registering an account, so why does it even bother you? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay! I give up! I don't even want that address anymore anyway. Let's just block it infinitely again. But I still don't think the block is fair. I was away on holiday when the guy who caused the address to be blocked did so. I wasn't there to stop that guy. 121.219.143.190 08:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're still labouring under an important misapprehension. The IP was blocked because of a persistent pattern of vandalism from your entire school. It was not blocked because one guy did something and you could've stopped him (unless that one guy was truly a fiend among vandals and you had the ability to stop him from doing that). Unless you have the power to control what everyone at the school is doing on the computers, you couldn't have done much if anything. The block, as I've been explaining all year, was entirely fair and justified. Your problem is in fact with the behaviour of people at your school, rather than me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 09:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but like I said, I don't need it anymore. So let's block it infinitely now. 124.176.148.148 11:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Lovely. The status quo. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What's that supposed to mean? 124.180.167.117 04:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See status quo. 05:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you mean that the address is already blocked infinitely, it's not. As I may have explained, someone removed the infinitification and shortened the block. It will end tomorrow. But I don't like that address anymore. So let's block it infinitely. 121.219.112.89 08:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)