User talk:BigHaz/Archive 19

Who was attacked by me?
Who was attacked by me? I am not understanding this thing you are saying. Please give me a link to the attack. Thank-you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by I love webcomics (talk • contribs) 11:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I cannot find your response. Please let me know where the attack occurred.  I have read the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks web page that you referred me to, but I still do not recall where I violated the guideline.


 * Thank-you,  I love webcomics (talk) 11:26, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I was composing the reply but was held up on the phone. I'm referring to this edit, which prompted my warning for a number of reasons. They are as follows:
 * The edit summary was snarky, as it implied that the other user was stupid, rather than simply holding a different opinion to yours. Not a huge problem in and of itself, but when coupled with the other instances it was a point to mention.
 * "you are missing the point you idiot" is clearly a personal attack.
 * "your argument is the most idiotic one on this whole page because you obviously don't even know what the boycott or this discussion is about." Again, this one's a personal attack (especially when coupled with your claim above that that the user's argument is "stupid").
 * The golden rule in AfD discussions is to comment on content rather than the contributor. If you feel that another user is misinterpreting you or hasn't understood what the article is about, you're welcome to point that out, but it's infinitely safer to do so politely. Calling people idiots because they disagree with you is not a way to succeed in this or any other walk of life. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay...I see what you're talking about now, and I admit I was wrong, but there are two things you seem to have missed:


 * I was not arguing against anyone. Everyone, including me and the person I was addressing agreed that the page should be removed.  I was trying to explain to the person who was attacking me that they were actually arguing on my side (even though he/she didn't realize it).


 * What I was doing, was responding to someone who was accusing me of not only trolling, but of using Wikipedia as a way to make money for myself. This person was not only calling me names, but also accusing me of lying and attempting to defraud Wikipedia by turning it into an advertisement.  How have things gotten so bad that if you mention anyone's name on a page you create, everyone assumes that that is your name and you are promoting yourself?  I mentioned the name of one webcomic, whose name I got from an article in the Wikipedia Fundraiser Blog (and didn't even say anything about whether he was a good or bad webcomic) and now I have people seriously accusing me of being that person.  For goodness sakes I've never even seen his artwork, and I don't even remember his name anylonger!


 * I agree that I should not have used the words "stupid" or "idiotic" in my response, but I disagree with you that I should not have implied that the argument was stupid, because it was stupid. The other user was calling me a troll and accusing me of writing an article about myself.  The main point you seem to be missing is that I was trying to explain to this user that the user was wasting their time calling me a troll and trying to "expose" me or whatever, because not only was I NOT trolling and NOT lying, but arguing with anyone (including me) about the matter is idiotic because the decision to delete the page was already anonymous.  I agree that it was not helpful for me to say that the user was being an idiot--I should have left that part out.  But honestly, viciously arguing against someone because you haven't noticed that the issue you are arguing about it unanimous is pretty silly.  And accusing someone of lying about who they are just so they can promote themselves on Wikipedia is not only negligent, but is also not logically sound (Fallacy of ad hominem circumstantial, I think).  Not only is this negligent and illogical , but it is not tactful either since accusing someone of lying is unlikely to get them to admit it or to yield any productive discussion.


 * It is difficult to not call someone whom you already agree with an idiot when they are viciously arguing with you and accusing you of lying, and the only reason they are arguing is because they for some reason don't realize that you agree with them.


 * At any rate, I've been so disgusted by the attitude and atmosphere of editors on Wikipedia that I will never be making another edit anyway, so no worries about me ever again calling someone an idiot for not realizing that they agree with me. Maybe if a new project similar to Wikipedia arises where people's actual status (as a Professor or specialist or whatever) is verifiable, then I will volunteer my time to contribute to that project.  It is the anonymity that cripples Wikipedia.  If it weren't for this anonymity, then no one would have ever even thought of accusing me of being a webcomic, because everyone would be able to see that I am a college student studying Math and that I am too young to possibly be the person they are accusing me of being.  Everyone on Wikipedia (not literally everyone obviously...but stay with the spirit of what I am saying...please avoid the urge to attack me based on symantics)...Everyone on Wikipedia seems to be assuming that Webcomics are creating articles for self-promotion and that editors are removing those articles as a good-faith way to clean-up Wikipedia.  Using that paranoid logic (which is not really logical at all since it violates the fallacy I listed above), why not assume that the people creating the articles are not webcomics, but are webcomic fans creating those articles as a good-faith way to make Wikipedia more complete, and that the editors deleting the articles are doing so for self-promotion, because I am sure (I have no evidence...so once again stay with the spirit of what I am saying)...I am sure that some of the editors on wikipedia who insenently delete articles about webcomics are doing so becasue they are print comics (people who have their comics in newspapers) and because webcomics are the competition.  I wouldn't be surprised if some of the companies that distribute comic strips to the newspapers actually hire people to be Wikipedia editors and anonymously censor Wikipedia.


 * If you take one thing away from this let it be that you should never accuse someone of lying unless you are sure they are lying. People on the Internet in general, and especially on Wikipedia seem to forget that accusing someone of lying is a very serious matter, much much worse than calling someone names or telling them to fuck off.  Accusing someone of lying when you are not absolutely sure they have lied will almost always destroy any relationship (professional, romantic, virtual, or otherwise) that you have with that person, and is extremely unlikely to encourage them to admit they lied or to in any other way produce any progress in the conversation.


 * I don't know who started the rumor that I was a liar (I know I could look it up in the edit history but I don't care). Whoever it was, that person, along with everyone else who jumped in to help them, have succeeded in their goal of convincing me not to edit Wikipedia.  The unfortunate part is that the reason these people wanted me to never edit Wikipedia again is because they thought I was a liar and a fraud, when in reality I am an honest, sincere, and progressive undergraduate student who is very impressed with all voluntary cooperative ventures, including Wikipedia.   :-(    I love webcomics (talk) 20:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What you were trying to convince the other person of is entirely irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that there is a boundary between "argument" and "insult" and you were the one who overstepped it. Being right doesn't give you permission to overstep boundaries like that, and neither does being wrong. The other users were arguing against you, and possibly not in the most brilliant way, but you were the one who resorted to namecalling and the like.
 * As far as your critique of the arguments against you goes, that's all entirely valid and useful. It may have been more valid and useful as a reasoned post in the AfD, rather than a reasoned post here and rather than namecalling in the AfD. You're clearly capable of arguing in that manner, and that's a good thing.
 * I'm sorry that your experience on Wikipedia hasn't been a brilliant one, but there's not a great deal I can do about that. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

 * Thanks, mate. Looks as though I'll be somewhere Balkan on the days of the actual competition this year, so I hope I'll be in a room with a TV and the right channels. Happy New Year to you as well. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 07:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

request your comments
Ask Admin BigHaz. He took care of nom'ing all the Metallica songs that weren't singles for AfD. The concensus was redirect them all. If you look at all the Metallica albums... none of the non-singles exist anymore. Every song used to have its own article. Which was just superfluous overkill and useless. BigHaz can explain the history. 156.34.212.152 (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Please show me a link to this consensus.--Rockfang (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly. This AfD is an example of one such decision to merge the pages. The other non-singles in question should have AfDs which can be reached by substituting their titles for this one, although I can dig out the links if you're having trouble finding them. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. No need to pull up one for each song.--Rockfang (talk) 06:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * * phew* I'd thought for a moment that there might've been one particular song you were after, rather than just the general class of "Metallica album tracks". BigHaz - Schreit mich an 06:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It's me
Yes, it is your old friend, Jc Iindyysgvxc. I just want you to know that with the IP addresses I have used recently, I have made constructive edits. Infact, I even got two disruptive users blocked by reporting them at AIV (this one and this one). So you OK with me now? 121.219.34.121 (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * He may be OK with you, but I'm not. All the edits before this on this IP were clearly disruptive, and the statements are incorrect as to this IP.  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 13:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Needless to say, the IP above has been blocked, the same fate that has befallen this user on several other occasions. I sometimes wish we could contact the user's parents and explain what "good use" their child is making of their internet connection. Having moderated a site which occasionally did precisely that, I know we got results in the form of mummy and daddy physically removing the kid's computer sometimes. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the indef block of an ip is unnecessary is this user keeps changing his ip - we simply end up blocking someone else later. Please could you consider something like 6 months instead? Spartaz Humbug! 22:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I just reverted a post here from sock of this fellow. Annoying isn't he. Spartaz Humbug! 22:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You don't know the half of it. A 6-month block is superficially a good idea, but I fear that it sends the wrong message (you can edit in 6 months) rather than the message we're trying to send (you cannot ever, never, under any circumstances, edit again). I'd be more inclined to leave the block as is and then lift it if there's collateral damage, rather than the other way around. Then again, I might be influenced by the fact that I've been dealing with this pest for nigh on a year now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Just to let you know a user started a thread at ANI about your indef. blocking some IP address. See WP:ANI. - Rjd0060 (talk) 06:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * For the sake of context, it won't surprise anybody that the user starting this thread is the same long-term vandal who's been making life so much fun for the majority of the year. I'd like to think that he'll accept the decision of the umpire this time, but I don't think anything short of someone pulling his computer out at the wall, giving him six of the best and no dessert for a week will stop him now. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it suspicious as well, but rather than commenting on the thread itself, I chose to notify you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And a good thing you did. My comment is more for my own records later on, when I look back at this in an archive in 6 months time and wonder why the devil an IP started an ANI thread about me. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
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 (talk) 07:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Request
Could you please review this edit to an article you started in July 2006? Also see the article's talk page. Thanks in advance. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a source (an offline one, sadly) and will add it accordingly. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 03:22, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; I thought you might have a source. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I wish I knew why I didn't add it at the time. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
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 (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your "vote of confidence"
(cur) (last) 10:56, 25 January 2008 BigHaz (Talk | contribs) m (3,840 bytes) (*switches brain [on]*) (undo) (cur) (last) 10:56, 25 January 2008 BigHaz (Talk | contribs) (3,842 bytes) (better link) (undo)


 * O)

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: AFDs
Are you sure about that? I've seen people question in the past whether a nom that does not explicitly !vote one way or the other should be counted among the other !votes; as such, I had been making mine explict. But, I've been gone for a few months, and may have missed a change in policy somewhere; if that's the case, I apologise. Thanks! Heather (talk) 16:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As a general rule, that's always been the case. If your rationale is explicit enough, there's never going to be a problem. I think you'll find that any questions would derive from a shaky rationale, or from an inexperienced user asking the question in the first place. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
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 (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

University of Queensland
You have to admit, that was pretty funny. Particularly as this page is just blatantly promoting UQ, eg:

“The University of Queensland's graduates have a strong record of success in attaining employment and income levels well above average. UQ qualifications are highly regarded by employers everywhere and our graduates form a powerful network of success across all industries and endeavours in all corners of the globe. In recent years, the international standing of UQ has been reinforced with a rapid growth in fee-paying students from abroad, as well as strong growth in postgraduate studies.”

I’m not sure how this passage slipped through the cracks – the reference to “our graduates form a powerful network..”. Might reduce the encyclopedic quality of the wiki wouldn’t you say? It's a bit of a double standard. Maybe it would be more correct to say 'our graduates form a powerful network of internet censorship'. Personally I think contributions which obviously promote organizations or politicians invite this sort of parody. In light of this, I think you calling me a vandal is a bit harsh. With love, Yogo Gorilla. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogo Gorilla (talk • contribs) 01:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You've raised a number of points, so I'll respond to all of them:


 * The addition of the photo wasn't funny. Even if it were, the purpose of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, rather than to be funny. There are other wikis out there which are designed around humour.
 * Whether or not the current page is simply promoting UQ, that doesn't give you the right to edit it that way. I agree that there are problems on that page (some of which can probably be solved simply through better citation, others of which will need more intensive work done), but just because a page is in need of a bit of TLC doesn't mean it can be vandalised. Perhaps devoting your time to improving the page would be a better course of action in future.
 * I called you a vandal for those edits, since that's precisely what uploading a picture that has no business being there is. You can call it a parody or a joke or whatever you want, but in terms of Wikipedia there are lines which are drawn, and you stepped over the one marked "vandalism". Please bear this in mind for future edits.
 * Finally, it's usually a better idea to create a new heading on my Talk page when leaving a message (just click the "Plus" sign next to "Edit This Page" and you can do that). Leaving a message roughly 1/3 down the page in the middle of an old discussion is much harder for me to find and respond to. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism – thank you for the link. I didn’t find one definition of a type of vandalism that my contribution falls within. Posting a photo of an actual UQ graduate on the UQ wikipedia page, with a caption noting that he enjoyed the experience is not vandalism. Please tell me exactly which type of vandalism listed on the page you gave me the link for, does my photo fit into? Sure I wouldn’t put it in encyclopaedia Britannica, but then Britannica wouldn’t have the comment: “UQ qualifications are highly regarded by employers everywhere and our graduates form a powerful network of success across all industries and endeavors in all corners of the globe.” If my photo isn’t meant to be there, then why is this statement still on the page? Why haven’t you greeted its addition with the same ruthless expurgation?

Who says the picture has no business being there? The guy went to UQ and he’s happy about it. Isn’t that what a uni is? A campus full of smiling young people who hope to attain gainful and interesting employment at the end of their period of learning. Can you offer a substantive reason why that photo should not be there? What rule is there that states that wikipedia in style and content should be a carbon copy of the Britannica and World Book encyclopaedias? More importantly – why should everything on the page conform to YOUR idea of what it is meant to look like? Before you answer that by referring to YOUR policy – please just explain why your policy matters? Who authorises it? Who gives you authority to implement it to the exclusion of anyone else’s style. Even more importantly who pays you to do this? These are questions I’d really like an answer to (whether set out in bullet point or not).

Supposing I accept that YOUR policy counts for anything. Looking at your philosophy (the parts that aren’t completely incoherent) for editing – the UQ page is littered with ‘spam’ because many of the statements are trying to ‘advertise or sell something’. Why haven’t you removed such statements? You gave some fluffy answer in response to why you removed my addition but didn’t remove lines promoting UQ. I see no reason why you couldn’t have removed those offending lines just as easily as you did mine. This is an obvious double standard. You’re clearly in raptures over having attended UQ. I refer you again to your philosophy for editing: “My university is notable, it's big, important and old and has a lot of important people associated with it.” What a nice, unbiased statement. Well you’re correct it is big. The rest of that statement is rubbish. It’s ranked 103 in the world and I don’t know of anyone notable outside of Qld who’s come from there. But you’re obviously a 24 carat UQ stooge, serving the job of making the UQ page a great marketing document.

As for it being funny - I wasn’t really looking for your opinion of whether it was funny. But what I find most amusing is you don’t adhere to your own ‘golden rule’: Keep a Sense of Humour. I don’t think you ever had one. --Yogo Gorilla (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * To respond:


 * simply using any image in a way that is disruptive is one aspect of vandalism. Given that you've admitted that the edit was entirely designed around humour value, I think we can both agree that this was disruptive use of the image.
 * Once again, what the page says or doesn't say has precisely nothing to do with whether you can or cannot upload images or generally have fun with it. I haven't deleted that text because I've been quite busy since you brought it to my attention. Why nobody else has deleted it I can't guess, but you're free to do so at any time.
 * The policies of Wikipedia have been determined by consensus of editors over a number of years. As an administrator, it is my job to see that those policies are being followed. It is also the job of any editor to edit in accordance with those policies, however we all accept that not every editor will edit 100% in accordance with them at any time. It stands to reason that an article about a university will have images (if it has them at all) of the campus itself and possibly of important figures. Simply adding an image of an individual who may or may not have attended the place (I only have your say-so that he did) is of course an inappropriate image, and I'm sure you know that deep down.
 * My argument about the notability of UQ has nothing to do with being a "stooge", as you put it, and I'll ask you to be very careful in your choice of words in future. By Wikipedia standards, UQ is an eminently notable institution with a number of figures at least of Australian significance who have attended it. Those are not "my" standards, those are the standards of Wikipedia itself. That is, however, irrelevant. The reason that discussion is found in my userspace is because of the dispute which often occurs over whether a school/university/other thing is "inherently notable" simply because it exists. Once again, you're free to delete anything you deem as spam. I'll do so when I have a spare moment, which I haven't had since you pointed out that it was perhaps unsuitable.
 * My "golden rule" only extends so far. When another user vandalises a page, makes personal attacks on me and behaves in a generally objectionable manner, I have no desire or need to maintain a sense of humour, since it's increasingly debatable that you're here for the right reasons. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 01:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
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 (talk) 07:36, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
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 (talk) 08:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)