User talk:H/Archive 8


 * 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.

Gas
Looks like there was a revert mistake - it turned out as ... [smiley]. Not a problem, just that such happenings may be avoided by quickly checking the page to see if the revert went as intended. CP/Mcomm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 22:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Oops. I reverted yer revert of the vandal instead of reverting the vandal. Glad you caught it, thanks. Will be more careful. HighInBC 22:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

More and again More
Hey, I was wondering if I could get your input on my introduction to my Hevstäf article. My main worry is that the term 'little-known' may seem prejudicial (either way).

Also, in regards to 'Canadian Spelling': I live in Minnesota, but I use the words 'cheque' and 'grey'. 'Check' means 'checkmark'! And 'gray' just looks like a red word to me (mild senesthesia, I suppose)! (Geez, can't believe there's no article on synaesthasia/senesthesia.)

SVG
I've done it with Graphic Converter on mac and reduced the quality a bit so I think I could be free... well, I don't know these rights, can you explain me a bit more please?

Thanks :)

NSaturn

Re: Disruption of short-term memory
Whoa.. sorry for the slight misnomer. I see you've already corrected it. Thanks for double checking my work. Take care. --Howrealisreal 13:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It was not evident, I had to look up the studies the citation used to be sure. No problem. HighInBC 13:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

On the talk page
Can you please discuss your objections on the talk page please. --Irishpunktom\talk 14:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Already there, see Talk:Muhammad. Thanks. HighInBC 14:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

your compromise proposal
Hi, thank you for your compromise proposal. I hope you are not overly optimistic, but you are more optimistic than I. :-(. There was a consensus version of an image of Muhammad that was present for a year.  Then recently it was changed, which has stirred up the current conflict.  So from my POV, the conflict is not about the presence or absense of an image, or images, of Muhammad, but about applying a policy which says that if images might be considered offensive by Wikipedia readers, then those images need to meet certain (in my opinion, very low and easily obtainable) standards.  The other POV, I'm sorry to say, I can't articulate very well.  Perhaps I do not understand it, but my impression is that it is just a blanket rejection of the arguments raised against the particular image as being made in bad faith.  If you have the time, I recommend that you read the discussion on the talk page.  I would very much like to know your impressions, regardless of which stance you may favor. Sincerely, --BostonMA talk 14:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since it seems to me to be an example of really persistent people wearing down those that are trying to follow policy, perhaps this will need an arbcom ruling. I do not know enough about the subject to initiate such a proccess, but it will give admins the ability to enforce the decision they come to. Mabye we can find peace first. HighInBC 14:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have already put in a request for mediation. (see talk page).  There is a queue, and I think we are about 9 days away.  That would be the next step.  --BostonMA talk  15:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am going to step out for a while. But if things get crazy and you need someone to put their opinion in, just drop me a link and I will go there. I will also be here in a few weeks should this last. HighInBC 15:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, will do. --BostonMA talk 15:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, while I support your compromise, I think it is premature to remove the images, rather I think more discussion is needed. In particular, I think we need to hear from User:Briangotts.  Without his input, and the input of a few others, I think the only reaction will be accusations of censorship, etc.  So, my suggestion is to wait till we hear from some of the people who have been somewhat adamant about including all of the pictures.  If the article suffers for awhile, it won't be the end of the world.  I have to go, now, but will be back in a few hours.  --BostonMA talk  18:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine to me, I will not remove any images. HighInBC 19:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your patience. --BostonMA talk  20:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Advice
Hi HighInBC -- Since you very kindly helped me out and taught me about the four tildes, I'd like to ask your advice about Wikipedia. I think I somehow got into a war with someone on the Robert Mugabe talk page. Basically, the Mugabe page is profoundly pro-Mugabe -- reading the whole page, you'd think he's the most enlightened, nicest, best leader ever. Being proactive (I don't like complaining but solving problems), I decided to try to solve it: I added in a section pointing out some of the things that he's done, I tried to write it as neutrally as possible (by doing things like, titling the section in a neutral, "Changes in Zimbabwe", etc), I documented everything with references, etc -- but then, what happened is this: there's some guy on the page, named Wizzy who, whenever anyone writes a word critical of Mugabe, he comes and deletes it, and he deleted the entire section of mine, saying it is biased. This is confusing, for a few reasons. One reason is, Wizzy claimed (elsewhere on the page) that, if we think the article is biased, we should fix it - yet when I try to fix it, he deletes it! Another reason is, his reasons why he thinks I'm being biased are things like, I used the word "reign" - but, if that's the problem, then should the appropriate response to be fix what I wrote and change the word reign? This is also confusing because, Mugabe seems to be very black-and-white - it's not like one of these edge cases where it's hard to tell how bad he's been, but the destruction he's done to the country is pretty objective. This situation on the Mugabe Wikipedia confuses me. This is all background! Now let me get the question: I want to "appeal" Wizzy's undoing of what I did. How do I do this? There has to be some way to make the article more even-handed, to try to over-rule people who delete any attempt to make biased articles more even-handed. So, what should I do next? Or - is this not worth the effort? Maybe I should give up and stop caring. Let me know what you advise - I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know what to do now, and I don't want to just re-do what I did, because that would be an endless he said/she said loop, which i want to avoid. What do you suggest? Thank you for your help! Btw, if you think I'm being irrational or am in the wrong, please be honest and tell me - I'm new to Wikipedia so maybe there's a cultural aspect to Wikipedia I don't know about or something.... CityWanderer 16:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I will come back later and give you more detailed advice. For now I will give your two peices of advice:


 * 1) Be calm, and patient. Wikipedia remembers everything, and everything can be undone. So this is not time critical.
 * 2) Take a look at third opinion, it is a place where you can invite other editors to give an opinion on a disagreement.


 * There are others ways to deal with this aswell, which I will get into later. Thanks for the hard work. HighInBC 16:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi HighInBC -- thanks for your advice, it's great! The probelm is my own: Wizzy responded on the Talk page and I'm having trouble keeping my calm talking to him. I recognize that being level-headed is super super important for these things. This guy is just being so irrational and, in my mind, defending the indefensible, I'm having trouble dealing with him. I think I should not look at this for a few days, calm down, and then come back and see how I feel. Maybe I should then, rewrite the section to deal with his criticism. I don't know...


 * Indeed that is a great idea regarding taking a break, all the text from any version of the article will still be available then. I will look into the specifics later, till then my advice can only be general. I find my best weapons of persuasion are wikipedia policy, outside citations, and enlisting the help of other editors, and alway remember the persuasion goes both ways. You are already on the right path. HighInBC 21:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have read a bit of the article history and the talk page discussion, it seems that it is not the informationn that is being questioned, but how you are putting it in.


 * Instead of have one section saying all that is bad, and the rest of the article saying all that is good, istead insert the facts throughout the article in placed they fit. Be sure to provide citations for every fact you provide as this is a living person.


 * Another way to balance the article is to remove and demand citation for anything that does not have a citation. In regular articles it is better to tag doubious fact with a tag, but not on a biography of a living person, uncited claims need to be removed. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 12:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

JerseyKen's question
Not sure if this is the right place to ask this of you, so please excuse me if I'm wrong. I'm a newbie, and just learning.

You left a comment for me (I think) that seems to be labeled a "warning" -- not to add nonsense to Wikipedia. (19:47, 18 October 2006 (UTC)). Was that addressed to something specific, or just a general message routinely given to newcomers? (Hard to imagine I've succeeded in adding nonsense so early! But I want to be sure!)

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JerseyKen (talk • contribs) 10:43, October 19, 2006


 * I am sorry about that, that message was meant for another user. I edited the wrong window. I will be more carefull in the future. I have removed the warning as it should not have been there, my mistake. HighInBC 17:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Phew! Nothing like a little jolt of paranoia first off. Thanks for clearing that up for me! JerseyKen 17:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for the welcome! Alsandair 23:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem let me know here if you need anything. HighInBC 23:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Signature
I finally made a custom signature, what do people think? HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 23:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: On any other page the Ask me would be a link here.
 * looks good. I only made a sig this month also.  --BostonMA talk  23:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I like it too, I made mine a couple of weeks ago-- Sea dog  .M.S  23:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Warm welcome
I'm delighted to recieve your welcome.

I'm so happy that your wife is healthy. I'd bet that she will outlive you, since a) there's going to better and better treatments and eventually a cure, and b)that's quite a beer gut you're working on.

Honestly, you made me realize that I would marry a woman who had AIDS. If I loved someone enough that they were the woman of my dreams, then what on Earth could stop me? A misplaced fear for my own life? Gosh if all the middle class white, strait white men in the world had HIV - they'red be a cure in 5 years. Amen to that.

So I'm happy for you - such a beautful woman. You lucky dog ;)

Nr.Dick 04:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind words, my wife enjoyed them too. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm so glad :) PS- how how do I add one of those "talk' icons? Nr.Dick 04:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No wait - I got it. Nr.Dick 04:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)undefinedtalk

LOL!


 * Talk icons? Do you mean the link on my signature? If so you go to my preferences and under user profile there is a field called signature. Put your alternate signature in there. This is what mine looks like(with Raw signature on):


 * HighInBC (Need help? Ask me)


 * Of course you will have to adjust it to your username and taste. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Many Thanks. Actually one. &#91;&#91;User:Nr.Dick&#124;Nr.Dick&lt;small&gt; &lt;sup&gt;&#91;&#91;User_talk:Nr.Dick&#124;&#39; &#39;conscribble&#39; &#39;]])&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt;]] 04:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL!- one more try- and then I have to get back to work ;)  Ciao for now. &#91;&#91;User:Nr.Dick&#124;Nr.Dick&lt;small&gt; &lt;sup&gt;&#91;&#91;User_talk:Nr.Dick&#124;&#39; &#39;conscribble&#39; &#39;]])&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/small&gt;]] 04:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Doh.


 * Lol, don't copy the the  tags. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 04:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

your drug induced action
Hi there. I noticed you reverted a text that is both relevant and quoted, and wrote in the edit summary that you only removed an external link. I do hope this was a mistake on your part, since you had good contribution to this article before. -- Procrastinating@ talk2me 12:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes it was an error, thanks for catching it. I was doing alot of editing at the time an it slipped by, Thanks. Just going out the door on a trip now, see you on monday. (though this edit was no more drug induced than any other edit of mine) HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 14:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Muchas gracias


Hey Ryan, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, &mdash; Khoikhoi 05:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That is great, I had to check your contribs when all that nonsense started. Keep up the good work. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 01:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

User Pages
The sprotect command I "infringed" has been removed after I examined the correct use. Apologies.

Stevensons88 13:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, now tell me why you put the block template on my userpage? That is clearly an act of vandalism. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Reprisal. I haven't replaced it now you've removed it have I? I am not intending to disrupt your page as long as you don't revert mine to its very first incarnation as you did. I consider the matter closed. Stevensons88 13:14, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Stevensons, I am reverting your talk page in line with Wikipedia policy, whereas when you add a blocktemplate to a userpage or remove warnings from yours you are goint against wikipedia policy. In the welcome message you recieved there are links to the policies of this site. Repeated faluire to follow these polices will result on loss of editing priviledges.

Also, reprisal, is discouraged here. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 13:16, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

88 question
Read the line just above the footnotes section on this section of the Hitler salute. (→ Netscott ) 15:25, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * and 88 (number), ; of course the number itself isn't sufficient as a clue (the guy might just have been born in 1988 or whatever), but in combination with his behaviour, chances are high that the number was chosen in this context. dab (&#5839;) 15:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal Applicatoin
Hi HighInBC, I filed the application at the mediation cabal to address a specific issue that had been prominent for over a month (it seems to have died down a bit) and that was the question of the maome image. (That imagae is not in the Muhammad article currently). I would prefer it if the Mediation cabal case focused on that issue, rather than becoming diffuse. Of course that is my opinion, and you may have another. I understand that there is also a conflict with editors like Embarkedaxis (did I spell that right), but unfortunately, unless he/she begins to argue his/her case in a clearer fashion, his/her edits will be treated as non-consensus edits. Although it is a conflict, it isn't really the kind of conflict that worries me. I am much more concerned with the conflicts between established users who have been unable to resolve their differences in spite of fairly lengthy discussion. --BostonMA talk 15:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 15:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

McCarthy Discussion page
I noticed that you made some comment about civil behavior, maybe you could revist the page and be more specific about your comment.. Ie please point out what was not civil? Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 16:00, October 23, 2006 (talk • contribs) Mantion


 * I was reffering mostly to this:


 * Well thank you for wasting your time putting together a useless google search list? Is that how you form your decisions, by Googling things and then using that as your information, LOL. If you did that you would think Bush was an idiot, who is part of the Nazi party.


 * Which you wrote just above my comment on civility. Civility is not limited to insults, but mocking or ridiculing somebody is just as uncivil. This is not a grevious infraction, but we depend on civility here to work well with each other. HighInBC (Need help? Ask me) 00:47, 24 October 2006 (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.