User talk:HighInBC/Archive 23


 * 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.

WQA closure
I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask, but here goes: There were two WQAs filed against me that made baseless claims (you commented as such on the first). On top of there being nothing to the complainst, both complaining accounts have now been blocked as part of a string of sockpuppet accounts confirmed by checkuser. In short, the comments I made suggesting that these editors were acting inappropriately and which brought the complaints of supposed baiting/hounding/lying have all been proven. Would it be too much to ask to have those sections finally marked as resolved for being baseless and made in bad faith? DreamGuy (talk) 15:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it would be perfectly reasonable to ask for a closing. I am not too familiar with that noticeboard, but I assume they follow common sense there like we do everywhere else(hehe in a perfect world). Chillum  15:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

re
Alright here we go agin do they own the artical i am adden information but they remove it why is it ok for them to do that but not me it seems 1 sided and not right. Yourname (talk) 21:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

If you check the talk page there seems to be a reasonable amount Yourname (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We can discuss this on your talk page. Chillum  21:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

ok All replays will be made there after this Yourname (talk) 21:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You vandal you... --- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:11, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wheee! Well considering the primary problem with that use is that he does not know the difference between people not letting him do something disruptive, and vandalism... I am not too surprised. Chillum  00:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thought you might get a kick out of it... while i wasn't involved there, I had my own doubts about him. His talk page was on my watch list because I declined two of his speedy deletions, and explained why.  Rather than respond to those criticisms, he simply removed the note.  So seeing your post, was affirmation that he acted this way routinely.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yourname
Not sure you watch DGG's talk so heads up I left you a note here. Not watching here but I watch there so no need to let me know if you respond there. StarM 03:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Was a checkuser performed, or is it not even necessary at this point? - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:14, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not seen any indication that he is using alternate accounts. But then he did come back to troll with multiple IPs, so perhaps it would be fruitful. I am not very experienced filing checkuser requests, I have only done so a couple of time. Chillum  19:58, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

thanks for beating me to the block of [69.197.156.202 this friend]. QUack quack. StarM 03:12, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This whole check user thing is starting to sound useful. Chillum  04:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If anything, it should ferret out any other socks he may have if they've not gone stale. At least I think that's how it works. Can you tell I don't work in the area frequently? I just report on occasion. StarM 11:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Another IP, same obsession with the shit pics, literally. SPI Filed StarM 00:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * My initial thought went along the lines of the Check-User... since this is a series of IP's there isn't much we can do... just wait it out... but he apparently only has access to about 5 or 6 IP's... they are being recycled. And looking at the histories of some of them, it looks as if they were blocked previously as Socks of other blocked users...--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 02:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I bet some of those are open proxies. I will nmap them later and block any proxies for a few months. Chillum  04:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:90.193.28.231
Is there anyway you can talk to this user on his talk page. He just doesn't seem to understand that I didn't post the IP, that it was SineBot. I have tried to explain it to him and he thinks I am trying to get him in trouble with Anonymous. -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • April 29, 2009 @ 05:34


 * I have explained on his talk page. I think this person gets it, but is carrying on none-the-less. Chillum  05:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I kinda think so too, but wanted to pass it on to someone else as I am heading off to bed soon. Thanks :) -  NeutralHomer •  Talk  • April 29, 2009 @ 05:40

My email
Please publish the email on my page in full! It was a wiki-mail I have not a copy of it, or I would. And when you return there with it, please explain why VK cannot have a picture of the assembled Royal families of Europe in mourning on his page, without you calling it an attack! Giano (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP Editor
Nobody can ever say that we didn't try. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I unblock a person who has a 24 hour block, and they use the freedom to find a 1 week block. Give a person enough rope... Chillum  20:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I honestly expected it earlier, considering their behaviour in ANI. Good patience on you though. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have just started an essay on the subject, it is very new and has little content. I would like to have it on a few people's watchlists so I can get feedback. User:Chillum/Enough rope. Chillum  20:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Done :-) ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would make them more anonymous ... "Situation A: the editor did X and Y, then admin B did Z..." ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 20:52, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To be honest there are too many people who believe that cool-off blocks are not productive. I think only through evidence can this be shown to be false. A simple set of hypothetical events will not convince people. Chillum  20:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to say good block. He's had more than enough chances and this was totally unnecessary.  It wasn't a cool-off block as a "we told you to knock it off and you wouldn't."  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, re 87.69.176.81. I'm amazed at the amount of patience you folks had with this guy.  --Captain Infinity (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Lets hear ya then!
Lets hear ya then!

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents--Vintagekits (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

87.69.176.81, Smedpull, etc.
Sockpuppet investigations/Mexicomida

Repeating some of what I said to Georgewilliamherbet...

The user continues to produce new socks:

This edit suggests he's figured out how to change IP's frequently.

The IP denies being Smedpull, and here he is "talking to himself" on the talk page of Smedpull's successor,, also implying by the "vigilante" comment that he will continue vandalizing, out of self-righteous wrath. Yet here's an oddity - the IP posting a "talkback" reference on Chingadiculous' talk page three days ago, a day before the checkuser inquiry was posted. Why would he do that? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 12:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It is often disappointing to expect that an irrational person's actions are based on any reasoning. Chillum  19:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Good point. To use an outrageous analogy, as that user sometimes does, it's like asking, "Why does a serial killer do what he does?" The answer turns out to be either, "He's crazy", or "He's evil", or perhaps a combination of the two. That's the closest thing to a "rational" explanation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

email regarding abuse filter
That is a very good idea. I will keep an eye on that filter and have fun blocking away. Chillum 23:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your talk page
Hi. I just wanted to let you know that per a request on RFPP I've indefinitely semi-protected you talk page, on the theory that you can unprotect it when the ip get tired. Hope you don't mind. Take care, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  00:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Chillum  00:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FYI
FYI. rootology ( C )( T ) 04:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

fair use
You question whether the image File:Cr138c1.jpg comes under the "fair use" provision. I am the publisher of the magazine, and I give permission for Wikipedia to use and for anyone to copy the image. Romano Felmang is the artist, and he has given permission for Wikipedia to use and for anyone to copy the image. In addition, the image is the cover of a comic book, used to illustrate the article about that comic book, which automatically comes under fair use, as I understand the rules. I really don't know what more is required. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The goal of Wikipedia is to produce a free encyclopedia for anyone to use. As such permission for Wikipedia to use the image is not enough. Unless an image is given a license that makes it irrevocably free for all to use for any reasons(including commercial) then a fair use rational is needed. See this license for example. How to make a fair use rational is described here: fair use rational. Please let me know if you need any further help. Chillum  12:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:CWQ
Hi, saw your template message for this user. I already blocked him, I wasn't even going to bother with a block notice on his talk. It's the same old virgin killer vandal which has been around lately. Garion96 (talk) 19:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, okay. Chillum  20:00, 9 May 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.