User talk:HighInBC/Archive 27


 * 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.

Re-organised codification of incivility
Here I have rewritten the list to remove repetitions, move from worst to least, and enable numbered reference. Please let me know soon if you see any problem. Tony  (talk)  01:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm I am not sure if we need to codify something as simple as "treat each other with a reasonable level of respect". I will look into it further tomorrow. Thanks for the initiative. Chillum  05:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see it is a stylistic rearrangement, not further codification. I have given my 2 cents. Chillum  05:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

User: Giano|The future
Your contributions at the above page are very welcome. However, in the interests of clarity excessive countering of the points of others (when agreeing or disagreeing) is making the page unnecessarily long and confusing. One or two points is fine, so is addressing points directly raised to you, persistant and continued countering is not - some people even find it intimidating. The page is purely to assess how many people are interested and to find out the concerns they have. The worthiness of those views can be hotly debated elsewhere at a later date, assuming enough people feel the point is worth debating. Please feel free to agree or disagree with points or raise your own views in a seperate section, but please limit your countering of others. Thank you. Giano (talk) 06:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Voting before having a discussion is one thing, but discouraging discussion during the vote pretty much guarantees you will get a popular vote instead of consensus. You have even taken all of the discussion and separated it from the vote. I hope you are doing this poll for your own personal information because it will not be convincing as any sort of consensus.


 * I would like to say that I appreciate that you have taken a more productive approach in your grievances, I think that presenting evidence and having a discussion before the poll would have been more productive, and I do think the poll could have been less bias in its choices. However it is a big improvement over rude comments. I know you are under the impression that I have some sort of grudge against you, this is not true. As long as you follow the policies here, including treating people with respect then you have no problem from me at all. I may still disagree with some of your ideas, but that is just different people believing different things. Chillum  14:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Having comments on comments (which is all it basically is) linked at the appropriate place on the main page to a place on the talk page, allows those that want to follow a certain point to do so, while leaving the main page clear and concise. Nothing has been deleted or hidden and no one silenced. It's unavoidable that the main page is going to become long and very convoluted, trying to keep some clarity is to be encouraged - or do you think a 100 interjections up-and-down from Ottava Rimmer improves the clarity. I'm sure, like me, you have seen those thread that occasionally apper on ANI, which become so long almost everyone has lost the plot. my sole intention is to improve clarity, there is no hidden agenda.

I am not under the impression that you have some sort of grudge against me, you are just one of those who seem to disagree with all I say - that is your perogative to exercise in the same way in which I exercise mine. Giano (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sure I have agreed with you at least twice. Chillum  15:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hahaha!
Thank you for that typo; brightened my day. I won't repeat the link but you got yourself there!--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lol, I know the one you mean... perhaps it was a subconscious case of wishful thinking. Chillum  15:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Freudian typo?--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

copyvio?
You deleted User:AlmightyMike after one hour of the MfD running, as a copyright violation of this URL:


 * http://www.international-herpetological-society.org/index.php?option=com_awiki&view=mediawiki&article=User%3ADr.gal&Itemid=61

That URL indicates it is using the Joomla "aWiki" extension, which displays a page from a wiki. You can see an example on another website that uses this extension:


 * http://joomla.anezi.net/index.php?option=com_awiki&view=mediawiki&Itemid=3&article=User%3ADr.gal

Afaics, you deleted User:AlmightyMike as a copyright violation of User:Dr.gal. I you agree that this probably wasnt a copyvio, we could restore the pages, and talk to a Wikiversity sysop who may be interested in importing these pages there. John Vandenberg (chat) 05:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Upon further investigation it does appear that page was mirroring Wikipedia content, and that the content of the page does not seem to exist elsewhere. I have restored the page, and I will notify User:MZMcBride of the reversal of my deletion so he can reconsider the MfD. Thank you for drawing my attention to this error. Chillum  13:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Anti-whoever images
The mere image of a subject with a cross-out or "No" circle over it, does not to me constitute a file which serves to "disparage or threaten its subject"; it merely indicates opposition. Such images are often components of userboxen, an active part of our culture here. My restoration of that image should not be construed as opposition to that subject, by the way; merely as maintaining the ol' neutral point of view. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Neutral point of view is about articles not user space. There is no encyclopedic value to the picture. I think it is clearly anti-someone and the name of the picture jives with my interpretation of it. We can disagree. Should I restore the image and file for a deletion debate, should we leave the image deleted and you file for deletion review, or should we just leave it deleted? Chillum  14:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Or you could just restore it yourself and have another admin delete it, not how I would have gone. Chillum  00:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you help?
Hi Chillum, I was wondering if you can have a look at this, I originally wrote to this user regarding this comment he wrote on Talk:Kosovo:

You say "dab since the old days has been the biggest opponent against the [Republic of Kosova] or [Kosovo], even more than Tadiq himself." which pretty much makes you appear retarded, and invalidates the rest of your opinion. Beam 14:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC) On his talk page: Calling other users "retarted", as you did at Talk:Kosovo will get you a warning, and possibly a block. Don't do it again. Brutaldeluxe (talk) 16:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You're a joke. Beam 14:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC) On my talk page: Did you not read that crap? And I didn't call anyone retarded, just pointed out the appearance of retardation. Which I'm sure you saw as well. Care to change your tune, or are you still threatening me? Beam 14:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, you know what? You don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you share some trait with said pointed out appearances? Beam 14:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I think he broke the civility rules, make what you want of it, keep puffin', Brutaldeluxe (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will look into this further once I am done with work. Chillum  16:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say that this comment is a bit out of line. I will keep an eye on things, hopefully there will not be another such occurrence. Chillum  03:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

About Metrospex
Hello Chillum. Thanks for blocking this particular user, he is not missed by anyone. In the meantime, I'd like to draw your attention to some of his past activity. Apparently, his comments today were not the first time that he made personal attacks against other users. I had warned him in the past but you'd be forgiven for not having realised this since the user took the liberty of deleting my message on his talk. If you care to examine this edit, using the link within the deleted piece, you'll see how he has previously been. Evlekis (talk) 17:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I will keep an eye on this user once their block has expired. Chillum  20:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

You should also keep an eye on the above user who is not at all better then Metrospex, accept that he does not swear. In terms of POV pushing, they're both equal. (Interestedinfairness (talk) 10:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)).


 * I just also thought I should point out that the Adem Jashari page (a similar topic) is also getting out of hand, both on talk and on the article. I'm staying out of this one but it needs attention. Thanks Chillum. Evlekis (talk) 23:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits
Would you object terribly if I where to increase Vintagekits block due to his continued lack of civility and abuse on his talk page? Or you can if you like. he has been blocked for personal attacks on many many occasions, so a 24 hour block I don't feel is sufficient. Canterbury Tail  talk  17:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know if that would be preventative at this point. I would rather wait and see if he will attempt to be civil after the block. Future blocks for this sort of behavior will likely be longer. I do not object however if another any admin wishes to increase the duration.  Chillum  20:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have altered the block settings to not allow e-mail due to his abuse of it towards you. Chillum  20:41, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I misunderstood your message as I read it in a hurry. No I have no objection to any adjustment you wish to make to that block. I simply meant to say that I did not wish to do so myself. Chillum  03:46, 7 July 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.