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.
I've just now figured out how to work this talk page, so bear with me. A long time ago, you told me to be careful with vandalism. Thank you for the advice. I didn't actually mean to vandalize it. I was at school and the computer shut down and erased the whole thing. I just thought you should know that. I am glad there are users out there who care so much for this website. Mortari03:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, we try to assume good faith here. I have removed that warning and replaced it with a welcome, have fun editing. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)04:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the bot! And wasn't I complaining just a few weeks ago about the (database-like) difficulties of keeping AIV synchronized with the work of the admins monitoring the list, and you actually went and did something about it! Thanks again!
Can you direct some of your magical admin powers over to WP:AIV, there's a block request that's been sitting their for almost an hour. Thanks. --Matthew17:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahhhh. Hmm maybe a nice feature for my bot would be to put a comment next to a user saying something like This user has been listed for 30 minutes, nah the timestamp on the post is enough. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)18:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks very nice. Only two things stick out to me, at least in terms of the search patterns:
Not sure what the history of the comment texts is — it's possible they've changed over time, so some history digging might be needed in order to find the older comments to find older warnings.
The issue brought up originally where if you don't use a template it doesn't come up. So if we follow through with not templating the regulars then this won't work. Maybe add more generic comment detection so that if we're leaving personalized messages, we could just add <!--npa--> to the comment so it'll be found but it won't be a template. That's a pretty kludgy way to do it, but it's the only clean way that I could think of. Regex can only go so far and it wouldn't be guaranteed to find appropriate warnings and not, for example, a user on an admin's talk page asking him to check out a personal attack someone else made. —bbatsell¿?15:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I came across some interesting discussions off-wiki about how to spam Wikipedia, so I check to see which of the participants in that forum had links on Wikipedia. As I was doing this, I came across some potentially odd linkages between Timecop (talk • contribs), Self Torture (talk • contribs) and possibly Family Guy Guy (talk • contribs) as well as a host of IP accounts Family Guy Guy uses for spamming. See the details with links to diffs at:
On the whole, I lean towards believing that Family Guy Guy ≠ Self Torture and that they're just peddling the same rose water. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that Self Torture = Timecop. I may be wrong with both guesses.
I put the vandalismwarining because of this edit, not for any other reason. This user is being thoroughly unpleasant and keeps insulting me [5] ie YOU don't really understand the topic. So, please leave the editing to people who actually know something about the topic., which I dont find easy, SqueakBox20:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yopu cant source from another wikipedia article and in t erms of the first paragraph you have to prove relevance as well as good citations. If your claim on Keynesian politics is true please (a) cite and (b) prove notability, SqueakBox21:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Squeak, that edit is also not vandalism. Neither are impolite words. This user does not seem to have been exposed to our rules yet, it is not uncommon for new users to not understand our civility and verifiability rules.
Don't worry about it, many people make the mistake thinking something is vandalism when it is not, the main reason being is that Wikipedia has it's own private definition of vandalism. It is always best to go directly to the rules the person is violating and educate them. This will either educate them, or act as proof in the future they were aware of these policies. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)21:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
24, I have already responded to this on your talk page stating that Wikipedia does not source itself, I also gave you links to the pertinent policies. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)21:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please examine SqueakBox's comments from the Offshoring history section. He vandalised the page by blanking the content. He was uncivil by making these comments, "rm lecture in economics followed by rant with western POV but this is not a westernj encyclopedia we are international", "rv take your lecture elsewhere and you just added your own pov not a selection", "rm nonsense and pointed out that companies need offshoring to remain competitive". 24.17.42.21021:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Yes I actually support the use of the NPOV tag and only remove them when a dispute is resolved, outdated or no comment on the talk page after a good few hours and wouldnt in any case dream of claiming that its insertion into an article was vandalism. But on a talk page? On my rather large user talk page? Anyway I certainly agree with you that newbies need to be treated with especial care and thanks for getting involbved (as you may have seen I run an offhsore business so I am passionate on the subject whereas obviously you are (I imagine) uninvolved in this particular topic in your life. Regards, SqueakBox21:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that the edit summaries of squeak were less than civil. I apologies for that, you are welcome to politely ask him to be more civil in the future. Removing unsourced information is not vandalism. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)21:20, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Go back and read my User_talk:24.17.42.210 page from the beginning. SqueakBox was extremely rude, calling me both a liar and a troll. You should bring up the civility and No personal attacks policies with him as well. He obviously doesn't understand them, which is worse than me since he's been around longer and should know better. It appears that you're slapping my wrist while doing absolutely nothing to him. 24.17.42.21021:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was only responding in kind, stop attacking then playing the victim, accusing HighinBC of taking sides is plain wrong, he has never been afraid to disagree with me, SqueakBox21:33, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, okay, I really am giving a lot of consideration to relations on wikipedia, the good ones make you feel so good and the bad ones so bad, will apologise myself, SqueakBox21:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, 1 leading zero will results in 01-09, 10-25. I may adjust the instructions to make that more clear, I will run it know and see what happens. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)19:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I had to fix up the optin command a bit, the bot does not follow redirects. I fixed up the mask and set the leading zero's to 0 to match the actual placement of the archives. Should work now. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)20:06, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, the rest is fully automated. It will download new archives, as well as old archives that have changed, and update the index as needed. It is currently running when I run it, but once I am fully approved it will become twice daily. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)20:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message at my Talk page. Once I saw the context of the original diff I understood your concern (that's the problem with bare diffs; they often don't give the whole picture, and need to be accompanied by explanation). It's difficult to tell whether he's as unpleasant as he sometimes seems to be, or just completely socially inept; I hope the latter, and that he can be brought round. From what I saw, he's perfectly capable of contributing usefully, and even getting on OK with other editors. We'll see what happens when the block expires. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion occurred on the arbcom mailing list and on the admin IRC channel. The problem originated in interactions between Giano II and administrators using the channel. Fred Bauder15:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol, it is good to be right, but I would prefer to be right about thinking someone will be productive. Thanks for letting me know. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)16:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you put a block notice at User Talk:141.151.147.2 which stated that he was blocked for 48 hours. He's actually blocked for a week. Is that a mistake or an inside psychological trick to make the guy just give up? I'm always interested in the latest tactics in deterring vandalism. -- Mufka(user)(talk)(contribs)17:15, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot about the mediation. I finished reading already, and have restarted. I might ask for help from someone else later if I need help though. I hope I can finish this long-extended mediation. | AndonicOTalk · Sign Here13:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome; I don't think I'll be able to equal Ars though, as he had more experience (this is only my second case). That's why I might ask for someone else's help later. | AndonicOTalk · Sign Here23:54, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi HighInBC. I would like to respond to your question regarding the deleted question in mediation. You may have different expectations of mediation than myself. One of my expectations is that it will help to resolve the conflict. In my opinion, if an editor edits according to the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, then it is irrelevant whether that individual has the personal opinion Wikipedia ought to be censored. I don't believe Wikipedia ought to be censored, but there is nothing in Wikipedia policy or guidelines that forbids an editor from holding that as a point of view as long as they edit and behave in accordance with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In my opinion, this issue will never be resolved if we continue to allow the personal opinions of editors, which they are entitled to hold, to be brought into discussions. In other circumstances, making comments such as "you wish to censor Wikipedia" might be considered a personal attack. I don't think mediation should facilitate the practice of "looking at the editor" which we work to oppose in other circumstances by asking individuals to identify themselves as holding unpopular points of view. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk15:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The policies are already decided. So what remains is the interpretation of the policy. This is done through consensus. Perhaps the question should be reworded to Do you believe the policies of Wikipedia mandate the exclusion of this type of image. I don't think policy requires the exclusion of this image. So what is left is the ordinary editorial consensus that is applied to any article.
I am not sure how we are to proceed without giving our opinions on interpretation of policy. I am not sure who has made the statement "you wish to censor Wikipedia", if it was me it must have been a while ago because I don't remember. You suggested that a list of potential images be discussed, I don't see how this is any different as it will still require opinion.
Hi HighInBC. Unfortunately, I only have about 5 minutes. But I will be available again in a few hours. I did not mean to imply that you said "You wish to censor Wikipedia". As far as I know, you have not. However, such ad hominem arguments have been commonplace in this dispute. Will respond more fully later in the day. Sincerely, --BostonMAtalk18:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Has started (as an IP, then under this account) an edit-war on the article list of very tall men, reinserting mercilessly the 6ft 4in section that had been removed on a quite general consensus a few days ago because it is overcrowded and thus not so remarkable. I've reverted him at least 5 times, now i am getting sick of it. Sorry, and thanks. RCS19:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Ahhhohchrist has blanked her User Page. Not that it matters, as what she wrote is in the page histroy. Ahhhohchrist would have been aware of the messages we sent. I doubt she'll come to the discussion. Shame, I wish Users wouldn't do things like this. Acalamari21:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is fine for her to blank her userpage, she doesn't have to participate in the discussion. This is really a common sort of thing. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me)21:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad18:51, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
