User talk:HighInBC/Archive 2

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.

Email

New one. ~ Wikihermit 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian companies

Great work on sourcing the article! I see that your next step is to judge whether companies meet WP:CORP. Looking through the list I can see that at least 90% are "household names" in India for anyone who reads the business pages and will trivially meet the notability requirements. So would it help your efforts if I used my personal knowledge to highlight the companies in the list that may be borderline ? That way, perhaps your efforts can be focussed on the possibly problematic cases. However I will put in the effort only if you consider it useful; so let me know what you think
By the way, even though you have no way to verify this, I can attest that I have no COI here. Abecedare 18:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any information you can provide on the article's talk page would be helpful in general, but I do not know how useful it will be to me. I tend to do things alphabetically to ensure getting it all. It is my hopes that in establishing notability for the list, many of those articles can have their {{unreferenced}}/{{primarysources}} tags removed. I agree that most of the companies will meet WP:CORP once a bit of searching is done. I am not concerned about any COI, because sourcing requirements help with NPOV a lot. Until (1 == 2) 18:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of reggaeton artists and producers

Why did you protect List of reggaeton artists and producers as deleted? Kappa 04:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was being repeatedly being recreated as the same context lacking speedy deletable article after it was AfD'd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of reggaetón artists and producers. Until (1 == 2) 04:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK well please redirect it to List of reggaeton artists or move that to here. Kappa 05:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done that, but I have to say that list does not have any clearly defined unambiguous criteria for inclusion based off of reliable sources as a list needs. Until (1 == 2) 13:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

The minor inconsistency that GA/R and FARC don't work the same way is unfortunate. Some people would propose a mandatory shortcut policy...;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson

Hmm, regulated alphabet soup, I like the idea. Until (1 == 2) 14:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

#wikipedia-en-admins

Hi - I've added you to the access list for the channel. To get in, you'll first need to ask chanserv to invite you by sending the command: /msg chanserv invite #wikipedia-en-admins. You should then be able to join as normal. Thanks, Martinp23 13:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was fast, thank you. Until (1 == 2) 13:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ah great, an online admin

Hey -- can you help? Jim Behrle (and the associated page moves, done by Jim himself: Jim Buerhle, James W. Berrhley) were created as a bit of a joke, and now the subject is royally angered. Can you please help me delete them? Sdedeo (tips) 14:18, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read a bit, and it did not seem like an attack page. I do not have time to investigate it further. I suggest you post at WP:ANI to get the attention of an admin if you think it meets the specific wording of our speedy deletion criteria. Otherwise you can submit it to WP:AfD for a deletion debate. Alternately if the original author places {{db-author}} on the page, then it can be deleted without further delay. Until (1 == 2) 14:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you at least delete the nonsense page moves? (Jim Buerhle, James W. Berrhley). Just to be clear, these are made up names. Sdedeo (tips) 14:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, magic -- all gone. Thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 14:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it looks like admin Pascal.Tesson took care of it. Until (1 == 2) 14:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IRC cloak request

I am until1is2 on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/until1is2. Thanks. --Until (1 == 2) 02:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rr question

Quick question. I'm pretty sure 3rr applies in this case. TripleBatteryLife (talk · contribs) has added the same soapbox-y statement to Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science mulitple times, e.g. [1]. I've reverted twice and another user has reverted twice. Should I take this to 3RR? Thanks, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, 3RR applies. Even if the guy had a good point 3RR would apply, and he doesn't have a good point. Until (1 == 2) 04:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I was only concerned about the Wikipedia space issue. He seems to have stopped after I gave the 3RR warning (he's added it 4 times). I'll report if it comes back. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main place you need to worry about with 3RR is the user's own space. For some reason, even though user space content is only there at the consent of the community, user space is exempt from 3RR. Until (1 == 2) 04:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that in the policy. I knew it didn't apply somewhere, and I'm just tired enough not to 100% trust my reading abilities at the moment. Thanks again! Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your username

I can prove 1=2 if you are interested. Sophia 05:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather you didn't, I would hate to stop. Until (1 == 2) 13:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, has it started?

A man comes home from work, jumps on the sofa in front of the telly and tells his wife, 'Quick, quick! Gimme a beer before it starts!'

She gives him his beer.

A few minutes later, he says again, 'Quick! Bring some Pringles before it starts.'

She does.

A few minutes later, he asks again for a beer.

The wife says, 'You know, you've been home five minutes, you've not lifted a finger, you're making me run around bringing you drinks and snacks. What did yer last slave die of?'

The bloke just grumbles, 'It's started.'

Cheers, --Dweller 15:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed addition to Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Hi, I am thinking proposing an addition to WP:RS. I figured that before I did that I would run it pass yourself, SlimVirgin, and Crum375. Its pretty self explanatory, and from my standpoint it seems a change for the better, even if RS appears somewhat diminished nowadays. The three of you could possibly suggest some improvements in the language, and more importantly, if I have gone off in the wrong direction, please feel free to say so. Thanks much Brimba 08:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Sorry if it looks like I am send you all a form letter, but I am tying to do 14 things at once right now.

Exceptional claims require exceptional sources

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people.

Changed to:

Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people. Often controversial claims are not falsifiable; an editor wishing to challenge a claim may not be able to find sufficient information to assign reliability. Thus it is upon those wishing to add or maintain controversial material to justify its inclusion; it is specifically not the responsibility of those challenging the material to disprove it.

Too early, will look after coffee. Until (1 == 2) 13:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:V already says that the burden is on the person seeking to include any information once challenged(exceptional claim or not), so this addition seems redundant to me. Until (1 == 2) 15:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User page

I believe I wanted a subpage of mine deleted, and I put the tag on that page: User:Corvus coronoides/UBX Explosive Cook, but it has already been deleted. How do I remove my userpage from this category? I can't find the tag to delete it. Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 19:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is strange. The only thing I can think of is that when you put the tag on User:Corvus coronoides/UBX Explosive Cook it transcluded to User:Corvus coronoides. I don't know why it is still listed, perhaps due to lag in the database updating. I suggest you remove all included templates from your user page that have been deleted, or have a CSD tag on them. If an admin does pop by and delete it by mistake, let me know and I will bring it back. Until (1 == 2) 20:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I think I have fixed the issue. Thanks again for letting me know! Cheers, Corvus coronoides _talk 20:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation for comments

After posting my thoughts on TTR's talk page, and discussions with DES and Carcharoth, Carcharoth asked if I'd be willing to put my talk page thoughts into an essay, as mentioned on the DTTR talk page, and at DES's added suggestions, I decided to go ahead and take a stab at it. Since you were one of the people who followed the issues between TTR and DTTR, I'd like to invite you to take a look at the completed draft of the essay, and offer your additional wisdom, insights, and suggestions. As of now, the essay is not public, DES and Chrislk02 are the only ones who have taken a look at it during its initial creation. However, now that I've finished all sections, I'm ready to move into further discussion of the essay, aimed towards any improvements in format, layout, content, etc. If you have the time to take a look, I'd be most grateful, ^Ariel♥Gold 16:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, lots of pretty pictures! I will give it a read over later on, thanks. Until (1 == 2) 17:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you don't want to delve into it too deeply, any comments on format, image placement (too many, too few to keep attention/interest), length, are greatly appreciated! And thanks for the initial impression!

^Ariel♥Gold 17:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BMF81

Was an indefinite block really warranted in this situation? I've seen outright vandals post far worse content and get the typical 4 warnings and a 24 hour block, only to repeat the process again and again. BMF81, although actually made contributions to the encyclopedia. I ran accross his edits in several computer science related articles and wondered why he suddenly stopped editting which led me here. --Android Mouse 22:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user just had a 24 hours block for the same sick child raping joke and had just made it again. It was not only warranted, it was dam warranted. I also got a review of my block at an AN/I post about him and consensus was that the block was appropriate. Until (1 == 2) 23:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't seen that he had done it before. Still, it seems strange to me that blatant vandals get more warnings than an active contributer does. --Android Mouse 00:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you most sincerely, that a new users and blatant vandals who make similar comments are blocked without warning all the time, the fact that the guy got only a 24 hour block for the first such comment was precisely in deference to the history of the users contributions. The double standard we apply in favor to established users has been respected. A good contribution history does not afford that type of behavior, not twice at least. Until (1 == 2) 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Template the regulars

I ask you to reconsider your comments at the deletion review of this essay, in light of my later comments. i had made an edit (this one) I considered quite significant to the essay, after it was previously deleted and restored, and the recent deletion also deletes that edit. DES ^(talk) 15:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm not sure how I missed that, I even copy edited that addition. I have altered my comment. I think this whole issue has become moot since author deletion has never meant that another editor cannot recreate the content. GFDL still applies to the content, that cannot be retracted, and if another user is to build on that then a history is required. Until (1 == 2) 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

adminabuse

Nice one! But perhaps instead, we should have a bot that removes all threads from ANI where someone complaints about admin abuse, because if someone starts with that it is a spurious complaint ten times out of nine :) >Radiant< 19:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, well, I don't know if that will pass the bot approval process... Until (1 == 2) 20:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

You're funny. I like you. Thanks for making me smile. And I'm glad you liked my message to IPSOS. --Dweller 23:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I was not funny, I would not have much left. Thanks. Until (1 == 2) 02:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username blocks and company names

I understand your reason for putting WP:UAA back to the way it was -- WP:RFCN is in fact a better place for most questionable reports -- but I think that in the meantime you've blocked a username that belonged in the "questionable" section or on WP:RFCN, and certainly didn't merit instant blocking.

Pitbull Filmworks (talk · contribs) is not blatantly inappropriate, was probably not created in bad faith, and no attempt was made to discuss the name with the user. This seems to be part of the "block first, ask questions later" pattern that is not endorsed by the username policy, and which the consensus is forming against on WT:U. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 15:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:U clearly states that "Usernames that match the name of a company or group" are not allowed. It is a blatant violation. Not sure what discussion could be needed, the username template explains how to change their name. Promotional usernames have always been blocked on sight before they plaster their company name all over. Until (1 == 2) 16:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a difference between a violation of WP:U and a blatantly inappropriate username (the only kind that WP:U says to block), just like there's a difference between talking to the user and blocking them instantly. You're assuming bad faith if you assume that the reason they chose that username is to spam. And the discussion on WP:VPP, WT:U and related pages is making it clear that just because it "has always been done" on WP:UAA doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. rspeer / ɹəədsɹ 19:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The motives of the person do not enter into it. The fact is we cannot have people editing under a username that is a company, or every edit and every signature is an advertisement, even if that is not their intention. It has been that way much longer than UAA has been about. The policy specifically says that company names are inappropriate, the name is clearly a company name, it is clearly inappropriate. Clearly inappropriate names are to be blocked, I blocked it. Inappropriate does not necessarily mean bad faith, and bad faith names are not the only ones blocked on sight. Until (1 == 2) 19:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you strongly disagree, you can ask for a review of the block at WP:AN. Until (1 == 2) 19:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually agree with Until's reasoning in this case; the problem is actually that the policy is worded in a way that's very hard to navigate. In essence, there's two sorts of policy violations, and they don't seem to be delineated: there's those that are absolute no-nos, regardless of anything else (company names, websites, etc), and there's those that there can be some investigation, talk, give and take about, but may warrant an immediate block if really blatant. I'm going to try and figure out how to say this better and post it to the policy page. SamBC(talk) 19:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To me it has two types, clearly and questionable as read in WP:U#Reporting_inappropriate_names. The distinction seem to me to be less about the intent or seriousness of the violation, but how certain one is that it is a violation. Until (1 == 2) 20:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's about them being inappropriate; but it also indicates elsewhere that not every violation of the letter of the policy is an inappropriate username. SamBC(talk) 20:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The prohibition against company names is under the "Inappropriate usernames" section, and I also find it inappropriate under my own judgement. I try to be very clear about policy before I act. Until (1 == 2) 20:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username block and account creation blocking

Howdy! I saw that a recent username block of yours (Douchebagmachete) had account creation disabled. Please don't do this w/ username blocks, it prevents them from coming back with a legit username. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a name is "PooPoo" or "Douchebag" or "shitforbrains", it is generally considered a bad faith username. Often this is done specifically to get a listing on WP:UAA. Some usernames are good faith mistakes, others are an attempt to disrupt. From WP:U "...it is frequently useful to disable account creation, if the username appears to have been created in bad faith." Until (1 == 2) 16:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a poor practice, and I've posted a comment to that effect on the talk page for WP:U in hopes of getting that wording changed. Nowhere else on Wikipedia do we infinitely ban a PERSON for a single misstep, your insight on the issue would be welcome. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Oh, and it is not an indefinite ban, it is an indefinite username block. The account creation block and the auto block expire after 2 days. Until (1 == 2) 17:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Speedy for Novocastrian Philosophers' Club

Hi Until, I was wondering if you could give me the reasoning for removing the speedy delete tag I placed on Novocastrian Philosophers' Club? I felt it met WP:CSD under points 1 and 7 for articles. Its not a big deal... I just want to make sure I'm not being too aggressive with tags. Thanks! Hiberniantears 19:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article did have context, in that it explained what the article was about, so it is not a WP:CSD#A1. It also makes an assertion of notability so WP:CSD#A7 does not apply. The article was however marked with WP:CSD#G1, which is for patent nonsense. This does not include poor writing, partisan screeds or other such things, but only actual nonsense like "Hey nony nony wuppooo nicky whami".

CSD is a very narrow set of criteria, often a slam dunk AfD will not qualify for CSD. It does come close to A7, but I tend to err on the side of caution with CSD. Until (1 == 2) 19:29, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. That what I get for being a little lazy with Vandal Proof... Thanks for the quick reply, as this helps! Hiberniantears 19:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work. Until (1 == 2) 19:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mycologyataoldotcom

I wish you hadn't blocked the user; I'd removed the user from UAA a good long while ago, and got an edit conflict with my very friendly suggestion to go to WP:CHU with your block notice. Email addresses are not explicitly forbidden by WP:U; you can see additional discussion about this at User talk:EVula#UAA Removal. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the policy does prohibit email addresses in names, it has for many months now. It is only usernames created before Jan 1, 2007 that are exempt. The problem was that many e-mail usernames were just honeypots to get other e-mails to add to spamlists. I did not mean to override you, I thought you had passed this one by. My block message does politely explain how to change usernames. Perhaps this is due to a differing interpretation of policy. Until (1 == 2) 16:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I suppose it is not necessarily promotional in nature, though it is strongly linked with his webpage. I would not object to you reversing it, but I don't want to reverse it myself. Frankly I think the policy should be re-written to prohibit e-mail addresses outright as it did in the past. Until (1 == 2) 16:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After talking to some of my peers I have concluded you are correct. I have reversed the block, sorry about that, and thanks for the info. Until (1 == 2) 16:14, 12 August 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.