User talk:H/Archive 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

[edit] User:Topic_expert

As you were closing my self-request at RFCN, I decided to contact you regarding my question at talk:Username policy, I'd appreciate your input.

What's more, I edited 420 (cannabis culture), but as I've never done drugs, I might not be knowledgable enough to understand the underlying issues :) —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 04:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your username, I would say it is short enough not to be an issue. Regarding 420, the wonderful thing about our verifiability policy is that you don't need to know about a subject to contribute, only where to find information. Keep up the good work. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding 420: Thanks. Regarding RFCN: I was actually referring to Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#.22expert.22, I shouldn't have marked it up as wikipedia talk:Username policy above. My mistake, sorry. Again: I'd appreciate your input there. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ohhhh, I see, I have commented. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Well, as you may have suspected already, I have a certain user in mind. His behaviour is not disruptive by any means, but he seems to have certain problems with WP:OWN and his username does nothing to help with this perception, as far as I'm concernded. But that's just my opinion, and I asked on the RFCN talk because I didn't want to piss him off without a good reason, as he's somewhat sensitive. Thanks again and nevermind. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:I have deleted your User page

Hi I'm Takedashingen620, you deleted my user page due to "Personal Attacks and General Intolerance" I apologize I did not know that I couldn't put some of that stuff on my user page, I feel that you should of warned me first but you did what you had to do and it's not that big a deal. In the message that you sent me you said that you would E-mail me the contents of my user page so that I may put them back so long as i adhered to WP:USER I would appreciate it if you did that. My Email address is: takedashingen620@hotmail.com

Once again I apologize and would appreciate it if you would E-mail me the contents of my user page.

Thank you, Takedashingen620 talk 12:56, 25 March 2007.

I sent it to the e-mail you have set in your preferences. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 12:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] SDSolutions (talk · contribs)

This was an apparently promotional username, where I asked the user to change their username and they did. Should the original account still be blocked now that the user has changed their name and redirected the talk page of the old account to their new one? RJASE1 ^Talk 15:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will take care of that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no, the old account does not exist because it became the new one, nothing to block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah - OK, I see. Thanks from J-ARSE1! :) RJASE1 ^Talk 16:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Lol, RFCN is so funny sometimes. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Having a good time on WP:RFCN today - lol. Sorry for all the entries - I'm done now. Was just cleaning out my watchlist of the users I had expressed concerns to that had not replied. If there was a "Entertaining Smartass Barnstar", I'd give it to you - thanks for making the work enjoyable. RJASE1 ^Talk 16:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

ohhh, I would love a "Entertaining Smartass Barnstar", maybe you can make one! ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] {{Help me}}

Thought you should be aware: the page User talk:HighInBC/Temporary page indexes/Cwb61 is propagating into Category:Wikipedians looking for help.--Fuhghettaboutit 17:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I got it fixed now. Small bug in my bot. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Beautious. It's blissful that the bungling of the bug in your bot was brief:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 18:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIV helperbot got confused

When someone accidentally removed the instruction block, helperbot3 seems to have gotten confused and made this edit which deleted a comment. —dgies^t_c 22:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. This is (vaguely) intentional behavior - when the bot finds unexpected things inside the instruction comment block, it only moves things that look like reports outside of the block - anything else that was added is simply discarded. In situations where things were actually added to the block, this works fine, since anything other than a report that was added inside the block probably should be removed. In situations where the end of the comment was inadvertently removed, but the rest remained in-tact, this behavior happens. I'm not 100% sure how to fix this, with the way the bot is architected, and, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure I want to try - it seems that this is likely an uncommon enough circumstance to be somewhat unimportant. HBC, you have any thoughts? —Krellis (Talk) 23:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly it knows how to recognize a comment because it logs comment removal in the edit summary. Perhaps the comment-recognition should be applied to instruction block repair too. —dgies^t_c 23:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's not quite as smart as it looks :) - it recognizes a comment as "anything following a report template that isn't another report template". Inside the instruction block, that wouldn't work - if someone changes the first example in-place, and we apply that logic, the heading for the second section of examples would get copied out as a comment. I suppose, though, that the same logic could work in most cases if we stopped looking for comments after blank lines, too, since there are empty lines intervening in the instruction block. I doubt it'd be perfect (someone always finds a new way to confuse the poor bots), but it would be an improvement over the current behavior. —Krellis (Talk) 23:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Great idea...

On taking on the username problem yourself - thanks! I was so frustrated with conflicting guidance that I had basically given up on usernames. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:35, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

The whole username review system is getting more and more wonked, just trying to streamline it. Don't worry, I will just read the policy an interpret it, simple ehh? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:HighInBC/Usernames

Have you considered maybe putting an instruction on what user template to use to report here? I see you added a bot template and I wasn't sue which template your bot would recognise, or if it matters. Also, do you mind if I monitor the page and help with it? Cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:32, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Yup, doing that right now... Just have to tweak the bot a bit, it seems to have a bug when you turn off autobacklog. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

See you got it working, but does it require {{Vandal}}, or does {{User}} work aswell? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

All fixed, it is now bot serviced. Yes, please monitor and help out. It will use {{vandal}} or {{userlinks}}, I am suggesting {{userlinks}} because not all bad names are bad faith. I added instructions in the form of HTML comments. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:I'm attracted to your mom

Regarding the above username discussion you closed as 'consensus to disallow', I was wondering if you could share your methodology. To gain a rough idea of where the discussion was going, I counted 14A and 19D, giving a 58% disallow. This doesn't seem to be a clear consensus to disallow, but if I'm missing another piece of the puzzle (I reviewed the various non-explicit entries, for instance, and most of them seemed ambivalent about the name), please let me know. Thanks! - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I did not simply stick to vote counting. Several arguments seemed to be based on how the name made them feel, not the potential to offend others. I felt the arguments based on the WP:U idea that "Your username should not be used as a tool to insult or mock other users, usernames, articles, or actions" were not properly addressed by those seeking to allow.

Basically consensus strayed from policy, just a little, so 58% seemed enough for me. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If that's the case, I feel your edit summary may have been a bit misleading, as it suggests that there was a consensus to disallow. If, as you mention, you've made a judgment call, being clear about that can help avoid misunderstandings like this. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, it was a judgment call in judging consensus. Consensus isn't vote counting, and my interpretation did come up with a consensus. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that was the right call. We have two to one against Demsaredonkeys, which similarly mocks members of the Democratic Party. In such cases, to disallow should be the default position, barring a clear consensus to allow.Proabivouac 00:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure about Demsaredonkeys because they self-identify as donkeys. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

If you would like to re-write the policies guiding WP:USERNAME blocks, you may find Village Pump or the appropriate talk pages better suited. With a lack of clear consensus, an 'allow' is the current default action and changing it would necessarily require broader input than just here. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 00:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I am talking about WP:CONSENSUS, not WP:RFCN procedure. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you going to talk to me about it? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk to you about what? Oh, I see you are talking to proab.^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Yep Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

What do want to discuss? I wasn't trying to make a "admin abuse" case out of it, I just didn't think it should have been closed. Or allowed.

HighInBC, Democrats don't "self-identify as donkeys." It's just the symbol of the Party, and it's being used as an excuse to insult Democrats. When this user converses with Democrats, every conversation will be tainted by this slight. It's bad for the user, it's bad for the atmosphere, and it violates policy, "Usernames that are recognised as slurs or insults" (Doesn't say "unambiguously recognized by all," just "recognized," which a large majority has done.)Proabivouac 01:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, I am unsure about that name, it is a complex case. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I was confused that it ended up being such an impassioned debate - "your mom" usernames are normally blocked on site at WP:AIV; I've sent numerous variations there and never had one turned down yet. Probably because they are normally vandals...one policy consideration that never came up at WP:RFCN was "Usernames that closely resemble any used by vandals", I should have thought of arguing that one.

It's also interesting how many of the same people who assumed good faith on this name are assuming bad faith on User:Demsaredonkeys, which seems much less inflammatory to me. (But I'm not politically affiliated.) RJASE1 ^Talk 03:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I have set up User:HighInBC/Usernames is because WP:AIV dismisses names that do not need WP:RFCN. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of creating User:YourDemocraticMomisanAttractiveDonkey, but that would just be evil. RJASE1 ^Talk 03:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

<giggle> ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NDR

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of Mario Party Advance minigames. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Henchman 2000 08:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Closing

Given that the closing involves judgement of the quality of arguments, it certainly shouldn't be done by someone who has been involved in the discussion. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well it had been open for some time, and everyone who generally closes these had participated. It was overdue, and nobody was closing it, so I did.

Frankly I am starting to think that WP:RFCN is getting wonked, people take it as an opportunity to disagree and stretch the limits of username policy. To quote WP:U "Please don't try to find this line", well lately WP:RFCN has been doing a great job of searching for that line. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

See my general comments at the Talk page. With regard to this case, though: if I had been closing (which I wouldn't have done, having been involved in the discussion) I'd have pointed out that most of those saying that it was insulting ignored the arguments against them, and at least one raised a fatuous non-possibility of confusion leading to conflict. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

They provided examples of it being used as an insult. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

And others pointed out that such examples relied on context. This, though, is the point: you were involved, you had a view, and you read the discussion as favouring your view, accepting comments by those who agree with you, rejecting comments by those who don't. If I had closed, you'd doubtless have felt that I'd done the same. In a court of law, the verdict isn't delivered by one of the barristers; if arguments are to be wighed (and I agree that they should be), then it should be by someone uninvolved.

Your rapid addition of a comment on your user page is somewhat inappropriate, too, belittling as it does those who disagree with you on this. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 14:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My userpage is the result of many many such responses, not just for you, not belittling anyone. As I said, if you think my closing was biased you can find an uninvolved admin to review it, but I can assure you, while I did have a point of view, I did not let it effect my mathematics skill, nor my ability to apply policy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think mel or I are advocating vote counting. I very regularly when closing afd's and such engage in determning consenus and note vote counting. I think what we are saying is your judgement of consenus is clouded by your point of view on this topic, causing you to discount valid keep arguments and to keep all disallow arguments because it is your stance leading you to close as disallow, your desired outcome. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think my judgment was clouded. The arguments "it does not offend me" and "I think it is funny" and "I don't see it" are not policy based whereas the argument "has the potential to offend" is policy based. Lets not forget that even with vote counting the disallows approuch 60% and discarding the "I think it is funny" vote by torture is wrong brings it over 60%. So what is the issue? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use images in userspace

Do you want us to delete the images/userpages from your list once we've removed them? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For now yes, I will create a bot that will automatically remove them later, so if you don't it is not a big deal. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA.

Hello HighInBC; it seems we are now in the same club: first RfA was unsuccessful! :) I don't feel bad at all: the Bureaucrat who revieved the RfA was polite and encouraging; and I wish to thank you for your honesty with your neutral !vote. Acalamari 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I didn't have to be a...

...prophesor! :-) Heh, I was away in Bulgaria for a few days. Glad you noticed. I also saw another glitch I had missed be corrected in the history by someone else. BTW those id-tags were a great contribution, and I find them very useful, not only for your particular application, but also for many other policies (and why not, maybe also articles). Cheers! Niko Silver 22:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to be more specific, I am glad people are using them. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unblocking

I am disappointed that you unblocked a user I had blocked, especially when there was no urgency to do so. It is customary to discuss with the blocking administrator rather than just reversing his blocks. A request for comment is not necessary to establish a name as inappropriate. Please restore the block. — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. Wasn't trying to step on your toes, just maintaining WP:RFCN. Sorry if I disappointed you. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canvas

whether or not a post is a canvas violation is rather controversial - i disagree with your assessment that his post was in violation of canvas and therefore that makes your action blanking.

The person involved in the RFA is also highly controversial, which could easily lead to that misconception. A subjective analysis of said user shows that they should have been banned years ago for incessant pov-pushing, but he's so good at doing it below the notice of the admins (and he has an admin in his pocket) that the problem article stays a problem.

the user in the RFA is one of three users that are the reason i A) do trust wikipedia as far as i can throw my house B) don't edit wikipedia anymore. Wikipedia is about reaching consensus... consensus and turth are not always the same thing.

So please - never remove content from my talk page again.

PS for the love of $DIETY turn down your archival rate Lordkazan 00:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not something is canvasing is not controversial it is spelled out very clearly in WP:CANVAS. You do not WP:OWN your talk page. When I revert a canvasser I am going to revert them all. It is not about you, it is protecting about the issue being canvassed from having a bias applied to it. I will continue to act towards canvasing the same way regardless of if your page is involved. I like my archive rate. Peace. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think whether or not something is a violation of canvas isn't a pattern of opinion and point of view then you need educate yourself on the entire issue of what a "point of view" is. These are exactly the reasons i don't edit anymore - biased enforcement of rules all over the place and the protection of the status quo, even if the status quo is wrong. Lordkazan 05:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Let it go. I can decide if something is canvasing, any user can make that decision. If you think I was wrong then do some sort of review on me, but yes I can decide if something is in violation of policy and act accordingly. If you have problems with Wikipedia then good luck, but I still need to enforce policy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I recently attempted to clarify WP:CANVAS on this specific point. Canvassing requires the solicitation of an opinion. If you contact another Wikipedian to discuss an opinion they already gave in an RfA, it is not canvassing since the opinion already has been given. If you contact another Wikipedian about a pending RfA that they have not participated in, it is canvassing and not the acceptable kind. If you contact another Wikipedian about a pending RfA that they have not participated in because the person involved in the RfA is highly controversial, YIKES!!! -- Jreferee 17:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My reading of the canvas policy says that posting a message to enough people is "Excessive crossposting" even if it is neutral. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I revised WP:CANVAS so that it now asserts that if you contact one Wikipedian to discuss an opinion they already gave in an RfA, it is not canvassing. If multiple Wikipedians are contacted with a neutral message in an effort to form an opinion collation, that is canvassing. RfA's are highly susceptible to canvassing since one oppose vote essentially has the weight of three to four support votes. If one or more Wikipedians are contacted with a neutral message about an upcoming or ongoing RfA, that is unacceptable canvassing (in my opinion). If multiple Wikipedians are contacted with a neutral message about an upcoming or ongoing RfA and there is some reason to believe that the contacted Wikipedians are pre-inclined or pre-disposed to vote one way or another, that's YIKES!!! in my book and requires swift action. I have no opinion on the Lordkazan's posts since they are gone and I don't know what they were. -- Jreferee 18:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on all that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You might want to post a comment in the affect RfA. I believe that the RfA closing admin can take into account the effect canvassing may have had on the RfA in determining whether there is an RfA support consensus. -- Jreferee 18:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

RfAs are close by 'crats, not admins. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use image on user page

Please consider Wikipedia's guideline regarding the editing of other users' pages, in particular, "In general it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing another's user page without their permission. ... The best option is to draw their attention to the matter on their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so." Thanks. --SparqMan 02:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images on user pages is a copyright infringement issue, they are removed on sight, there is nothing to discuss, I just pointed you to the policy. Also it was not a "substantial" edit, just a small necessary one. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I understand the policy, I wasn't aware of it though. I'm a bit curious that you just removed one out of five fair use logos. -- Henriok 14:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have set up a page that lists all fair use images in the userspace User:HighInBC/FU_in_userspace(warning big page), but it is indexed by image, not by users. As a result I am going it one image at a time. I will most likely re-write the script to index it by user. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Here's a username for you...

Hi there. I came across R&M Kirkman 14 Beetham Place Blackpool Lanc's fy3 8hl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) on the list o' new users. I left {{UsernameConcern}} because of its length -- it's a full address. I guess I'm also concerned that we have no proof that this is the user's actual address or if it's a way to attack someone by posting their address. Mind you, this latter concern doesn't seem to violate policy. Do you have any thoughts on this? Cheers, Flyguy649^talk_contribs 04:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was someone elses address that would violate our policy against releasing others personal information. But there is no reason to believe that. The name is too long per out username policy though. I will block it. Despite the hub-bub at RFCN about people getting warned before their username is discussed, violations of the username policy can still be blocked on sight. I set up a page for such reports: User:HighInBC/Usernames. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you, but next time.

Thank you for removing dorset.jpg from my userboxes I did not know that it was a fair use image, however as my userboxes link directly to my userpage I would request that you notify me next time. The user box was located at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Location/United Kingdom, I have subsequently removed it. Bass fishing physicist 15:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I assumed that my message in the edit summary would notify you. There are literally thousands of fair use images on the userspace that need to be removed, so I am just putting a clear edit summary explaining everything. Many people prefer to use the userbox without the image. Sorry for the inconvenience, I will see about adding a talk page addition to my script, but I may not have the know how. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My fault really, I should have checked the licensing on the image before using the userbox. I am now checking over the rest of my images and will do so as a matter of course in the future. My thanks for alerting me.Bass fishing physicist 15:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mongo

Hi HighInBC, since you took part in the incident, I thought you might want to comment on the draft of a statement I'd like to take to RfC on Mongo. It can be found here: user:Thomas Basboll/Sandbox. It's sort of a last ditch effort to refind the desire to keep working on WP. Best,--Thomas Basboll 15:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I will look through it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--Thomas Basboll 19:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Kudos to a fellow spanner!

Image:Cordialgreetings1x_pix.gif [1] Image:Cordialgreetings1x_pix.gif Jreferee 16:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Good show with your update. But you put "Terms" where "Official" goes. hehe. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What is your methodology?

Hey, I'm curious: How are you getting the FU violation lists? I'd like to apply it to other namespaces as well. --Iamunknown 00:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I am using:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=category&cpnamespace=14&cptitle=Fair%20use%20images&cpfrom=Category:Promotional%20images&cplimit=500&format=xml

to get a list of categories in FU then:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=category&cpnamespace=6&cptitle=<each category name>&cplimit=500&format=xml

to get a list of images in those categories, then

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=imagelinks&titles=image1|image2|image3...&ilnamespace=2&illimit=500&format=xml

to get a list of which pages in the user namespace(namespace 2 as defined by: this) link to which images and:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/query.php?what=categories&titles=image1|image2|image3...&format=xml

to get the list of categories the image is in(to exclude images in [[{Category:Fair use images used with permission]] and other categories).

Most of the info on how to do this is at the query.php instructions. <sarcasm>Is that simple enough?</sarcasm> ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I can e-mail you my perl source code if you like, it is not ready for publishing, but it works. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ooo, so nifty. :-) Are you going to automate it any time soon? Eh, I'm not that good at Perl, but I might ask you later. Thanks for the info. --Iamunknown 01:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Once I have filtered out the false positives, and built a routine that handles the 17 odd ways an image can be displayed I am going to request approval for an automated bot. But as it stands human analysis of any removal is still needed.

The problem is that many images are marked as "Fair use" but also under other licenses that allow use outside article space. The other problem is that images can be displayed on a page using a variety of syntaxes, so it is hard to detect them all, and even when you do an automatic routine may incorrectly removed them leading to malformed data, example of such an error. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose you know how to find the closing bracket of a set of brackets that has nested bracketed data? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Not anymore. I'm asking around. --Iamunknown 01:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hoverflies and bluebells

Hey HighInBC - hope things are well with you. I can't hope noticing the uncanny similarity between the photo on the top right of your userpage and the one recently nominated at FPC - is there a plague of hoverflies in Victoria at the moment?! While I'm on the subject, I'll point out the same correction I did at the FP nom: the blue flowers are grape hyacinths, not Virginia Bluebells. Anyway, nice photo; if you don't mind praise from an amateur, I think your photography is really getting pretty good!

FWIW, I agree about vote counting vs. consensus, having previously had someone claim my judgement was 'clouded' by my having voted when I'd been very careful to ensure my actions were fair and warranted. All the best, --YFB ¿ 01:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, that is the same Hoverfly, and grape hyacinth. Me and KirinX are good friends and often go on walks with our cameras to take images. I let him spend 5-10 minutes taking pictures of this guy and then I took some. There is not an inordinate amount of hoverflies around.

Thanks for the encouragement, photography is very involved. I really like how I can find a random insect or flower and find out what it is through Wikipedia. If you know about photography I am always open to advice, whether general or based on what you have seen of my work.

One of the greatest attributes of an admin is to know the difference between a vote and a consensus. While participating in a discussion and then closing it may create the appearance of bias, an honest admin can do so without bias, but should be prepared to rigorously defend his decision later.

Once in a while opinion drifts from policy and sense, but a properly interpreted consensus should always be dead on balls accurate. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I had a feeling it looked familiar... :-)

Just made another minor correction: the Prunella vulgaris you photographed was actually Lamium purpureum (I nearly made exactly the same mistake a few weeks ago, responding to a question at the Science ref. desk). I've taken the liberty of re-uploading it under the correct filename to the Commons, and replaced the links; I hope that's OK with you. I couldn't get your template to work on the Commons so I've removed it for the time being - you're better at that sort of thing than me! If you have some reasoning for not uploading to Commons, please feel free to shout at me and move it back. Cheers, --YFB ¿ 02:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should keep my gallery on your watchlist and be my personal mistake corrector. Thank you for correcting my misidentification yet again. Commons is fine, I don't know why I don't upload there by default. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Heheh, well it's on my watchlist now so I'll take a peek from time to time... ;-)

I'm not an expert botanist by any stretch of the imagination, it just happens that there've been a few weird plant-related coincidences recently that have caught my eye! Keep up the good work, --YFB ¿ 02:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notabile vs. well known

I changed it because many people equate notabily with fame, but I won't object your revision. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 17:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just think a change like that needs to be discussed on the policy talk page first. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

talk away. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 17:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Trigam41

I realize this person is already blocked, but he's gone beyond vandalism and has now posted my name and address on his blog. See this location. He's also making comments about me on my wife and son's blogs. I'd like my wikipedia user page deleted if possible to remove personal information from the history. Hatch68 18:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your troubles. I have had my share of harassment too. I have deleted your userpage and all it's revisions. They can now only be seen by administrators. If you would like to have it purged so that even admins cannot see it then you seen to make a request through WP:OVERSIGHT. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. No need to completely purge it. I trust the admins not to abuse the information. I just want to hide it from trolls since I plan to continue patrolling recent changes and new pages. Hatch68 20:07, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for fixing it. I'm also trying to have the same signature as you, but I'm not familiar with wiki formatting. Can you show me how, with Klak instead of High and Sonn instead of InBC? Klaksonn 19:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You need to set "Raw signature" on in your prefences then use:

<small>[[User:Klaksonn|<sup>Klak</sup><sub>sonn</sub>]]</small>

To get: ^Klak_sonn

Is that what you had in mind? ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks a lot. Klaksonn 19:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AIV Bot Bug

You bot removed someone from AIV here. I think it was because the Twinkle script adds the "user links" template to the suspected sockpupeteer. When the sockpupeteer was blocked, it removed the both comments. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 22:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That is indeed a bug, I will look into that. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: JuJube's talk page archive

Hi there. That's quite an impressive list and I'll have to take time to peruse them. You may be interested in what I've uncovered so far (see the RfA), the pages in existence do not make for pretty reading. I really don't like to see anyone fail RfA - I went through it - but I'm finding this a little scary. Xiner (talk, email) 02:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi HighInBC. Could you please build me a history of my talk page? Perhaps it'd help me understand your work better? My mind must be slipping. =P Xiner (talk, email) 02:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Here it is: User_talk:Xiner/Achive_index ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My RfA

Thanks for voting in my RfA. I've decided to withdraw my acceptance because of real WP:CIVIL concerns. I will try again later when I've proven to myself and others that my anger will no longer interfere with my abilities as a Wikipedia editor. Thanks again, and I'll see you around here shortly. :) JuJube 04:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I am looking forward to it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:42, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King

Damn, you aren't really a king of a magical forest? You've totally destroyed my faith in Wikipedia, I'm going out to buy a paper encyclopedia right now! —Krellis (Talk) 14:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I only lied about my credentials so people would give me more credence in magical forest related articles. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry...

..for jacking around with your userpage...I couldn't resist. Good April Fools' Day joke, though! Cheers - RJASE1 ^Talk 01:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

hehe. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked?

(*cheezy Darth Vader sound*) NOOOOOOOOOOOO (*/end cheezy Darth Vader sound*) --Iamunknown 19:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for today hehe. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks goodness its April Fools. :-) --Iamunknown 19:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yay~ your back. --Iamunknown 16:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Your comment to TortureIsWrong

High, while I agree with you on the letter of the policy, please give the issue a rest. A consensus was drawn, and we really need to abide by that decision, whether we agree with it or not. Cascadia ^{TALK| HISTORY} 13:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I do need to abide by the decision of a group of people who are ignoring policy. The arguments were not about interpreting policy, it was about ignoring policy. It was closed as a vote count, not a consensus, and the name is disruptive.

A tally at RFCN does not make a name in violation of policy no longer so. This reminds me of a WP:AfD where the votes decided to ignore the verifiability policy. Wikipedia is not a democracy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the point of a RFCN then, if the outcome is not as you desired, just overturn it anyways? -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The point of an RFCN is to get policy based input from a group of users. We got that, we also got non-policy based arguments. Those need to be filtered. I am not overturning the RFCN, I am just saying it came to the wrong conclusions.

Please understand, there is no interpretation involved here, the policy explicitly forbids such names, and no the policy does not say "these rules are optional", it says "Wikipedia does not allow certain types of usernames, including the following". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This does not diminish the value of RFCN, just like WP:AfD we need to filter people who are unwilling or unable to understand policy. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:07, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am saying is the interpretation of torture always equaling violence is not true. And in fact, the username is not referring to the act of torturing somebody, merely stating an opinion about it. If it said, "i will torture you" or something else similar, I am sure everybody would agree. The fact is, many people found that they did not find torture to be offensive of violent enough to be disallowed. There is a fine line here, what defines violence. Again, it is up to INTERPRETATION. Is playing football viuolent? if so, should all the names be disallowe. What about paintball? The question is, where to draw the "violence" line. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Torture: "the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure"

Now you can find a non-violent meaning for many violent words, but they still have a violent meaning. Torture is a mean vicious thing, you obviously have no experience with it if you don't think it is directly related to violence. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Torture: "The act of distorting something so it seems to mean something it was not intended to mean" - a plausible, non violent defintion of the word. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So? "Shotgun to the head" can be a method of smoking pot. Think about what you are saying, "If a violent word has a possible non-violent meaning it should be allowed". Oh, ya, lets just try that out on the next 50 users. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am not saying, your interpreation is wrong. Actually looking at it, I have a strange feeling that User:TortureIsWrong may have known the meaning and was using it to mock us (In regards to the Moe, Larry and Jesus incident where he felt we were making something out of nothing). I will agree there are some instances where torutre would be wrong. If i felt it was referring to a real life incident of it, or the plan of inflicting it, sure, i would disallow it. However, this name shows no violent intent, another reason why I agree with the current closure. I however, respect your interpretaion, I am not saying you are wrong, I am just saying we see things differently here, and that is something that is going to happen from time to time. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On a random, very ironic note (which i got a lauch out of), a username RFCNisTorture - with my above defintion would probably be a good way to sum it up (for either sides arguments). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And if the policy said "referring to a real life incident of it, or the plan of inflicting" then I would agree. But the policy says "referring to it". ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Another instance of mass policy-ignoring was in the "bitch" usernames (which were finally disallowed). The term is clearly a sexist slur (as any dicdef will tell you), but a ton of people argued to allow because it didn't offend them personally. I think this was a clear case of mass policy-ignoring as well. RJASE1 ^Talk 15:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was most likely on the wrong side of that debate by allowing it. I would have been just fine with my opinion being discounted in that case. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:09, 2 April 2007 (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.