User talk:HighInBC

Talk page archives - Archive index

MfD

You're name came up. Thought you might want to know. Synergy 21:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you sir. Chillum 21:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Portal:Wikipedia

Hi again Chillum,

I wanted to talk to you a bit more about how Portal:Wikipedia would work. Rest assured, this is not going to break the main page. I have gained valuable experience about how CSS works and how to test thoroughly, and besides, pretty much all of the CSS changes required to make the transition are already done. Plus, other technically-minded administrators are doubtless going to be helping with the transition, so even if I forget to do something they will surely step in and help out.

Anyway, with that out of the way I wanted to explain to you what ais523 pointed out. It turns out that having the main page in the article space is causing even more problems than I initially realized, and moving it to the Portal space would resolve these problems. Specifically, moving the main page would do the following:

• The top-left tab would read "portal" instead of "article".
• People who want to make copies of Wikipedia, such as people who provide computers to schools in Africa that can't get Internet access, would have an easier time separating actual articles from project content which they don't want to copy. Because the content of the main page changes dynamically from day to day, it would take quite a bit of work to make the main page work and keep working on an offline copy of Wikipedia. Thus, since the main page won't actually work by default, it's probably best to exclude it from copies of Wikipedia article content by default.
• The "cite this page" link in the sidebar would be hidden from screen readers and text-only browsers, and the sitewide CSS would no longer have to contain a special declaration to hide it.
• The article count shown at Special:Statistics would be accurate instead of being 1 higher than the actual number of articles on Wikipedia. {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} would also be accurate instead of being off by one.
• Statistics about Wikipedia articles would be more accurate and not slightly skewed by statistics about the main page that are likely to get mixed in.
• It would be generally easier to write bots and other automated scripts because developers would not have to worry about having to write special code for the main page, ever.

I hope this explanation helps resolve your concerns. And I know that you are probably going to be a bit distrustful of me after the mistake I made two days ago, so if I can help clarify this proposal more or do anything else for you, please just ask. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with your coding, everyone makes mistakes and I am sure it is technically feasible. However, I don't think the discussion at VP is close to a consensus to do this yet, and I am not sure it will ever reach that point. Chillum 13:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I count 20 "supports", 11 "opposes" and 2 "opposes" that were given for reasons that have been completely invalidated. That includes your own oppose, though - do you still oppose the proposal? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:16, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't really basing my interpretation of consensus(or lack of consensus) by counting heads. I do still oppose the proposal, it is news to me that my reasons are invalidated, perhaps it is a matter of perspective. However, the more centralized discussion is a better place to judge consensus. I suggest you ask what other people think the consensus is if you want more opinions, but I personally don't think there is a consensus. Chillum 23:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

You're right, the headcount is only one rough estimate of consensus. The reasons you gave are more a matter of perspective, and so I haven't considered them invalidated. Personally, I think that it's worth it to make the switch sooner rather than later, as the problems I listed above are likely to fester and increase in number, and the difficulty of making the change will increase the longer we wait. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 23:58, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

HighKing

In addition to edit warring on Pirate radio and breaking 3RR he is now using fake references to justify his edits. This edit is not sourced by the book, you can view it online (link). Nowhere on that page does it state the signal was aimed at the British Islands, or that the intended audience was in the UK. Please help stop this disruption of Wikipedia, thank you. EmpireForever (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the page I decided to block both of you for edit warring, but it appears someone else beat me to it. If you ever need anything else don't hesitate to drop a note. Chillum 02:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

RfB Thank You spam

Thank you for participating in my RfB! I am very grateful for the confidence of the community shown at my RfB, which passed by a count of 154/7/2 (95.65%). I have read every word of the RfB and taken it all to heart. I truly appreciate everyone's input: supports, opposes, neutrals, and comments. Of course, I plan to conduct my cratship in service of the community. If you have any advice, questions, concerns, or need help, please let me know. Again, Thanks! — Rlevse • Talk • 08:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent comments

I came across this: User:HighKing seems to think that Lemon is a SPA out to get him. HighKing's primary contributions to Wikipedia is to remove the term "British Isles" from any article that has it for any reason he can think of.

Do you really think you are following WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL with this? Seems to be a rather crude baiting comment. Or how about your claims that that your review of my recent block was correct and proper. This is a warning (without a template) to ask you to make no more of these remarks. And if you take the time to check out my edits (which you obviously have never done) you'll see that my accuracy rate is very high (at a guess, over 90%) for spotting incorrect usage and fixing it.

Tell you what. Spend some time looking at my edits. Make a list of the ones you think are bad edits. Post them on my talk page. Then lets have a discussion. For someone who spends a lot of time telling everyone that I remove the term for bad or no reasons, not once have I seen you try to join the discussion or make a point (And while you're at it, take a look at all the non-BI contributions too....)

And then take a look at Lemon's contributions and tell me you think he wasn't an SPA that was busted.

--HighKing (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

wtf? I posted that for your benefit so that attention could be drawn to your concerns about Lemon. You complained nothing was being done so I did something. What part to you object to? You do think that Lemon was baiting you, you said so. A brief look at your contributions shows that your primary contribution is removing "British Isles" from articles. It is like you are walking around with a big red hat on your head and saying "how dare you tell me I am wearing a red hat?"

Sorry man, but I am only pointing out that which anyone can see. I am not making assumptions about your motives, I am merely pointing out your actions. I am not being uncivil, I am pointing out the way you are behaving. I really don't give much attention to what land masses are called, I could not care less. What I care about is that the neutrality of this encyclopedia is not damaged.

Many many people have pointed out your behavior, and the longer you do it the more people will do so. If you keep up the same actions you will keep getting blocked, you will probably claim this is unfair, but that won't help. Instead of blaming the people pointing out your behavior why not just act in a manner that does not disrupt. Chillum 18:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Big red hat :-) Nice image. But the analogy I'd use is that I'm walking around with a big red hat and certain people are saying "Look at the cheek of that guy wearing a huge green anti-british outfit and wearing his IRA membership badge on his chest pinning shamrocks on everything in sight including hurting small children and pets with the sharp pins". And certain other people hear this and without checking, believe it. I'm sick of it. And your unhelpful comment propagates this myth. Step back, pick *any* article you think there was a fight over, and take a look at the history. Look at the contributions. See the discussions (or lack). Take a look at the accounts that "disagree" (and see how many are SPA's or anon IPs). Only one, CarterBar, actually seems to try to discuss and you'll see I give what he says a lot of weight and a lot of respect. Of the rest, it's usually a case of revert, revert, revert, with no discussion. Something you're very quick to lay at my door but *never* laying it at anyone elses. Not *once* have you been fair and objective on this issue. Not *once* have you actually taken a close look at what is going on. It's a clear case of those who make the loudest noises get believed by you. So don't make any more accusations or insinuations that I edit willy-nilly for any reason I pull out my a*se, even if you think you're trying to help. Finally, it's a laugh that you tell me that my behaviour is disruptive. I'm not an idiot and I've seen how you've been peppering every discussion with commentary like the one I've highlighted above, I've seen how you mumble up your sleeve when I ask you to justify the WMC block, and more than anything, I'm aware that you're never going to change your mind even if the evidence is served on a plate. --HighKing (talk) 18:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is really my point. Here you are still talking about how WMCs block of you was wrong somehow. It has been reviewed by numerous people, admin, non-admin, Irish, non-Irish, there is no conspiracy against you. You received each one of your blocks because you were acting disruptively. It seems every time the community reacts negatively to you that it is somehow the fault of someone with a bias. You say I have not been fair and objective, I disagree, this is about your behavior not any sort of preconceived notion I have. Until you can take credit for the way you are behaving, I don't think you will understand why other people and I criticize your actions.

I have actually used rather a lot of restraint with you, I have not once seen fit to block you. Well, I was going to block you for 3RR but another admin got to it first. Chillum 19:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh c'mon. I was blocked by an involved editor, who btw if you check, never once discussed any of his blind reverts. If you can't see that, it shows that you're viewing the world through very coloured glasses indeed.

I hold my hands up to the last 3RR - although it was provoked by an SPA targetting my edits. The previous one invoked an odd interpretation of the rules which I was not aware of, but I accept it existed, and ignorance of the rules doesn't make anyone exempt.

Until you take off your coloured glasses, and accept that I am editing in good faith, with no anti-British axe to grind and zero republican tendencies, then you are exhibiting the type of behaviour that as an admin, you're meant to try to stamp out, not promote. Start by AGF, then look at my edits and behaviour. If after you've done that, you still see a problem, I'll listen and take on board whatever you say. --HighKing (talk) 21:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with AGF. I am not making any assumptions about your motives, I don't know why you remove "British Isles" from articles, and it does not matter. This isn't about good or bad faith, or assumptions of bias, it is about what you do and how the community reacts. Chillum 21:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry - I'd believe you if it wasn't for the fact that it seems that recently you nearly exclusively use commentary like I've highlighted above, and there are many many more comments just like it (emphasis is mine):

Your reasons change as the situation changes, but the result is always the same, the removal of the term "British Isles". This speaks volumes to me. You seem to be on Wikipedia for one purpose only.

HighKing, your constant campaign against the term "British Isles" is becoming disruptive, please stop

For an account that seems to have only one purpose, I find it surprising you would be pointing out a SPA

You view my editing as being a disruptive constant campaign. You appear to give great weight to complaints by obvious SPAs and anon IPs, and none to the fact that I try to discuss my edits and try to reach an agreement. You ignore the fact that many of the SPAs and anon IPs blindly revert and never discuss. Even when I wait for a discussion, none appears. When I then revert, its reverted again. And if I continue to revert, you tell me that *I* am being disruptive. I can't win - there's nothing I can do. And this standard only appears to apply to me - very one-sided and unfair. There's a very small handful of editors that are playing a game. Many of them were only set up recently with the specific purpose of targeting my edits - but you don't think they're disruptive?

Chillum, I see you're a very active admin, and you try to do the right thing. But I believe that in this case, you need to dig a little deeper and take a closer look at the actions of the other editors. You'll see a one-way street of me having a discussion or asking for references that are being ignored, while they act in concert as a revert club. --HighKing (talk) 21:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)