User talk:HighInBC/Archive 25

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.

hey Chillum

Hey there Chillum, how you doin these days? First, I wanted to say "oops, sorry" for posting to Dougs page the other day, I noticed the whole thing got moved off ANI, and made the mistake of thinking of it as an archive. Don't know why, but I did. Anyway, your suggestion to just leave Doug alone was likely the best thing, sorry if I screwed it up. Also, I offered a suggestion at that page : Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/DougsTech at the bottom (Path Forward), and didn't know if you'd consider it an option. Just wondering. — Ched : ? 19:08, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some time needs to pass before the correct course of action for that use becomes clear. Chillum 05:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agreed! — Ched : ? 16:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NagasakibombEdit.jpg

Just so you know, there's a proposed replacement. wadester 16 20:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have given my opinion. I hope you do not find it discouraging. Touching up images is both time consuming and demanding of skill. Thanks for the effort. Chillum 04:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source?

An editor has added http://www.cherwell.org/content/8231 as a source for an actor's pescetariansm. I'm a bit dubious about it because it's a student website but the editor insists it's credible in this context. My gut instinct tells me student websites are not reliable sources but I was wondering what you thought about it? It's hard enough getting people to add sources as it is without getting picky over how credible they are, so I was wondering if it's credible enough or do you think it should come out? Sorry to bother you about this but I asked on the Reliable Sources page but didn't get a response. Betty Logan (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Taken care of. Editor found another source and replaced it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my response above. I would say that is an unclear case. When one is uncertain of the reliability of a source, or even if there is disagreement then it is always helpful to take it to the talk page and seek further input. Another option is to attempt to find a better source for the information to replace or augment the existing source. I personally would be hesitant to remove the source and claim unless I actually had doubt to its accuracy. Chillum 14:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the advice. Betty Logan (talk) 17:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for you comment regarding lists

Hi, responding to Altenmann on my page regarding WP:LIST. Although that discussion concluded, there's another, significant one going on now, where I think you would have an opinion: there's a claim being made in WP:TVS that perhaps even uncited lists of names former reporters and anchors are appropriate, with their later post-station bios. [1]. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 03:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Titan Globe

Kaldari has proposed a replacement image. Please consider updating your !vote. wadester 16 04:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Considered. Chillum 03:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henrykkk explanation

Please explain how thisworks, I read this username thread and the score counting your alleged opinion of "block" was 4 to 3, hardly anything which can be called a consensus and I for one find this sort of totalitarian behavior to be simply unacceptable, further more the username wasn't active there was no need to block it and klansmen don't own kkk and nazis don't own the swastiks(and neither do racially sensitive people). The guys name could be Henry King Kunnard Kelly what do you know? You simply don't, what you did I feel was very much contrary to the wikipedia spirit and I would appreciate some sort of an explanation. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 22:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did not block the user based on the discussion(I didn't really know about it), I did so based on my discretion. KKK pretty much only refers to the hate group. Chillum 23:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you show the discussion the respect it deserves and unblock this user. KKK disambiguation also please keep in mind that Wikipedia is an international site and those three letters only hold significant weight in the USA. --194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'd suggest that you WP:AGS assume good faith assuming that the reference is a reference to the hate group violates good faith and is therefor against policy.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 23:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure that account creation was not blocked when I did that username block, this user can come back under another name. The note I left that user explains to them how they can create a new username and continue editing. Motive aside the term "kkk" is likely to make harmonious editing difficult or impossible and that is the standard that the username policy applies. If I felt certain that the user was trying to promote hate I would have used a hard block, so you see I have assumed good faith. As far as I know we have never allowed names like KKK, nazi, white power etc... I feel it would be irresponsible for me to unblock this username. Chillum 23:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also I think that your description of my behavior as "totalitarian" to be a bit over dramatic. Totalitarian? Really? Just a bit of hyperbole perhaps? I am alway open to scrutiny if you seek to draw further attention to any action I have taken, that is not the position of a totalitarian. Chillum 00:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for the support

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Hey Chillin many thanks for the support and your continual calm and collected comments in the face of incivility. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is difficult when debates get heated but I do try. I also appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. Chillum 03:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will be away on holidays for the next while so unfortunately will not be able to support you in the discussion for a bit.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is amazing how much filibustering two people can accomplish, see you in a while. Chillum 00:09, 18 June 2009 (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.