User talk:HighInBC/Archive 89

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.

Loonie gone wild.

As you already know. We've a lunatic on the loose. Wikimedia may have to step in & contact authorities. GoodDay (talk) 07:01, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will always remember this as the day I found out I was an asswipe. How will I ever carry on? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 07:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wish the lad would've contacted me on my talkpage. I would've overly enjoyed bantering back & forth with him. GoodDay (talk) 07:24, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User Azuresky Voight sockpuppet account?

There's a new account which might be a sockpuppet of Azuresky Voight, given the timing and the writing style. Account is Unknown Wiki Robot, which seems to have been created around August 6.

The writing style is familiar: "this photo was apparently added as an attack against the subject because the caption says "mocha uson scandal" and has been used on an article that also contain disparaging content against the subject" -> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mocha_Uson_2017.jpg

Is it really a robot account, or a human pretending to be a robot? The text it writes is very un-botlike.

August 6 is also the date at which Azuresky Voight started becoming active on certain BLP articles (RJ Nieto and then Mocha Uson afterwards): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RJ_Nieto&offset=&limit=500&action=history

Regards,

-Object404 (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this user is editing on Wikipedia Commons. They have different rules and different administrators there. The topic ban here does not apply there. I don't know if it is the same person but until the account edits here there is not much problem from the point of view of the English Wikipedia. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 10:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I follow the article Observer (meteorological) and this morning I saw that you removed something about RD1: Violations of copyright policy. Is it that you made some archived versions of the article by User:Mirisa56 not visible?

Pierre cb (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I removed a portion of text that was a copyright violation from the page's history. We can't host copyrighted content, even in the page history. I hope this clears things up. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Totally right. It was just the first time I saw this message, so I was wondering the meaning. Pierre cb (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, thanks for dropping by. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raxythecat

Back again with a second IP address: 2600:1700:12B0:3000:303A:595B:4FE2:7D8A (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Used it to edit his unblock request on the previous IP talk page. Skyerise (talk) 18:36, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like another admin got to it before me. Thanks for the notification. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:39, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

I noticed you take the time to make non-neutral ANI headers neutral and I wanted to say I appreciate that and thanks. :-) Levivich 03:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It is mostly appreciated but sometimes people gripe about it. I don't think it is reasonable for the archives to contain the original poster's preferred interpretation of events as the title of the discussion and of course policy agrees. It is nice to hear a positive comment about it from you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 04:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

JPL

You might want to check whose input you're awaiting at User talk:Johnpacklambert#Indefinite block - Blocking administrator seems unlikely to respond... (To save you having to look it up, El C applied the block.) Yrs, Narky Blert (talk) 12:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have spoken to El C. Regardless I won't be proceeding with the unblock of this user. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 12:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I have no dog in this fight. Narky Blert (talk) 16:35, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mugsalot

HI , this user change every reverts for me , why ? I do not know and he refuse any discuss , I speak with him but he do not answer me , I do not know where is problem if we put location in place , can you see this articles Zembîlfiroş and Batel , please help me , I see his reverts are not good work , I wait your answer , thank you Hamaredha (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page watcher) Mugsalot has answered you and explained the problem well (I thought) both at Talk:Zembîlfiroş and at Talk:Batel. The {{Infobox settlement}} you keep trying to add to Zembîlfiroş is inappropriate for a work of literature. At Batel there seem to be multiple problems; Mugsalot has mentioned some of them, but I see you have removed both templates and content, and have also misused the |settlement_type= parameter, all without providing any explanation in an edit summary. Edit summaries are especially important when you are reverting somebody else's edits. Please start using them (and maybe you won't need to bother HighInBC). — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 09:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As an editor I have no interest in this topic. As an administrator I will not involve myself with a content dispute. I will say take care to avoid edit warring. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ,Hamaredha (talk) 09:48, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Hi, FYI: ==Notice of noticeboard discussion== There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--PLUS ULTRA CARLOS (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this discussion needs anything further from me. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes, slowly disappearing

Howdy. You mentioned in a past discussion, that there won't ever be a push to 'delete' userboxes, that announces an editors gender on their userpage. I hope you're correct :) GoodDay (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People will push all kinds of stupid things, but it will not get consensus. There is nothing offensive about revealing your gender, nor is it an attack on anyone else. This is a fairly simple distinction for the majority of people. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:50, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

thoughts on uncyclopedia?

Just wondering - 2601:192:8701:B4C0:516E:E7D2:EEAF:EE8D (talk)

No thoughts, never heard of it. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:41, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! 2 years since what? HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 09:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Precious", and there's a link, no? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, it is very much appreciated. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:24, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-social Wikipedia user

This user: "call-girls-jaipur00" (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) needs to be thrown out and is asking for an *** whooping. Please do the honours accordingly. 59.92.227.87 (talk) 10:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You know putting a retired box on your account and saying you are no longer active on Wikipedia after getting off of a block then carrying on editing as an IP could be seen as an illegitimate use of an alternate account. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 13:39, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal by TillermanJimW

I've posted an appeal to the topic ban you sanctioned me with. Think this, and my posting a Diffs (though why Diffs & not a link?) on that page, qualifies as the required notification.

But I think I may have screwed up my appeal somewhat - seems I've created two sections on that page. Seems to be a conflict of sorts between the way the template works and what the "For appeals: Create new section" notification section recommends. If you could fix that up somehow that would be most appreciated. Or advise me how to do so. Thanks. --TillermanJimW (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this notification is fine. As an involved individual it would not be appropriate for me to fix that, however an uninvolved clerk will clean it up eventually. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:28, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I already deleted it, I believe. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alas HighInBC, I tried to explain to him that Wikipedia is not going in the direction he wishes it to go, concerning the broad Gender topic. But, I've failed :( GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting unprotection for Father (rapper)

Hi HighInBC. In 2015 you salted Father (rapper) for being repeatedly recreated. I have a draft at Draft:Father (rapper) that shows the subject is now clearly notable. The draft still needs some work, but could you unprotect the page in mainspace in preparation for moving the draft? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:52, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you submit your draft through the articles for creation process. They will either approve the article or provide you with advice. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 21:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most people at AfC are not admins and cannot move the draft to mainspace without admin action. WP:SALT recommends contacting the protecting admin if an editor wishes to recreate a salted article. Because notability is unambiguous (did you look at the sources in the draft?), could you just cut the bureaucracy and unsalt the page? – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can just let them know that if the article is approved that I will unsalt it. You can link to here to show that it is true. My personal opinion is that it does not meet our standards, however I will defer to the opinion of those who regularly work at AFC. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see instead of going to AFC you have decided to just ask other admins to unprotect this? If you were really confident in the article you would have just gone to AFC instead of forum shopping. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI close

Thanks for the close on the :Hullaballoo Wolfowitz block thread. Meters (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I appreciate the thanks. I was half expecting some complaints about that as is common in cases where the community is divided. Nice to see a positive message here. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my thanks too. Not that I expected any strong consensus one way or the other - but I did think it needed to be discussed. — Ched (talk) 19:04, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on the need for discussion. It was a non-trivial block review, not something for a quick decision on. The community could have gone either way and that is the exact sort of thing that should go to the community. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:06, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it was messy one. Meters (talk) 22:10, 21 September 2021 (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.