User talk:HighInBC/Archive 62

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.

Rev del

I blocked WhyIsn'tSheHavingCoitusWithMe (talk · contribs) and started deleting their username from the article histories due to the offensive nature of it, but I noted that their username appears in almost all of the revert edit summaries. Do you think those edit summaries should be wiped out as well? Mkdw^talk 22:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL calls for the deletion of grossly offensive but not "ordinary" incivility.

I don't think rev deletion is needed in this case. The history is full of words far naughtier than Coitus. The important part is that the page with the list of peoples names has been deleted. Chillum 22:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear "super Moderator"

Reply me. What was the problem. I cited her official website in citation www.myriamfares.com, Still you removed the editing. What is the problem with you?Xishan06 (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Xishan06: I think you are harassing the wrong person, as Chillum has not reverted any of your edits to the Myriam Fares article and will probably not know what you are talking about. As a side note the official website is not a reliable source as it's primary purpose is to sell more.- McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 23:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, and I apologize.Xishan06 (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I get mistaken for other people all the time. No worries. Chillum 00:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you deleting the publication lists for BARUT and WAIT?

Can you give the reason? You blocked me without any explanation68.100.166.227 (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The reason I gave was that you were edit warring. Chillum 04:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

O.K. But, MaterialScientist was agreed on this form and then I placed the publications in closed form. What is your objection to these closed-compact form? It does not occupy a large space and only the interested person can look fot it.

68.100.166.227 (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

If it was edit-warring you should block the party who were deleting the previously published material without giving any explanation.68.100.166.227 (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The person who objects has no scientific knowledge and prepares pages like tr:Merih Aktaş & tr:Kâzım Koyuncu. They cannot comment on scientific matters, you should not listen to their desires. It not reasonable..68.100.166.227 (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to read our edit warring policy. Regardless of who is right or wrong you cannot try to get your way by making the same edit over and over for weeks on end. You spent weeks trying to force your information in the article while multiple editors reverted you. We don't settle disagreements by being stubborn here. Please seek consensus for edits that are challenged. Chillum 15:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Answer: The publication list was prepared gradually and it was accepted by the other editors. They even encouraged me to increase the number of journals in this publication list. Then I have gone and spent two weeks to find the remaining parts of their publications, and I added to the list. It was approved by other people. And this movie preparer came and erased all of it. It is obvious who is doing the edit war. You can not delete or erase other pages prepared by other persons without giving any explanation. It was a work of two and three weeks and prepared gradually and it is erased in one second by an person who prepares singer pages and you are defending this kind of people.

User talk:68.100.166.227 68.100.166.227 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You are incorrect. The burden of finding consensus is on the person seeking to include information. Chillum 03:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Also if you continue the same behaviour then the next block will be longer. Chillum 15:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Good. Then also explain what is the benefit of erasing the publication list of an scientist? He is not a movie star or singer.. Probably, this should be the reason. Because, the person who deletes is a preparer of articles of singers, and movies only. And you have not answered why it is not vandalism when something is deleted without giving any reason. I understand that some money should be pay to somewhere for this purpose..68.100.166.227 (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll tell you something

This is encyclopedia for the people on the street. They know everything. They don't need you to learn something. Let them write as they want and then they can read their own writings anytime they want to read. Will always be the encyclopedia of singers and movie players...User talk:68.100.166.227 — Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't say I fully understand you. Chillum 04:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

When I was placing some important publications in Turkish Wikipedia, many other editors supported and encouraged me to put more and provide the complete list of publications. Some of them even said that the articles were developing in the right direction ask me to make more research to complete the entire set of publications. I spent more than two weeks to find these publications from various other data bases since I know that Wait & Barut were two important scientists in their fields. They have more than 300 journal pubs and I have selected some important ones. When I gradually placed these publications, the editors were happy, they approved the material and ask for more. All of a sudden, the preparer of the singers, football players came out and erased all of them. Hey. What's going on there what's happening? Then this person also erased the material on English-Wiki which was approved by your editors. Now, have you understood the whole story?

User talk:68.100.166.227 68.100.166.227 (talk) 04:56, 29 June 2015 (UTC) If you still don't get it I don't need more explanation from you because I got it. You can go and examine the history of Wait & Barut pages in Turkish and English Wikipedia, Then you will see what was going on..

• I have no idea what it is you want from me. People are going to alter/remove/improve/update your stuff, that is how we work. Chillum 04:58, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't want anything. Just don't delete the previously approved publications. It was approved by the editors in Turkish Wiki and also in English wiki before this person delete all, who calls this "cleaning up process". In Turkish wiki, other editors apologized because of his attitude. I will replace back the previously approved publications by MaterialScientist, and I will not attempt to add more anymore to these pages, i.e. I will not put all of their publications which are around 400. 68.100.166.227 (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

User talk:68.100.166.227

You have not been "approved" for any edit. If people want to delete your very long list which is probably undue detail then they can. We do not record every minutia of fact here. We certainly don't list the entirety of peoples works in articles. Chillum 13:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

NEW RULES: Deleting and erasing something is NOT accounted as vandalism in Wikip.. Adding some info is Vandalism! Then let's start deleting anything we don't like from anywhere and you will have no right to bring it to its original form. I don't like it and I will delete it. You better go and work on pages like Britney Spears.. As far as I understand Anybody is free to erase any material that she dislikes.161.253.69.66 (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

You can tell yourself whatever you like. I think you will find things are more nuanced here. Chillum 00:05, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if blocked, you will usually still be able to edit your user talk page and email other editors. To discuss the block, you may contact Andreasmperu or another administrator

I have not removed anything. Can you tell me what is the reason for this BLOCK? Needs to be corrected!! 68.100.166.227 (talk) 05:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

What block? Chillum 15:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

ANI

In response to my revert, it has been reported. Cassianto^Talk 20:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert and the notification. Chillum 22:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for chipping in. Cassianto^Talk 22:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow, I think this is the first time I have been subject to an arbcom ruling, and all this for commenting in a thread at AN. Chillum 03:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Note to self, name parties appear to be:

• GregJackP
• GorillaWarfare
• Black Kite
• Kevin Gorman
• Reaper Eternal
• Eric Corbett
• RGloucester

@L235: can you please confirm that I have the correct names here? Chillum 03:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Also what does "initiate" mean in this context? Does this mean I cannot request that an uninvolved administrator look into something where I am prohibited from acting? For example does it mean I should not report to ANI if I see a legal threat or other blockable offence?

I may be misinterpreting it entirely and "initiate" may be just a redundant form of "take" meaning to actually "do" the action rather than to mean "set into motion". Please clarify as I am not used to being under arbcom restrictions. Chillum 04:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Crap, I knew I should've convinced another clerk to enact this one . Your list of parties is correct; they are also listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration_enforcement#Involved_parties. As for your other question, I can't say; there is a request that the Committee clarify at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement, but I can't answer, since all I did was push a couple of buttons on the massmessage interface. Thanks! L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Well then I shall walk on eggshells on whatever sacred ground their feet have touched. Chillum 04:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case

You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I was hoping the next message I got about this would be rescinding the above restrictions placed on me. I assume that will be forthcoming in the near future. Chillum 16:23, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Hijra_(Islam)

Hello again, I started trying to edit some pages recently and have found disruptive edits or perhaps just vandalism from an anonymous IP which has apparently already been blocked once. I would welcome some advise on how to proceed. Best regards. Bulgarios (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not seeing vandalism. I am seeing you revert edits as vandalism that look like a content dispute. WP:NOTVANDAL describes what is not considered vandalism.

My suggestion is to attempt to take the disagreement to the talk page. If the IP is unwilling to communicate then try to draw others to the discussion in a neutral fashion. If the IP(or anyone) edits against a consensus or edit wars let me know. Chillum 15:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Motion passed in AE arbitration case granting amnesty and rescinding previous temporary injunction

This message is sent at 12:53, 5 July 2015 (UTC) by Arbitration Clerk User:Penwhale via MassMessage on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. You are receiving this message because your name appears on this list and have not elected to opt-out of being notified of development in the arbitration case.

On 5 July, 2015, the following motion was passed and enacted:

1. Paragraphs (2) and (3) of the Arbitration Committee's motion of 29 June 2015 about the injunction and reporting breaches of it are hereby rescinded.
2. The Arbitration Committee hereby declares an amnesty covering:
   1. the original comment made by Eric Corbett on 25 June 2015 and any subsequent related comments made by him up until the enactment of this current motion; and
   2. the subsequent actions related to that comment taken by Black Kite, GorillaWarfare, Reaper Eternal, Kevin Gorman, GregJackP and RGloucester before this case was opened on 29 June 2015.

I sincerely appreciate that you have rescinded the unreasonable injunction against me and numerous other barely involved people. I hope in the future any injunction I am under will be due to something I did. Chillum 15:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Bong-han

I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primo-vascular system, which was a medical MEDRS article, thus a higher standard. It would be consistent with my close if data from it was merged into the one you closed as no consensus (which I think was the right call). I just wanted to publicly say in case you wanted to modify your close to allow merging. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for contacting me about this. It was my intention to indicate that what little common ground was in the discussion was rendered moot and not to prohibit merging as part of my closure. I have made an edit that I hopes clarifies: [1]. Chillum 20:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Southerners

Hi Chillum. Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Southerners. I actually don't agree with your assessment of consensus (there were as many keep or merge comments as delete ones, and some of the delete rationales were inaccurate, stating that the article subject was the theory of just one author, for instance), but regardless of that, is there a way that I can get a copy of the article text? I originally agreed with the deletion rationale when I first saw the article, but having done considerable research and having completely rewritten the article, it would be nice to at least have a copy of my work. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, including the AfD nominator's agreement with the suggestion to merge (not in bold, so I missed it just now), the delete comments are a minority. I know it's not a vote, but this does make me wonder whether consensus can be claimed. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:33, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

As stated in my closure there were sources provided but the policy based concerns provided by those seeking deletion were not addressed. What is more when given an extra seven days to get further input and allow improvement of the article only another person arguing for deletion came about. I agree this was a close one but I think a policy based deletion argument was presented and not properly refuted.

As for the content of the article, do you need access to the history or is it enough for me to e-mail you the content? I would be happy to provide you with either. Chillum 20:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the comments accurately reflected the content of the article though. For example, one says "WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources, not one (questionable) individual". Another states "This claims it is by one author and it is disputed by experts". The article didn't just rely on one individual's views, but drew on multiple peer-reviewed sources. I did point this out, to the editors stating that it drew on a single author's work, but there was little response. I'm not sure what else I could have done to refute these mischaracterisations (although I have now found even more potential sources, such as this and this). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

May I suggest you that I move the article to draft space or your user space so that you can try to bring it up to inclusion standards and address the concerns at the AfD? If you get it up to snuff then it can be recreated. Chillum 20:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, draft space would be fine. Many thanks. Could the article history be kept, if possible? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:54, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I have done so, it is here(history and all): Draft:White Southerners. I personally think this should go to WP:DRV before going back to main space once it is cleaned up to see if the community agrees it is up to standards. Good luck. Chillum 20:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks again. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion review for White Southerners

An editor has asked for a deletion review of White Southerners. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I really think your chances at DRV would have been better if you had addressed the concerns before taking it to DRV. However I will accept whatever outcome there is. Chillum 22:21, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

That was precisely the point of these edits, which address the concerns by adding further peer-reviewed sources to the article. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate you spend a good part of an hour editing the article, I was expecting something more significant. The problems described were significant. I am happy to let the DRV decide if that was enough. I guess I could reword what I said to "I really think your chances at DRV would have been better if you had spend a significant amount of effort addressing the concerns before taking it to DRV". Chillum 18:14, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

• Cordless Larry (talk · contribs) cannot do further work on the article since you moved it from draftspace to mainspace and tagged it with a {{TempUndelete}} template. Cunard (talk) 18:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I moved it to draft space so he could improve it prior to taking it to DRV. Once he started the DRV then I presumed they were done. I cannot think of a situation where an article is being edited after being deleted while it is at DRV. The tempundelete template is exactly the right template for this situation. Not sure what your concerns are. After all DRV is not AfD #2. I gave him a chance to improve it first, he did some improvements then went to DRV.

I think I made an extra effort to give Larry a chance to improve it, he did some improvements the moved on to the next step. Chillum 18:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

He's found new sources (example) that now cannot be used to improve the draft to increase the chances of recreation being allowed. Draft articles can and have been improved while they're at DRV. Would you allow Cordless Larry to work on the draft by moving it back to draftspace? Cunard (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It's also unclear what concerns I'm supposed to address. Most of the editors supporting deletion claimed that the article was based on one author's views. That is incorrect, so I don't know how to address that concern. I can add more sources, which I've already done, but surely the number of peer-reviewed sources already cited demonstrates notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Chillum wrote, "The problems described were significant." What are those significant concerns and what actions can Cordless Larry take to address those concerns?

The closing comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Southerners is very vague: "Consensus seems to be that this is not an encyclopedic topic." How can Cordless Larry demonstrate that this is an encyclopedic topic? He's already provided numerous journal and book sources about the topic. What else can he do? Cunard (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

While I really do enjoy a good debate here, the DRV is really the best place for this. There is nothing stopping anyone from using their userspace for drafting as always. In fact creating a brand new article from scratch may be the best way to salvage the topic. Chillum 18:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Good point, Chillum. I did actually consider deleting my comment above in favour of making it at DRV, and I apologise if it was a bit pointy. I will discuss the issue on the DRV page only from now on. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries and no need for apology. I do not mind when people disagree with me or question me. Chillum 18:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I do not want to debate you here. I am asking you to explain (1) what the "significant problems" from the AfD are and (2) how Cordless Larry can address those problems. I think this is a reasonable question to ask because without knowing what the problems are, creating a brand new article to salvage the topic still might fall afoul of the problems from the AfD. Cunard (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I can do little other than quote the AfD itself. These are not my perceived problems, these are the perceived problems of those who participated in the debate. I would suggest asking those who sought deletion. It is not my standards the article needs to be brought up to, it is the community's. Chillum 18:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Missed one

YOu may want to suppress this [[2]]. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Chillum 18:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No worries can you throw a block hammer at <redacted> Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

It would seem there is already some sort of "hidden" block on that user, I am not sure what a hidden block is but it prevents me from blocking again. Chillum 18:34, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Weird, thanks for trying at any rate. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

List of Danish football transfers summer 2015

Hey, thanks for closing the AfD! I was actually going to close (I'm actually patrolling for unclosed AfDs) it it wasn't for a minute late so I could look at the article again or else it would've been an edit conflict. Cheers! SwisterTwister talk 17:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

CSD to the rescue, saving us 7 days of everyone agreeing. Chillum 17:52, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Legal threat against wiki and persistent vandalism by SPA

Hi. Sorry for bothering you, I've seen your username on the noticeboards, and then noticed that you are involved in anti-vandalism, so I thought I'd broach this subject with you, even though we've had no prior interaction. I was unsure as to whether to bring this to ANI, and at WP:THREAT it mentions asking an admin as the second option, so here I am. User:Ee9807 is a newly-created SPA who has begun to disruptively edit on an article, Azad Ali. I became aware of it through Stiki. Normally, I'd attempt to handle it myself, and through RPP (which I have requested), but after my first revision, he left this message. As soon as I see a legal threat against either me or wiki, I think it prudent to let someone with more experience take a look. If you could provide direction, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have indefinitely blocked the user for making legal threats. We have no tolerance towards this sort of thing. I am sorry you had to experience that. If I am not around in the future ANI will deal with they things quickly. I would not worry too much, generally these threats are meant to have a chilling effect and are not real. Chillum 14:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. And for the direction in case of future occurrences. Take it easy. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:04, 15 July 2015 (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.