User talk:H/Archive 33

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.

Them pesky Indian names again

Hey H, would you mind adding 'Ashit' to the low confidence list? Cheers, Riana ⁂ 13:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I added it, but it will still trigger on 'shit' as well, unavoidable. ^(H) 13:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Resigning

I won't so there's no need to worry. The only thing that will cause me being desysoped will be an ArbCom decision requiring it. I'll be taking it easy over the next few days as far as my normal stuff goes, but don't think that that means I'm leaving. :-) Zsinj^Talk 14:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good to know. ^(H) 14:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Signature

Any chance you could change the color of that H? It makes it look like a redlink. Thanks. The Evil Spartan 17:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

May I ask how this is disruptive? I like that color, and I don't see the harm. ^(H) 17:54, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say it was disruptive, it's just confusing. It was just a request, feel free to turn it down, though I do think it was a good one. The Evil Spartan 17:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say there is any problem with it looking like a redlink, the only thing I would say is it is easy to click a bracket (parenthesis or whatever you want to call them) instead of the H. No real problem though and I like your new name- shame I can't have "G", not that I particularly want it (at least it belongs to someone who actually uses it), but you'll be envied in a few years when all the single letters are taken. GDonato (talk) 18:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My mistake in assuming you thought it was disruptive. While I agree it can be confusing, I do not see the harm in the confusion it may cause. Regarding the small area between the H and the ()'s, I could just make it so the whole thing goes to my talk page instead of having the ()'s go to my user page. In fact I think I would prefer it that way. If the color turns out to be a problem in the future I will certainly change it. ^(H) 19:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My new signature: ^(H). It looks just like the old one but it is now just one button to this page. ^(H) 19:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Stunning! :-) GDonato (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Numberman

Could you add this to the blacklist for the namewatcher bot as User:Numberman5, sock of Numberman4 etc., has caused trouble and it is probably easier if we know when these are created. GDonato (talk) 22:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

The entry ";numberman:SOCK_PUPPET(Numberman3)" already exists. ^(H) 22:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

So it does, silly me. GDonato (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

A reply to a comment excised from User talk:Badlydrawnjeff

The problem has been solved[1], the image has been saved. Rejoice! ^(H) 00:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Comments like this truly boggle me. You really think this one-liner - a line that reads to "illustrate the article", no less - is better than Jeff's detailed rationale? Listing the album's publishers is a small improvement, sure, but as mentioned above, we have no way to be sure they have any rights to the artwork other than to sell it with cds. {{Non-free album cover}} already says as much. —Cryptic 00:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I am satisfied, if you want to continue challenging it, then go for it. ^(H) 00:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not challenging it. I had no problem with it to start with. What I'm objecting to is that Jeff's getting hounded about a good, detailed, specific fair-use rationale, and when it gets replaced by something indistinguishable from "to use as decoration" by someone else, suddenly everything's a-ok. —Cryptic 00:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

His description lacked the copyright holder. ^(H) 00:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It also lacked dancing girls, shrubberies, and fireworks. The new one lacks all four too. —Cryptic 00:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what those things have to do with anything, frankly I find the direction you are taking this discussion a bit confusing. The new rational does provide a copyright holder. ^(H) 00:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate of Namewatcher Bot

Hey H! I wanted to know if you were thinking about running a duplicate of the namewatcher bot, for the same reason you run the multiple AIV bots. Unlike last time, I now have a computer that can run round the clock without disruptions. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Red Sux!) 02:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to the nature of how Namewatcher Bot works it would be very difficult to have 2 running at once without them stepping on each others toes. I am going to get a toolserver account. ^(H) 03:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Okay. Toolserver is much more reliable anyway. --R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 11:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Page protection

Hello there, I'm sorry to bother you directly but I've noticed you've been active on the page protection effort. The reason I writing is that this page protection request has been moved by the housekeeping bot without an administrator explicitly specifying if the requests are to be allowed or denied. I've moved the request back up to the pending list once already but the bot has eventually moved it down again. :) Background on the problem: Recently the consensus behind WP:MOSNUM changed and apparently an editor didn't like the change, so as can be seen by the edit history of the articles listed in the request the disruptive anonymous proxy edits have been continuing from yesterday to today despite the best efforts of editors to revert those changes. We (the editors) could do with some help and have asked for the pages to be semi-protected for a while. The IPs being used are Tor exit nodes, but there any many many of them and edits are being made quicker than can be tracked. Fnagaton 13:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is rather involved, and I am just about to go out. I am also not that active in page protection, I only do it when I see an edit war crop up in front of me. Someone else will have to look into this if there is any urgency to the matter. ^(H) 14:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

OK Thank you. Fnagaton 14:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

An AfD I'm curious about your opinion on

What are your views on the AfD at Glossary of terms in The Urantia Book? All the best. Wazronk 07:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, judging by his comment on the talk page I would say this person may have some pre-determined opinions. While dictionary entries are not allowed, that is not a dictionary entry, I have given my 2 cents. ^(H) 13:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

name bot

on the config pages, you have typed it will be read each 10 minute. But why not just read it from the irc feed instead, and read the page only when it has been changed? _→AzaToth 17:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It does read the names real-time off IRC. It re-reads the control panel, blacklist, and whitelist every 10 minutes. Feel free to adjust the text to better reflect this. ^(H) 18:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ohh, I see what you mean, good idea. I will do that. ^(H) 18:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is done[2]. ^(H) 18:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Namewatcher Bot

Just wanted to say awesome job on the bot... I always end up making a submission and the bot beats me to it - can you ask it to leave some for me ;-). Regards, Tim^V.B._{{critic & life & speak}} 00:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

To you I leave the names that are too likely to give a false positive. Names with "dick" in them are a good starting place. You would be surprised how many Indian names have "shit" in them. Thanks. ^(H) 00:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Good point, it often misses names with brand names (for example I recently reported User:Windowsxpsp2), which are also a good starting point. Oh, and, I've never seen an Indian name with "shit" in it... It'll probably only be a matter of time before I stumble upon one, though. Regards, Tim^V.B._{{critic & life & speak}} 01:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Indian names with "shit" in them that I currently have one my whitelist:

akshit

akshita

avikshit

deekshith

deekshita

hanashita

harshit

ikshita

kshitij

kshitika

lakshita

makshita

parikshit

rakshita

veekshit

I am not sure of the origin of all of them, but they seem to be names. I am sure I will find more. ^(H) 01:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Question

HighInBC, I am a bit disgruntled about User:Creator of Data/Information; A random user, creating a log of personal information about myself, including an (incorrect) address, real name, and many other odd things. I was wondering if any kind of action can be taken against this user, as he has made no contributions except for his userpage and user subpages. --Hojimachong^talk 01:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

We have policies to prohibit the releasing of other users personal information, even if it is incorrect. The user has been blocked, and the page has been deleted. Let me know if it happens again. ^(H) 02:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I'll be sure to do that. --Hojimachong^talk 03:25, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPA

All due respect, but if consensus hasn't been reached in 2 months (between this policy and WP:BADSITES), it's probably not going to get there in 30 hours. Hard work has been done by many editors whose only desire is to have a stable policy; unfortunately, any attempt to change this policy from one with a great big "disputed" tag halfway down has met with another bout of edit warring. Is this normal in policy discussions? Risker 03:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

People can talk till they are blue in the face but when they edit war on a policy page action needs to be taken. I don't have an opinion on the dispute, and it is not relevant to what I need to do. I agree if it has not been solved in 2 months that it is unlikely to be solved in 30, but if the edit warring is not solved by then I will be blocking the offenders.

Policy is developed through discussion not stubborn reverting. ^(H) 04:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Response at ANI

Hi there. That thread at ANI is getting rather long (mostly due to me...), so I thought I'd drop you a note to point out my response to an earlier comment of yours. Thanks. Carcharoth 16:10, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Spotted something else as well. You said "If you want to preserve the content of an article the time to do it is during the AfD" - I did have plans to do that, and I asked for the MfD closure to be delayed until after the weekend so I could copy around 500 pages. Then the MfD closed as no consensus and I got on with other things, thinking I no longer needed to carry out this copying. Then I find I've missed a DRV and the pages are gone. Do you see my problem? Carcharoth 16:15, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Eagle101 has sorted it out for you: User:Eagle_101/Sandbox. ^(H) 16:43, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

SP questions

Hi H, thanks for your replies. Yes I know that there are legit purposes of multiple accounts. In this case Mantanmoreland and Tomstoner have edited together on contentious pages (esp. Naked Short Selling) and address each other as separate editors [3]. They've also actively edit-warred together on the same side: see the following sequence for example: Mantanmoreland, Mantanmoreland, Mantanmoreland; then with Mantanmoreland at three reverts in comes Tomstoner, then Tomstoner again.

I first broached the subject with Mantanmoreland because of this edit (brought to my attention by another editor), wherein Mantanmoreland dramatically rewrote a talk-page comment by Tomstoner – not tweaking his phrasing, mind you, but radically rewriting one long paragraph and adding in an entirely new one. When I asked Mantanmoreland about it (politely, I thought), he first accused me of "trolling" and erased my question,[4] and then self-reverted and gave me an answer that seemed to me, to be frank, very glib and unsatisfactory.[5]

This doesn't add up to a picture of legitimate use of multiple accounts, unless I'm mistaken.--G-Dett 15:58, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a case for WP:RCU. ^(H) 16:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

With flattery like this, who needs insults?

User:High in British Columbia. Even after a name change, vandals never forget. ;) EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. Classic. ^(H) 21:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I was the one who reported it - taking a break from my Wikibreak. Dig the new name! RJASE1 ^Talk 22:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

'Ello again. I'm just wondering if you might have had an email off me in the last day or so? I sent you one and haven't had a reply, although I wasn't sure if that was deliberate on your part... but JzG just told me he didn't get one I sent via Email User, so maybe it's a bit temperamental. --YFB ¿ 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I got your e-mail and replied by the 'e-mail this user' button. I will send it again, but this time by replying to your mail. ^(H) 22:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. It's clearly having an off couple of days. --YFB ¿ 22:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Received with thanks. Any idea where's best to report a broken email function? I was beginning to think everyone was just ignoring me... :-) --YFB ¿ 22:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

No idea at all. ^(H) 22:55, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

---

Urantia Links

Please discontinue removing the Fellowship link and replaceing it with the urantia internation group link. The Fellowship is an established world-wide organization with hundreds of members worldwide and has been in continuous existence since the 1990's lawsuits with Urantia Foundation. It succeeds the Urantia Brotherhood and organizes International confernces worldwide and publishes the Urantia book among other valuable endeavors. To replace this link with the vandals at Urantia international composed of a handful of beligerrant members whose only purpose here is vandalism as stated in their comments on the talk pages is ludicrous. Next we will have every reader or study group in the world wanting a link to their site or local activities. This is a small group of Florida readers which has a backyard bar-b-q once a year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majeston (talk • contribs) 18:42, May 29, 2007

Your personal opinion and mine are not relevant here. We both have to respect consensus in this matter. Please do so. Thank you for taking this to the talk page. ^(H) 19:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, H, you may want to double check your reverts of Majeston on 5/29/07. Majeston was removing the spam link slipped in yet again by the UrantiaRI / 66.177.21.64 individual on 5/27/07, and your reverts returned it to the article! Majeston is a different individual than the one who kept stubbornly including the link, and who then made such the outburst on the talk page. Consensus so far I think you'll agree is that the link to the urantia-ri.org site isn't appropriate. I'm going to make an edit to the article to take it out once more (same as my other edits this past week). UrantiaRI is blocked but I won't be surprised to see another revert by 66.177.21.64 (same individual). Wazronk 21:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It would seem I got things a bit mixed up. I apologize to Majeston and anyone else who was effected. Mea Culpa. ^(H) 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, both of you, no problem. Majeston 01:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Our Solar Systym

I agree with brewabeer that the solar system should be our solar systym according to

Wiktionary asolar systym is "Any collection of heavenly bodies including a star or binary

star, and any lighter stars, brown dwarfs, planets, and other objects in orbit(I copied

and pasted the definition)--Cbennett0811 20:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating. ^(H) 00:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Butting in

It would be so much easier to respect you as an editor if you actually tried to add something to discussions other than uncalled-for finger wagging. You know, like something that actually injected some new perspectives on the topic.

Peter ^Isotalo 12:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Peter I am going to ask you once again to read WP:OWN. I did not wag my fingers, I simply asked you to respect consensus and allow discussion in a matter instead of insisting on your way. You do not get to decide who interjects what. Do not try to make me or other users feel unwelcome to any page on this wiki. Your may wish to review WP:CIVILITY also. ^(H) 13:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your diplomatic skills is not what you think they are and you show little hesitation in calling whatever you feel I'm not agreeing with to be "consensus". At Talk:Medieval cuisine you defended a handful of editors with unspecified demands for more citations despite clear opposition from more editors than just me, but in this case you're defending the rights of two other editors to reinstate content they haven't even researched for themselves.

The worst problem is, however, is that you never seem to encourage anyone to motivate anything, just that everybody's opinions be incorporated in articles, no matter the counter-arguments.

Peter ^Isotalo 14:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

All I have ever done is encourage the building and following of consensus, it is not about you at all, same goes for everyone else as well. Every time me and you cross paths you are trying to discourage me from contributing. I have not done anything wrong, and I am allowed to disagree with you. The fact is that when you disagree with something you can be rather pushy, I have pointed that out, and it seems you don't like that. Your criticisms of me are vague and unhelpful. Yes I defended editors with concerns that were being rudely ignored by you on a few occasions, that is a good thing. As for me not encouraging the things you want me to, well, it is really not your place to decide that. ^(H) 14:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

You're awfully good at popping up in unrelated discussions about medieval cuisine and history considering you haven't contributed one iota to the topic and you claim to defend "consensus" in all discussions. I mean, I still haven't seen anything that actually indicates that you know anything about the topic. Not even the basics. Basically, you engage in almost nothing but meta-discussions about perceived breeches of etiquette. There's nothing useful or constructive about that and I'm going to keep discouraging you from doing it.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So you brought this thread back from the archives to basically repeat yourself? If you have a problem with a specific edit that would be another thing, but you are really being vague about what I am doing wrong, and frankly are being rather rude in proclaiming my ignorance. ^(H) 16:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

As for these "meta-discussions" they are called policies, WP:OWN, WP:CIVILITY, both policies. It is useful and constructive to enforce these. ^(H) 16:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You changed your name to H? =/

I've heard of Usurping, but I didnt know they took requests that extreme seriously. Also, I'm sorry to bother you, but I don't know where else to ask: how do I get a fancy, non-plain-text signature like yours? I don't see anything in the help files that explains how. Do you just have to type the code manually every time or is there a shortcut? Haplolology 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Click the "my preferences button", and use the "Signature" field. Then whatever you put there will be in used when you enter ~~~~ or ~~~ ^(H) 14:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yay thank you. Also I found out you can use SUBST to make the part that goes in the preferences box shorter. Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your name taken in vain

Hello Ryan,

While stalking a certain RFCN reject wandering about aimlessly, as I sometimes do, I notice there's an RFAR over some DRV nonsense in which your name has been taken in vain at least three times, including this! It doesn't look like you were made aware of it, which didn't seem right. My apologies if you already knew.

Regards, --Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 15:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, not sure what that is all about, thanks. ^(H) 15:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

thought

So if you are still using the HighinBC moniker here or elsewhere, you should consider rendering it as B^highC or ⁱⁿBC in your sigs. Rebus! Rebus! Rebus! Debivort 19:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking of spelling the letter H phonetically for my sig, "Ache", or can think of a better way to spell H? ^(H) 19:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah ... ache is a bit problematic - headake and all. I've seen Aitch in phonetic alphabets. Debivort 08:14, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Victoria

First sentence re-done due to poor style, surfeit of references, and incorrectness. Victora is not Mediterranean. Check out the wikipedia page for that climate zone/type. wikipedia should be internally consistent. Also, the references for Koeppen are highly technical. If you click on the linked term in my edit you are well on your way. Why clog up a simple one-liner intro with needless caveats and technicalise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.98.33.33 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This has been discussed in the past, please read the previous discussion and then post any new information you may have to the article's talk page. ^(H) 00:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The bot is repeating himself

Hi, I'm not really sure why the bot tells us at AIV that an IP is in the shared address category, but I presume it's a bug that makes it tell us that SOOOOOOOOOO many times for the same IP?[6] Not sure if I should send this to you or Krellis, so I'm sending to both. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 21:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[7]. MaxSem 21:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

That is a bug, I have disabled that feature while I figure it out. ^(H) 21:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)`

Um, I'm beginning to wonder was it my fault. When I look at the diff for my report,[8] which was shortly before the bot messed up, I think that I absent-mindedly must have subst'ed it. I was subst'ing the user warnings at the time, so it's quite possible that I did {{Subst:IPvandal|167.128.71.74}} instead of {{IPvandal|167.128.71.74}} Since the bot started adding stuff to every single line, and since there wouldn't have been so many lines if it hadn't been for me, I think I must be the culprit. Apologies. ElinorD (talk) 21:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you for helping me track that down. I will make the code be sure that the line with the target name is in the right template before commenting. Then such errors will not prompt the bot to do such things. No worries, only through actual use can the software be made more durable. ^(H) 21:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Repaired[9]. ^(H) 22:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. :) ElinorD (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Mistake

I made that account when logged in as this account. It is possible in the logs to see that it was legit. Secretlondon 22:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ack, my mistake, sorry about that. ^(H) 22:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks,

Thanks for the message. I informed Jorge that anyone can edit anything, per WP:OWN. Thanks, Neranei 23:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. ^(H) 23:28, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Oh, hi H, I was wondering what happened to you.Proabivouac 00:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Still here, still High In BC. ^(H) 01:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

I am HighInBC on freenode and I would like the cloak wikipedia/HighInBC. Thanks. --^(H) 20:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

H: Thank you for your eagle eye. Your help is appreciated. IZAK 06:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A bot idea

Would it be possible to have a bot that turned off and on the backlog tag at CAT:CSD? I would think that it could be a relatively simple thing, but then again, items in categories are different than items actually *on* a page. If the scope is too small, it could probably do the same thing on some of the other admin pages. Just a thought. EVula // talk // ☯ // 05:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I will add it to my mental list of possible bots. ^(H) 13:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

EVula, I was thinking about the need for very small, yet regular tasks to be performed. So I went and made my version of the "Master Control Program". I have converted a few of my bots into "plugins" that the MCP coordinates both a job queue/scheduling and a shared memory that all plugins can use to access each other. This will allow me to make bot-like plugins that can perform even the simplest of tasks without being a burden. ^(H) 20:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Awesome. I understand very little of that, but it sounds great! :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically several bots can run on a single framework, and share resources. Of example, I have an IRCFeed plugin that watches the IRC feed, and any plugin and access the IRC feed through it. ^(H) 20:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Charlotte Wyatt

I've protected Charlotte Wyatt (expiry time of six hours) to allow for discussion on the talk page. Mackensen (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Nice. ^(H) 15:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Reading the F****** Manual Barnstar

• Barnstar moved to userpage

Nice. ^(H) 17:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

This is officially my favorite barnstar to date. ^(H) 20:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

• Heh :) --Durin 14:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith usernames

That's fine. I am relatively new with the mop and bucket, and always happy to learn.--Anthony.bradbury 23:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem. ^(H) 23:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing

No, that's a good one. I think we need even more T/F questions. Perhaps, though, it should be, "It's not a revert when I'm just making the edit tell the truth." That's what they most often say. "It wasn't really a revert. It was a correction!" Geogre 01:17, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Subtlety and Entremet

I posted on Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Merge discussion request about the need for discussion (which one user has rather nastily called "butting in"). — Athaenara ✉ 10:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not far from filing an RFC on Peters behavior regarding ownership of articles. I am still hoping it can be worked out through direct communications, but he can be rather rude when criticized. ^(H) 14:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

H, your presence in these kinds of disputes isn't helping one bit since you're always extremely critical of my actions without expressing any kind of opinion or insight about the facts being discussed. You're not suggesting any type of compromise edits and you're certainly not calming anyone down by rattling the RfC-saber like this. If you want to facilitate mediation and dialog, leave this to someone who doesn't have such an obvious aversion and grudge against me.

Peter ^Isotalo 01:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

No grudge Peter, I am only asking you to discuss things with others when they object to bold action. I am not out to get you, I have not grudge, or vendetta, just asking you to follow policy and play well with others. ^(H) 01:05, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you participate in a revert war about a topic you don't actually contribute to and then start gossiping about RfC:ing me with one of the other parties in the conflict and then insist on not holding a grudge against me, then you must at least be utterly tactless. You were soundly criticized by others than me when you made all those rather careless edits at medieval cuisine and got a pretty stern lecture by Bishonen about not encouraging a very ill-designed poll to settle a dispute, so please don't act as if you have a good reason to be this self-righteous.

And this "I might just RfC any time soon"-banter is utterly pointless bluster. Keep it to yourself unless you're actually planning on doing it.

Peter ^Isotalo 02:51, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop bugging me. If you had something productive to say I would be more receptive, but you are basically pissed off because I have had differing opinions, and that I have called you on your ownership issues. You are still harping at me about a minor dispute from weeks ago. What Bishonen thinks is hardly relevant to anything that we have discussed recently. You are just repeating yourself. If you don't like my behaviour go to dispute resolution. ^(H) 03:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You're just attacking me over and over about "ownership issues", but you haven't explained why, except that you think that I'm wrong and others are right. No one of the people you support, though, appear to be all that eager about motivating why they think my own revisions of my own contributions based on my own research is POV:ed or flawed or whatever. It's extremely frustrating for me to have people imply that I'm incapable of revising my own contributions without asking permission from people who obviously haven't read the same sources and don't actually claim an opinion of their own except "we can't delete this content before we have the support of x number of people".

And why the Hell would I ask for dispute resolution with you? You're the one who seems to have the uncontrollable urge to blurt your opinion about stuff you don't really know anything about all the time. The only time we've actually discussed content is when you misread a sentence or wanted an extra token footnote that you'll never check up on.

Peter ^Isotalo 09:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

He has explained why repeatedly. I have watched this talkpage conversation. Just because you can't see what he's talking about doesn't make him wrong. And just so you are aware, anyone can contribute (or un-contribute) anything to any article, this is a public encyclopedia. That is what is meant by "ownership issues". It is quite clear you do not understand Wikipedia's policy on this matter. Refer to WP:OWN, as I'm sure other people have told you to. -- KirinX 15:22, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

First off, Wikipedia's main objective is to be accurate and neutral. These are criteria that are not dependent on how many users that insist on a certain course of action, but what arguments they can provide. You seem to be confusing consensus-building with polling or even voting, which is exactly what Wikipedia isn't supposed to do.

H has not explained himself and neither have the users he insists on defending at my expense done so to even a minimum degree of satisfaction. All three disputants have almost solely relied on the force of their conviction to carry them through this conflict. The most detailed motivations so far have been the following:

• It's appropriate for the two articles to reference each other, but [...] neither is a substitute for the other.[10]
• I do not believe the content should be lost.[11]
• ...to aid comparison with Entremet.[12]
• Informative material that is backed up by valid references shouldn't be removed.[13]

Notice how no one bothers to actually say "I think that version X is wrong because of reason Y". People are certainly saying that they are right, but not providing any way of understanding why (except, of course, that I'm too eager to, God forbid, claim that my own contributions are accurate in this instance). Now is there anything that you'd like to add to this sordid affair, Kirin? Perhaps even an opinion about subtleties? At least that would help more than just ganging up on me with ruleslawyering because I've been insisting on factual accuracy over editing-by-majority.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The key difference is that I am simply asking you to follow policy, whereas you are making vague demands that do not seem to be based on policy. You fail to understand that this has very little to do with the subject of the articles in question and more to do with how you get along with others. The subject is not the issue at hand, but the manner in which you discuss things with other users. You say I have not explained myself, but I think I have made myself clear that I expect you to follow WP:OWN and WP:CIVILITY, not sure what else needs to be explained. If you really want I can collect a bunch of diffs demonstrating times you have failed in this regard, but I think you are already aware of these incidences. ^(H) 17:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is one diff that demonstrates you lack of respect for other people's opinions: [14]. This is typical of your behaviour, do you still think I have not explained myself properly? I can find more if you like. ^(H) 17:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me like you're out to do nothing else but to prove points and that you have little or no consideration for what actually happens in mainspace. In short, you seem to be almost obsessed that the process be perfect rather than the end result. And I'm certainly not the first to point that out.[15][16][17][18]

Peter ^Isotalo 18:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is interesting how every time I bring up the matter of your behavior, you go straight to a minor content dispute from weeks ago and show those who disagree with me. See Ad hominem. Did you notice how I accepted the consensus that resulted even though I did not agree? Did you notice how I did not mock or belittle those who had contrary points of view, or refer to the discussion as a "waste of time"? That is what I am asking from you, you are allowed to disagree, but please respect consensus, and don't discourage people from contribution. ^(H) 18:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Consensus, huh? How on earth did you know that without actually having either Athaenara or Amatulic comment my last revert? As for "belittling", telling someone that they are wrong with details as to why they are wrong is hardly to be considered an insult in this context. Not when you prove time and time again that you're not interested in discussing facts, only to have you ego stroked on talkpages. Your biggest problem is that you really can't tell consensus and your own opinion apart, nor do you understand that consensus is so more than simply tallying the amount of people that a certain article version is the most accurate one and doing what the majority thinks is right.

I've requested mediation from the Mediation Cabal. This is mostly because I don't want to waste my own, your and many other people's time with something more formal.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Mediation? Perhaps that will help, frankly I don't know what you are asking of me, other than to not disagree with you. Perhaps the mediator can figure out what you want. ^(H) 20:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You always seem to be placing the burden of proof on everyone but yourself all the time, even in topics that you don't actually contribute to. You also never actually engage in discussions concerning the validity of facts themselves with me. That people here should engage each other on the same level doesn't mean you have an unalienable right to demand explanations of what you don't understand before accepting a certain article version. Other wikipedians don't have to take on the onus of tutoring you because you can't be bothered with trying to read up on certain topics.

Peter ^Isotalo 08:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is unreasonable to ask for an explanation before letting 80% of the information(with citations) in an article to be blanked. I never demanded an explanation, I simply asked you to follow consensus. If you want to influence consensus then giving an explanation is in your best interest. But withholding explanation then complaining about me asking you to follow consensus does not make sense. We disagreed with your act because we did not understand it, so asking you to explain is very reasonable. ^(H) 15:00, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Parliament Buildings

Hi, someone commented on the image I uploaded from BC Archives Image:Parliament Buildings at Victoria.gif that they don't believe that is the Parliament buildings. Buildings are not really my line of study, so do you have any thoughts on this person's comment?CindyBo 21:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is the buildings, the similarities are to precise, and the source confirms it. It looks like the building before it was built up further. I have clarified things on the image page. ^(H) 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The buildings have indeed undergone a few cosmetic updates. -- KirinX 18:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Looking at the BC Archives page it came from, this image is looking across Superior street, so it is the back of the buildings which explains a lot. ^(H) 19:03, 6 June 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.