Yeah, sorry about that, I'm using a script to report and yesterday it was not adding people who were already on the AIV list. Ho hum, I'll have to start looking more closely at the IPs I send to the list! Thanks for bringing this to my attention though. -- Samtheboy ( t/ c) 14:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This would look good in most of our articles, dont you think? SqueakBox 00:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Instead of substituting indefblock tags, you can add the parameter "blocked" to the sockpuppet tag and remove the indefblock tag; so, where {{sockpuppet|207.144.59.134|evidence=[[{{highssp|1={{{User|207.144.59.134}}}}}]]}}
you could add {{sockpuppet|207.144.59.134|blocked|evidence=[[{{highssp|1={{{User|207.144.59.134}}}}}]]}}
--
Iamunknown
03:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
Your userpage has your name obliterated by pi. You also seem to mask your username in your (imo gimmicky) signature. This is generally annoying, and inappropiate for an admin. New users need to be able to contact you and to see clearly who you are. Please fix. Thanks. Secretlondon 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
You blocked this user for having an inappropiate username. You can clearly see from Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy that the policy re:trademarks isn't clearcut. I'm not impressed that you seem to block first and ask questions later. This seems to be a bad case of WP:BITE and makes me question your judgement. (I accept I may be influenced by your juvenile userpage). Secretlondon 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think its fair to characterise HighInBC's behaviour as "block first and ask questions later". The name was discussed at WP:RFCN first ( [1]) following after being raised there by another user (and the account was notifed of the discussion). The account was blocked after nearly a day of discussion. And then the matter of Trademark-based blocks was raised at WT:U. No opinion on the userpage :-). WjB scribe 05:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The John W. Morgan article no longer asserts his "tested IQ", but does highlight a political attack used against him in a televised debate. This is an archived debate and the infomation is widely known to the public (in that opponents were trying to use this against him). I just thought maybe you could have a look at as kirkoconnel is trying to use your remark as justification for deleting it (which I believe it isn't). -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.48.196 ( talk • contribs) 14:23, April 27, 2007 (UTC)
- kirkoconnel is distorting your view saying "He agrees with me." I simply referred him to your comment. The issue is no longer about whether Morgan has a 176 IQ, but merely that political opponents alledged he was a member of a high IQ society. It's not asserting a "truth" anymore, merely referencing a statement that was made. kirkoconnel continues to revert and does not appreciate the difference (and he's putting words in your mouth by saying you "agree", when you clearly indicated you were neutral on it. Have a look at his comments in the discussion section, he is clearly biased on the issue of IQ. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.48.196 ( talk • contribs) 15:17, April 27, 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you had protected User_talk:Grandma_Logan from vandalism since the user [[who is actually User:Woodylogan, Grandma Logan being one of his sock puppets) kept removing the warnings from that talk page. The same user keeps vandalising a number of other talk pages for his various sock puppets; those I am aware of that have been repeatedly vandalised in the last few days are User_talk:Thomas_Logan, User_talk:Grandpa_Logan, User_talk:Ecmsthomaslogan and User talk:168.9.128.3. Any chance those could be protected, too? This is such a tiresome vandal :-( -- Bonadea 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hello, not that long ago I think you blocked User:TheGoogle for username, the user was unblocked to change to User:Raden and this was carried out, however the user is now complaining that they are still being blocked, which I find strange considering they were unblocked (By Veinor) to allow the change. Thanks. GDonato ( talk) 12:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hey I just wanted to let you know my appreciation for your "HBC AIV helperbot3", that you run with Krellis. It really is rather nice. KOS | talk 17:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you, H, for your constructive comments in
my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without
frying my brain, of course. |
Hello HighInBC. I see you substituted the template on User:JJonathan and removed the category. It is much easier to use the sockpuppet templates only, which include a toggle for blocked status (see example):
You also did this on User:2ne, which is not tagged as a sock puppet. Doing so orphans the page and drops it out of the maintenance cycles. If there is some reason the page is not temporary, the template should be replaced with a more appropriate one such as {{ banned user}}. Why do you think this page should be kept indefinitely?
Thanks. :) —{ admin} Pathoschild 21:14:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Beautiful pictures! Seriously. But since they are only being used separately, can the combined orphan at Image:British Columbia Parliament Buildings - expanded.jpg be deleted? Thanks. -- Butseriouslyfolks 03:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for blocking User:Reapersss x, although I did not see an actual block in the logs. As long as there will be no further activity from the account, or the person behind it. Thanks again. -- Reaper X 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks, but have to delet. I am not an example of civility. In fact, I am not even a proponent of "wikipedia-style" civility. I understand that people are not robots and may get ticked off sometimes. At the same time I stand that a reasonable person must recognize when it is time to take some words back. `' mikka 00:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hello there
I am at a loss as to what to do now. IPs are accusing me of vandalism and reverting the article. They refuse to read or contribute to the discussion.
What should I do? I don't want to babysit this article for the rest of my life but I also a fair piece of biographical information available. I was considering expanding the article with the information I know of John W. Morgan, and source it but I don't want to have to deal with this crap every week.
Thank you for your help last time. -- Kirkoconnell 13:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Sweet Jesus, you were on top of that. You solved the issue five minutes before I posted this... Do you know my weight, age and Fridays lotto numbers too? -- Kirkoconnell 13:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
- I read the discussion and agree with the poster that this issue came up in the debates (though I think it was 2004). Most poeople in Cape Breton are on one of 2 ISPs (one of which has virtually static IPs). With the other ISP, usually a person will have the same IP address for weeks at a time (Aliant). The point is that this isn't just one person trying agreeing with the other side of the discussion, it's numberous people. I've never edited the John W. Morgan article before in my life. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
142.167.232.19 (
talk •
contribs) 14:50, May 2, 2007 (UTC)
"Geez, now that is relevant." Actually, its irrelevance is what's relevant. That fact that username policy at the time he chose his username said nothing about "names of religious figures" means he committed no violation of that provision (since it didn't exist yet), and there's sufficient precedent to establish that the policy isn't retroactive, e.g. the rules against email-address usernames and "Wikipedia" usernames don't apply to usernames created before the rules were made policy. Thus my laconic "Looks like 'grandfathered' sums it up." -- Ben TALK/ HIST 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Reverting in other peoples talk space is usually a bad idea and probably impolite [3]. Its also pointless, unless you want other people to see it. Also, in general people can't be blocked for 3RR in their own space William M. Connolley 16:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Sorry, thats probably a bit condescending, for which I apologise. I can't easily see how to rephrase it, so if you'll forgive me, can you consider the same point to have been made, but in a much politer way? Note this does not imply any endorsement of what ALM is writing William M. Connolley 16:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
It seems TW isn't formatted the way the bot deletes sections: [4]. Is there an easy way for you to change this or should AzaToth change the headings. --TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs @(Let's go Yankees!) 23:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
If you look at the deleted userpage, you'll see why. The userpage was a G10 speedy, as an attack on an established user, and the account was apparently created for that purpose. If the user resurfaces and requests unblocking, I'd be willing to AGF if he/she can explain the old user page contents. Mango juice talk 17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
I have proposed that the content dispute be put to an informal poll...However, given Voices history on this page I have some concerns. Can you suggest anything else I can do? Thanks. RalphLender talk 14:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
ALM is repeatedly removing the link to the response I had made to his Muhammad Image Issues article. Should the page be MfD'd because its a violation of WP:OWN? -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 14:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hey HighInBC. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last month under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I've been very busy lately which is why you're getting now. I will use your comment to help improve, and I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs @(Let's go Yankees!) 16:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Great job on the images! I started looking at your stuff after you replaced my image on the Victoria B.C. article. After following you around a bit I found out about PTGui and I have had wonderful sucess with panoramic stiches that I had all but given up on. Would you please consider uploading your photos to Wikimedia Commons so they can be used throughout all Wikimedia (particularly Wikipedias in other languages)? Thanks Cacophony 16:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hey HBC - could you take a look at this when you have a minute? There seems to be some sort of glitch in the new category marking code. I scrolled back my console a ways and found the following:
[2007-05-06 01:14:41 UTC] Use of uninitialized value in numeric eq (==) at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/Net/Netmask.pm line 409. [2007-05-06 01:14:45 UTC] 74.131.33.105 matched Crowdalert, marked as: User is in the category: Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets.
I have a guess as to where the problem is (category matches on usernames are putting things that don't look like IPs into the special IPs hash, causing problems down the line), but I need to get to bed, and am likely to be busy tomorrow, so I wanted to point it out to you in case you had time to look into it before I do. Thanks! — Krellis ( Talk) 05:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Interesting data point: when I was testing in my sandbox, when the list consists of just an entry for myself, with a test category placed on my user talk page, it doesn't get marked. When I add an entry below mine, THAT entry gets marked with the category that I placed my page in. And there's more warnings spewed by the code:
[2007-05-06 15:30:23 UTC] could not parse Krellis at ./HBC_AIV_helperbot.pl line 192 [2007-05-06 15:30:23 UTC] Use of uninitialized value in numeric eq (==) at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/Net/Netmask.pm line 409. [2007-05-06 15:30:26 UTC] 1.2.3.4 matched Krellis, marked as: User is in the category: Shared IP addresses.
Line 192 is just where I was guessing there would be a problem:
if (Net::Netmask->new($mask)->match($user))
Net::Netmask isn't happy, because 'Krellis' winds up as a key in $special_ips, which gets fed into it as a $mask. If we're going to overload $special_ips like that, instead of keys(%special_ips) being the array for the foreach we'll need to stick a grep around it. I'll see if I can get it happier. — Krellis ( Talk) 15:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
I reverted many cinnamonsynonim's edits. Please respond on my talkpage if you like. Thanks again! Wikiman53 t a 13:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi. Please semiprotect my talkpage, as requested on ANI, as it is repeatedly vandalised. Thanks. – A stroHur ricane 00 1( Talk+ Contribs+ Ubx)(+ sign here+ How's my editing?) 16:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi. Thanks for semiprotecting my usertalkpage, but if you used the wrong template, then should it be {{ sprotected}}? Thanks. – A stroHur ricane 00 1( Talk+ Contribs+ Ubx)(+ sign here+ How's my editing?) 16:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hello, you altered the vandalism page re: the user I reported. Will anything be done about this? I am unsure as I've never felt it necessary to report a user before and not sure the proper channels to follow. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.127.230.167 ( talk) 15:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC). reply
The comment I posted was removed and "fix" was put in the edit summary. Should I repost here? Again, I am concerned about the changes this user is making (without discussion) and I'm not even entirely sure of the proper way to go about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.230.167 ( talk • contribs) 15:39, May 7, 2007
Will do. THanks for your help. 130.127.230.167 16:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
I meant to thank you earlier, so thanks for removing that message on my talk page. :) Obviously that person must admire the users they vandalized. :) Acalamari 16:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll change my password now though it's not a dictionary term. Do you have links to the incidents? Thanks again. Xiner ( talk) 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the heads up. BTW, please be sure to mention Wikipedia in any such messages; I was really confused for a while before I realized what you were talking about :-) Cheers, bdesham ★ 02:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hello! I noticed you added templates to images stating that they are part of your contributions, which is neat. A lot of the images you tagged are located on the commons, so your tag is the only thing that exists on that page in Wikipedia. This means that there are a lot of images showing up in Special:Uncategorizedimages. What do you think about either tagging your images on the Commons, or if that isn't a good idea for you, adding a category to your templates? -- Strangerer ( Talk) 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi. I see that on your overview of images in userspace, my workpage User:Murgh/Natacha (comics) is listed, so I thought I'd let you know that Image:Natacha1cover.jpg is no longer in that location. Cheers. Murgh disc. 09:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
I see you want to become H... is there a move towards really really simple usernames going on all across wikipedia? I've noticed several people changing their names to a single letter. Review Me CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 01:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Cool, SqueakBox 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hey, HighInBC- thanks for the vandalism revert at my talk pages- good to know vigilance never slumbers around here! Cheers, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply
PiInBC? :) – Riana ऋ 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply
I would like to direct your attention to the above RfA. The user is listed on WP:AIV. T Talk to me 02:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi High (soon to be H), I encountered Serializability as a result of the creator's posting at WP:ANI [6]. I tagged the page as unsourced, and he/she added a single source and removed the tag recently [7]. Since you seem to be tech savvy, could you check the page out? To me it's written in jargon, but I'd like an outside opinion. Cheers, Flyguy649 talk contribs 02:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply
I want a pony with a laser cannon surgically implanted between its eyes; a death-ray unicorn. Just a small horse that can disintegrate things with its forehead. Is that too much to ask? HalfShadow 17:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the revert on my user page. Seems that even when I scale back what I'm doing to only keeping my watchlist clean, I still manage to attract the punks, particularly in the last couple of days.
The new bot you're working on looks cool - it should be a big help in keeping the more obvious nasty usernames out of Wikipedia! — Krellis ( Talk) 18:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The new Bot that you have created should add some of the words found on Vandal proof's badwords so that it would be easier to blacklist them and block them appropriately..---- Cometstyles 16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Yeah, sorry about that, I'm using a script to report and yesterday it was not adding people who were already on the AIV list. Ho hum, I'll have to start looking more closely at the IPs I send to the list! Thanks for bringing this to my attention though. -- Samtheboy ( t/ c) 14:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC) reply
This would look good in most of our articles, dont you think? SqueakBox 00:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Instead of substituting indefblock tags, you can add the parameter "blocked" to the sockpuppet tag and remove the indefblock tag; so, where {{sockpuppet|207.144.59.134|evidence=[[{{highssp|1={{{User|207.144.59.134}}}}}]]}}
you could add {{sockpuppet|207.144.59.134|blocked|evidence=[[{{highssp|1={{{User|207.144.59.134}}}}}]]}}
--
Iamunknown
03:33, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
reply
Your userpage has your name obliterated by pi. You also seem to mask your username in your (imo gimmicky) signature. This is generally annoying, and inappropiate for an admin. New users need to be able to contact you and to see clearly who you are. Please fix. Thanks. Secretlondon 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
You blocked this user for having an inappropiate username. You can clearly see from Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy that the policy re:trademarks isn't clearcut. I'm not impressed that you seem to block first and ask questions later. This seems to be a bad case of WP:BITE and makes me question your judgement. (I accept I may be influenced by your juvenile userpage). Secretlondon 21:27, 25 April 2007 (UTC) reply
I don't think its fair to characterise HighInBC's behaviour as "block first and ask questions later". The name was discussed at WP:RFCN first ( [1]) following after being raised there by another user (and the account was notifed of the discussion). The account was blocked after nearly a day of discussion. And then the matter of Trademark-based blocks was raised at WT:U. No opinion on the userpage :-). WjB scribe 05:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC) reply
The John W. Morgan article no longer asserts his "tested IQ", but does highlight a political attack used against him in a televised debate. This is an archived debate and the infomation is widely known to the public (in that opponents were trying to use this against him). I just thought maybe you could have a look at as kirkoconnel is trying to use your remark as justification for deleting it (which I believe it isn't). -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.48.196 ( talk • contribs) 14:23, April 27, 2007 (UTC)
- kirkoconnel is distorting your view saying "He agrees with me." I simply referred him to your comment. The issue is no longer about whether Morgan has a 176 IQ, but merely that political opponents alledged he was a member of a high IQ society. It's not asserting a "truth" anymore, merely referencing a statement that was made. kirkoconnel continues to revert and does not appreciate the difference (and he's putting words in your mouth by saying you "agree", when you clearly indicated you were neutral on it. Have a look at his comments in the discussion section, he is clearly biased on the issue of IQ. -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.48.196 ( talk • contribs) 15:17, April 27, 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I saw that you had protected User_talk:Grandma_Logan from vandalism since the user [[who is actually User:Woodylogan, Grandma Logan being one of his sock puppets) kept removing the warnings from that talk page. The same user keeps vandalising a number of other talk pages for his various sock puppets; those I am aware of that have been repeatedly vandalised in the last few days are User_talk:Thomas_Logan, User_talk:Grandpa_Logan, User_talk:Ecmsthomaslogan and User talk:168.9.128.3. Any chance those could be protected, too? This is such a tiresome vandal :-( -- Bonadea 20:56, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hello, not that long ago I think you blocked User:TheGoogle for username, the user was unblocked to change to User:Raden and this was carried out, however the user is now complaining that they are still being blocked, which I find strange considering they were unblocked (By Veinor) to allow the change. Thanks. GDonato ( talk) 12:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Hey I just wanted to let you know my appreciation for your "HBC AIV helperbot3", that you run with Krellis. It really is rather nice. KOS | talk 17:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you, H, for your constructive comments in
my recent RFA, which passed with 86 support, 8 oppose, and 5 neutral !votes. I will keep in mind all your suggestions and/or concerns, and will try to live up to your standards. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page, and I will respond as soon as I possibly can, without
frying my brain, of course. |
Hello HighInBC. I see you substituted the template on User:JJonathan and removed the category. It is much easier to use the sockpuppet templates only, which include a toggle for blocked status (see example):
You also did this on User:2ne, which is not tagged as a sock puppet. Doing so orphans the page and drops it out of the maintenance cycles. If there is some reason the page is not temporary, the template should be replaced with a more appropriate one such as {{ banned user}}. Why do you think this page should be kept indefinitely?
Thanks. :) —{ admin} Pathoschild 21:14:11, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
Beautiful pictures! Seriously. But since they are only being used separately, can the combined orphan at Image:British Columbia Parliament Buildings - expanded.jpg be deleted? Thanks. -- Butseriouslyfolks 03:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thank you for blocking User:Reapersss x, although I did not see an actual block in the logs. As long as there will be no further activity from the account, or the person behind it. Thanks again. -- Reaper X 18:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks, but have to delet. I am not an example of civility. In fact, I am not even a proponent of "wikipedia-style" civility. I understand that people are not robots and may get ticked off sometimes. At the same time I stand that a reasonable person must recognize when it is time to take some words back. `' mikka 00:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hello there
I am at a loss as to what to do now. IPs are accusing me of vandalism and reverting the article. They refuse to read or contribute to the discussion.
What should I do? I don't want to babysit this article for the rest of my life but I also a fair piece of biographical information available. I was considering expanding the article with the information I know of John W. Morgan, and source it but I don't want to have to deal with this crap every week.
Thank you for your help last time. -- Kirkoconnell 13:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Sweet Jesus, you were on top of that. You solved the issue five minutes before I posted this... Do you know my weight, age and Fridays lotto numbers too? -- Kirkoconnell 13:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
- I read the discussion and agree with the poster that this issue came up in the debates (though I think it was 2004). Most poeople in Cape Breton are on one of 2 ISPs (one of which has virtually static IPs). With the other ISP, usually a person will have the same IP address for weeks at a time (Aliant). The point is that this isn't just one person trying agreeing with the other side of the discussion, it's numberous people. I've never edited the John W. Morgan article before in my life. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
142.167.232.19 (
talk •
contribs) 14:50, May 2, 2007 (UTC)
"Geez, now that is relevant." Actually, its irrelevance is what's relevant. That fact that username policy at the time he chose his username said nothing about "names of religious figures" means he committed no violation of that provision (since it didn't exist yet), and there's sufficient precedent to establish that the policy isn't retroactive, e.g. the rules against email-address usernames and "Wikipedia" usernames don't apply to usernames created before the rules were made policy. Thus my laconic "Looks like 'grandfathered' sums it up." -- Ben TALK/ HIST 21:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Reverting in other peoples talk space is usually a bad idea and probably impolite [3]. Its also pointless, unless you want other people to see it. Also, in general people can't be blocked for 3RR in their own space William M. Connolley 16:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Sorry, thats probably a bit condescending, for which I apologise. I can't easily see how to rephrase it, so if you'll forgive me, can you consider the same point to have been made, but in a much politer way? Note this does not imply any endorsement of what ALM is writing William M. Connolley 16:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
It seems TW isn't formatted the way the bot deletes sections: [4]. Is there an easy way for you to change this or should AzaToth change the headings. --TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs @(Let's go Yankees!) 23:53, 3 May 2007 (UTC) reply
If you look at the deleted userpage, you'll see why. The userpage was a G10 speedy, as an attack on an established user, and the account was apparently created for that purpose. If the user resurfaces and requests unblocking, I'd be willing to AGF if he/she can explain the old user page contents. Mango juice talk 17:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC) reply
I have proposed that the content dispute be put to an informal poll...However, given Voices history on this page I have some concerns. Can you suggest anything else I can do? Thanks. RalphLender talk 14:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
ALM is repeatedly removing the link to the response I had made to his Muhammad Image Issues article. Should the page be MfD'd because its a violation of WP:OWN? -- Matt57 ( talk• contribs) 14:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hey HighInBC. Thanks for commenting on my unsuccessful RFA last month under my old name, TeckWiz. I'm now known simply as User:R. I've been very busy lately which is why you're getting now. I will use your comment to help improve, and I hope to keep helping and improving Wikipedia alongside you. --TeckWiz is now R Parlate Contribs @(Let's go Yankees!) 16:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Great job on the images! I started looking at your stuff after you replaced my image on the Victoria B.C. article. After following you around a bit I found out about PTGui and I have had wonderful sucess with panoramic stiches that I had all but given up on. Would you please consider uploading your photos to Wikimedia Commons so they can be used throughout all Wikimedia (particularly Wikipedias in other languages)? Thanks Cacophony 16:49, 5 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hey HBC - could you take a look at this when you have a minute? There seems to be some sort of glitch in the new category marking code. I scrolled back my console a ways and found the following:
[2007-05-06 01:14:41 UTC] Use of uninitialized value in numeric eq (==) at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/Net/Netmask.pm line 409. [2007-05-06 01:14:45 UTC] 74.131.33.105 matched Crowdalert, marked as: User is in the category: Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets.
I have a guess as to where the problem is (category matches on usernames are putting things that don't look like IPs into the special IPs hash, causing problems down the line), but I need to get to bed, and am likely to be busy tomorrow, so I wanted to point it out to you in case you had time to look into it before I do. Thanks! — Krellis ( Talk) 05:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Interesting data point: when I was testing in my sandbox, when the list consists of just an entry for myself, with a test category placed on my user talk page, it doesn't get marked. When I add an entry below mine, THAT entry gets marked with the category that I placed my page in. And there's more warnings spewed by the code:
[2007-05-06 15:30:23 UTC] could not parse Krellis at ./HBC_AIV_helperbot.pl line 192 [2007-05-06 15:30:23 UTC] Use of uninitialized value in numeric eq (==) at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.8.8/Net/Netmask.pm line 409. [2007-05-06 15:30:26 UTC] 1.2.3.4 matched Krellis, marked as: User is in the category: Shared IP addresses.
Line 192 is just where I was guessing there would be a problem:
if (Net::Netmask->new($mask)->match($user))
Net::Netmask isn't happy, because 'Krellis' winds up as a key in $special_ips, which gets fed into it as a $mask. If we're going to overload $special_ips like that, instead of keys(%special_ips) being the array for the foreach we'll need to stick a grep around it. I'll see if I can get it happier. — Krellis ( Talk) 15:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
I reverted many cinnamonsynonim's edits. Please respond on my talkpage if you like. Thanks again! Wikiman53 t a 13:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi. Please semiprotect my talkpage, as requested on ANI, as it is repeatedly vandalised. Thanks. – A stroHur ricane 00 1( Talk+ Contribs+ Ubx)(+ sign here+ How's my editing?) 16:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi. Thanks for semiprotecting my usertalkpage, but if you used the wrong template, then should it be {{ sprotected}}? Thanks. – A stroHur ricane 00 1( Talk+ Contribs+ Ubx)(+ sign here+ How's my editing?) 16:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hello, you altered the vandalism page re: the user I reported. Will anything be done about this? I am unsure as I've never felt it necessary to report a user before and not sure the proper channels to follow. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.127.230.167 ( talk) 15:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC). reply
The comment I posted was removed and "fix" was put in the edit summary. Should I repost here? Again, I am concerned about the changes this user is making (without discussion) and I'm not even entirely sure of the proper way to go about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.127.230.167 ( talk • contribs) 15:39, May 7, 2007
Will do. THanks for your help. 130.127.230.167 16:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
I meant to thank you earlier, so thanks for removing that message on my talk page. :) Obviously that person must admire the users they vandalized. :) Acalamari 16:40, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the heads-up. I'll change my password now though it's not a dictionary term. Do you have links to the incidents? Thanks again. Xiner ( talk) 20:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the heads up. BTW, please be sure to mention Wikipedia in any such messages; I was really confused for a while before I realized what you were talking about :-) Cheers, bdesham ★ 02:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hello! I noticed you added templates to images stating that they are part of your contributions, which is neat. A lot of the images you tagged are located on the commons, so your tag is the only thing that exists on that page in Wikipedia. This means that there are a lot of images showing up in Special:Uncategorizedimages. What do you think about either tagging your images on the Commons, or if that isn't a good idea for you, adding a category to your templates? -- Strangerer ( Talk) 11:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi. I see that on your overview of images in userspace, my workpage User:Murgh/Natacha (comics) is listed, so I thought I'd let you know that Image:Natacha1cover.jpg is no longer in that location. Cheers. Murgh disc. 09:21, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
I see you want to become H... is there a move towards really really simple usernames going on all across wikipedia? I've noticed several people changing their names to a single letter. Review Me CASCADIA Howl/ Trail 01:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Cool, SqueakBox 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hey, HighInBC- thanks for the vandalism revert at my talk pages- good to know vigilance never slumbers around here! Cheers, -- cjllw ʘ TALK 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply
PiInBC? :) – Riana ऋ 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply
I would like to direct your attention to the above RfA. The user is listed on WP:AIV. T Talk to me 02:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Hi High (soon to be H), I encountered Serializability as a result of the creator's posting at WP:ANI [6]. I tagged the page as unsourced, and he/she added a single source and removed the tag recently [7]. Since you seem to be tech savvy, could you check the page out? To me it's written in jargon, but I'd like an outside opinion. Cheers, Flyguy649 talk contribs 02:26, 10 May 2007 (UTC) reply
I want a pony with a laser cannon surgically implanted between its eyes; a death-ray unicorn. Just a small horse that can disintegrate things with its forehead. Is that too much to ask? HalfShadow 17:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply
Thanks for the revert on my user page. Seems that even when I scale back what I'm doing to only keeping my watchlist clean, I still manage to attract the punks, particularly in the last couple of days.
The new bot you're working on looks cool - it should be a big help in keeping the more obvious nasty usernames out of Wikipedia! — Krellis ( Talk) 18:38, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply
The new Bot that you have created should add some of the words found on Vandal proof's badwords so that it would be easier to blacklist them and block them appropriately..---- Cometstyles 16:28, 11 May 2007 (UTC) reply