User talk:H/Archive 26

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.

You have another fan - now blocked.

RevengeOfBC looks like the latest username vandal in your honour! (aeropagitica) 16:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not so sure that name is based on mine, maybe. Could be just another vandal. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Help?

Um, I'm not sure who to ask about what I should do about 125.203.207.252/125.204.39.85 who is causing an edit war on Korea under Japanese rule, so I'm asking for help. I know more than one person is involved in this "war," but discussions towards a solution on the talkpage make it difficult to come up with anything when 125.204.39.85 says things like, By your contributions, it would appear to most that you are all anti-Japanese Korean sympathizers and atempting to own an article in a prejudicial state, and calls users out trying to get them to respond to its personal "opinions" of them. Where do I go to seek an "outsider's view" on this edit war? =/ oncamera^(t) 18:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

BRFA

Do you mind if I file the BRFA for the new FixInstructions feature on the HBC AIV helperbots? Should I file it as function 3 on HBC AIV helperbot, or function 2 on HBC AIV helperbot3? I would assume the former, to keep consistency with your earlier request for an additional feature, but wanted to check with you before submitting it. —Krellis (Talk) 19:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, thanks for being so active in the bot. I would say this is function 3 of the original, they are all running under the same bot approval. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool - Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/HBC AIV helperbot 3 —Krellis (Talk) 20:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

That did not take long to get approved for trials. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I just had a thought about testing - I can't enable this version without breaking the parsing of old versions. I guess I could make a version 1.9.10 for you guys to run that will accept the FixInstructions parameter, but not do anything with it. Or I can post this code and we can all run the test version - none of the other code has really changed (though I did re-arrange all the subs, so the diff will be huge). What do you think? —Krellis (Talk) 21:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it is best to only run 1 version of the test code at once as it may need tweaking still, a temporary version that accepts the new parameter but does not use it will work. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Right, I'll get that posted shortly, then. Also, could you please semi-protect Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/instructions (to be fully protected once testing is done and everyone's happy with the instructions)? —Krellis (Talk) 21:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Once your new feature is stable and rolled out to all the bots, what do you think of calling it version 2? Or is there some kind of convention in version numbers? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine with me. I had been calling it 1.10.0, but I'm relatively indifferent, so I can change it to 2.0.0. —Krellis (Talk) 22:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, missed the second part of the question. Typically it's Major.Minor.Patch (at least, in the scheme I'm using). But of course, "Major" and "Minor" are subjective. In my experience "major" is usually large-scale re-writes or large numbers of new features, big back-end changes, etc, while "minor" is most new feature additions, and "patch" is bugfixes, tweaks, etc. We're not exactly running a huge software project here, though, so it's really just whatever we want to do :) —Krellis (Talk) 22:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Qwerty599

Would there be any particular reason why this username would be disallowed? I'm not sure if I'm missing some famous sockpuppet case! RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 21:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks ok to me. I don't keep track of all the socks. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:VirtualEye

Do you think it might be time to block sockpuppets User:Towaru, User:Jesus Fan and User:Checkmeout101? See User:Towaru's userpage and you will see exactly why he did not wish to post his IP.Proabivouac 03:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a RFCU would be in order? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFCN archive

Any chance you could have a look at the WP:RFCN archive? Think the script at the bottom is wrong and your the expert, I'd only mess it up more! Cheers RyanPostlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will have to find and fix that bug. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Helperbot Instructions

Do you think the information I posted to WT:AIV about the helperbot instruction reset functionality needs to be posted anywhere else? There hasn't been any discussion there or anyone making changes to the instructions template. I'm not sure if that's because everyone just likes it as-is, or if we need more exposure to ensure there's consensus. Thoughts? —Krellis (Talk) 16:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that is enough, however, in the edit summary that the bot leaves when it replaces the instructions, you can have a link to the page it is coming from. That way in the future if someone can't figure out why it won't change, they will see. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, I'll put that in now. Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 17:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Rich Drezen: Pages

This user Djma12 left me the following message today:

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalise Wikipedia, as you did to Luckyzilla®, you will be blocked from editing. Please do nor recreate speedy deleted articles. Furthermore, please review wikipedia policy concerning Vanity Pages, specifically WP:NOT. Finally, please do not remove speedy tags, use the {{hangon}} feature if you wish to discuss. Djma12 22:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I feel his message is a threat, as indicated in his first sentence. There needs to be an improvement made to the editing system here so that people can't just dump messages on other people's pages.

Warning and threats are not the same thing, and the action that is being warned is clearly laid out. That is a standard warning, I suggest you follow it, do not recreate speedy deleted articles or you will be blocked. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Doing the Right Thing

The problem at Mohammud, of course, is that supporting a fair, neutral article based on verifiable sources and Wikipedia's policies and guidelines puts you squarely in one of the two warring camps. So making fair, evenhanded edits makes it look like you're siding with one of the camps, and using your admin tools then can create the appearence of impropriety.

Anyways, I only meant this as a bit of moral support - you're actually veing very reasonable, but because of the situation it's very easy to mistake your actions for abuse of the admin tools. Don't take it personally, is all. WilyD 15:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

If I get in trouble for enforcing Wikipedia policy then fine. I see admins being accused of abuse all day long, it is rarely true, and when it is not the admin is shown to be correct. I am not taking it personally. The one thing I learned when running for adminship is that an admin needs to be willing to defend Wikipedia policy against POV pushing, even if it is going to stir up shit and make life hard.

I have decided not to be the admin who makes the edits to the page based off of consensus. However I will continue to explain things, and even administer warning or blocks as appropriate, I will also renew the protection if the edit warring continues. I am sure, that while I may get some flak over this, in time my actions will be seen as proper. The fact is, my personal involvement in this debate is limited to my interest in Wikipedia policy, that has always been my position. Thanks for the support. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WilyD has it exactly right: there are those who will redefine neutrality as a bias in itself, and will continue to do so as long as others indulge them. Why shouldn't they, really?Proabivouac 15:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You can call neutrality anything you want, but I call it a Foundation issue. If it is a bias, then it is one that Wikipedia is bound to by it's owners. That is why they shouldn't(at least not if they expect progress). ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at German Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controvresy at German wikipedia. No cartoon. Cool is not it. I know they have many picture of Muhammad in Muhammad article. --- ALM 16:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak German, so I cannot tell what type of reasonings they have. It is interesting though. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

At Muhammad article Netscott asked them that how come you have so many pictures here. A Muslim replied we do not mind these picture. Looks like only English wikipedia aim is to piss Muslims on the name of freedom of speech. German wikipedia is much better. --- ALM 16:11, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Most Muslims in Germany are migrated from Turkey. They are very much like Germans now. They usually have girlfriend and drink, party etc. Hence they only care about main issues. I think that why Muslim happily accepted Pictures in Muhammad article on German wikipedia and declined to accept on cartoon page. Unlike here, where no one care about Muslims and they are kicked around on the name of freedom of speech. I will post message on cartoon page to ask them too. --- ALM 16:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying that the people who want the image there are doing so to piss of Muslims, I think that is silly, I see no evidence of that. You are taking this personally when it is not a personal matter, this is an academic matter. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

• Well, I didn't mean to drag this debate onto your talk page - I was just trying to let you know that you were doing the right thing, and that you should be lauded for it. While it is true that abuse of Admin powers is rarely true when levelled, the rare instances when it happens can be very destructive - I almost quit Wikipedia in response to the only instance of it I've ever seen. Anyways, good work, keep it up. Might as well take the argument back to the talk page of the article, eh boys and girls? WilyD 16:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I will be sure to keep my level of self-contemplation in proportion to the strength of my actions. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I can prove about few people at least based on their edit pattern and history. However, that will be consider a personal attack. Rest are there to ensure the Muslim do not have censorship on the name of religion. You can say they are there to make WP:POINT. Btw I include Tom and you in second category. If you do not mind (I hope). Otherwise, if someone has studied Islam and know the histroy well then there is no reason not to have pictures. Just like someone has shown to BBC article on Muhammad [1]. --- ALM 17:10, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Helperbot write rate change

What do you think of changing the $write_rate in the AIV helperbots to only sleep 15 seconds instead of 30? In light of the recent changes to the allowable edit rates in the bot policy, this seems reasonable, and might allow the bots to work a little more efficiently during times when the list gets backed up with blocked users. If you're okay with it, I'll include the change in the upcoming version that handles the FixInstructions task. —Krellis (Talk) 18:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The original figure was 10 seconds, based off of a recommended write rate of 6 per minute. When I started running 3 I tripled it. I did not know the allowable write rate had changed, so I guess applying the same formula would make sense. "bots who would benefit the project by faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.", neat, so 12 seconds with 3 bots should work about to an average of 4 per second. 12 or 15 is fine with me. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha, I'll go with 15 then (puts a little safety margin in from the "allowed" rate). I also just re-wrote the parameter string parsing, so once FixInstructions is approved and we get everything on the 2.x versions, if we add additional parameters in the future, we won't have to worry about testing breaking old versions, they'll just ignore parameters they don't understand. —Krellis (Talk) 18:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I should have stored the parameters in a hash from the beginning, and parsed them as a whole, instead of using a bunch of variables and a fixed pattern. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:45, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure you had no idea it would grow a mind of its own and wind up with so many features :) —Krellis (Talk) 18:48, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

That I most certainly did not. I will be more careful before making a simple bot for a simple job in the future hehe. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

HBC Helperbot

Firstly, thanks so much for this awesome bot! Secondly, [2] is a little weird, and something you probably might want to look into. It for some reason mistakenly removed a request as a "comment" somehow.

In this case, it didn't matter as I was going to refer it to ANI anyways, but maybe you might want to have a look at why it happened. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant 07:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Improperly formatted reports look like comments to the bot, this is not avoidable. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

ALM

ALM scientist has been edit-warring legitimate warnings off of his talk page.[3]Proabivouac 11:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

For some unfathomable reason the community has not reached a consensus to disallow the removal of warnings from the talk page. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Sorry, but I haven't had too much time, and I have even less on weekends (when most of you are more active). I've requested help from someone else, but this will probably take a while. Also, after reading so much, I have an opinion too, which isn't a good thing for a mediator to have. I'll go over the new posts now (by now, there're probably 10 of them). · AO ^Talk 19:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I see. As far as mediations go, this is a big sticky one. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

AIV Bot

In the parameters that can be switched off in the bot by editing AIV, what does "AutoMark" do. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 16:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Cribbing from WT:AIV (which describes all of the available options): "AutoMark: On to enable automatic marking of special IPs as defined at User:HBC AIV helperbot/Special IPs. Any other value will disable this functionality." —Krellis (Talk) 18:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Transcluding the image

^HighInBC, thanks for the note. I actually don't like the article like that (what I don't like in particular is the need for "special treatment") but I even moreso don't like the article being disrupted. To be honest with you I'll be suprised if this apparent provisional solution works. I'm crossing my fingers though. Cheers. (→Netscott) 00:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

MikeHunt35

Do you remember this user that we allowed on RfC? I just recently found out that he has beeen indefinitely blocked for being a troll and vandal. I had a feeling about him trolling when he gave several oppose votes on some requests for adminship. Acalamari 21:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

HighInBCBot Thoughts

I've been thinking a little bit about HighInBCBot today, and had some things I wanted to run by you. First, I'm interested in playing around with development on it similarly to what I've been doing with the helperbots, but I'm not sure the best way to do that. It doesn't really make sense to have multiple instances, especially since it's a "run, then end" kind of thing rather than the "always watching" of the helperbots. Do you have suggestions for how I can easily have it do writes only locally? Or would it be acceptable/desirable for us to co-operate it if I'm going to be making significant changes, so I can test them on-wiki? I think that the concept of automatically generating archive indices really has major potential, and with just a little bit of work on the formatting component, and a bit of publicity, the bot could become very popular. A thought I had about the formatting was that we should create a basic templating system, so that in the parameter string for the bot, one could specify a template page as a wikilink, which the bot would use to create the report. That way people could customize their formatting, of simply use the default (which, barring anything better, I would probably make similar to the table format I mentioned last time I bugged you about HBCBot). Let me know what you think when you have a chance. My time to work on this type of stuff may go down drastically in the nearish future, so I'm trying to be as productive as I can in the meantime :) —Krellis (Talk) 21:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, that project has suffered much neglect from me. If you wanted to start developing it, then you can simply take over the bots operation for the period you are developing it. I like the ideas you have for it. I can e-mail you the connection info if you like. The source is posted, and it uses the same modified version of the mediawiki module. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:05, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, that would be great - also, could you check and update the most recent source you're using? I noticed at least one typo in the edit summaries in the code that doesn't seem to be in the current edit summaries, so I'm assuming you've changed it locally but not updated the page (not all that surprising, since it's not linked anywhere and I just guessed it before you mentioned it here :)) —Krellis (Talk) 22:09, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I will post the most recent update in a moment then send you the info. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, the source has been updated and I e-mailed you the connection info as well as a tip about the cache. Please feel free to edit my code mercilessly, what I have done is far from an elegant solution. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Got the e-mail, and I'll see how it goes. Do you have thoughts on how often it should run? I was thinking of a cron job to run it every 12 hours automatically to make sure things are kept up-to-date. I can't quite tell from the BRFA what it is or isn't approved for... —Krellis (Talk) 22:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Every 12 hours should be fine. I have just been running it when I remember to. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:27, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

How about this for an hour or so's work (mostly re-factoring to make working on it easier for myself)? :) I hope to do more later today and tomorrow - let me know if there are any particular bugs you know of that you wanted to fix, and I'll take a look at them. —Krellis (Talk) 23:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Much better. Keep it up! One bug that exists is that it does not handle leading zeros properly. I just created the code then never tested it, so it is probably an obvious problem. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Archive index bot set up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)

Given how badly I set up the bot last time, I thought I would let you know I have added the code to Wikipedia talk:Notability (web) to create indexes over there, just in case I make it go all screwy. Steve block Talk 22:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

As the program is currently set up, it will not work with some archives being called "Wikipedia talk:Notability (websites)/Archive_" and others called "Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)/Archive_". It will only go up to the point that the pattern changes. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:15, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I got the leading zeros issue figured out... for the change in names, what are your thoughts on renaming the older archives to match the newer name, on a policy level? Is that a "proper" use of the page move functionality? My other thought would be to create redirects from the newer style to the older one instead, but then the bot would need to be coded to follow redirects, which sounds messy... I suppose I could also try to make it understand (limited) regexes in the mask, though I just got finished making that impossible... —Krellis (Talk) 03:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

A study for health issues and the effects of cannabis

You might want to include this interesting study in the article about the health issues of cannabis. Sincerely, 88.154.105.88 22:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

PubMed: [4] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.154.105.88 (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC).

Another source

Merboz has given another source and we will find even more. [5] --- ALM 04:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That source supports the idea that Muslims prefer calligraphy to visual depictions. Even that it is the dominant form of such art in that culture. But remember this is an article about the historical figure, and how he relates to all cultures. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for having my back again with Smellis (talk · contribs) - any recommendation on what I should do differently if they come back? I was rather surprised to be told that WP:RFCN wasn't an appropriate place, as it seemed an obvious WP:U violation to me (offensive and/or attempting to impersonate another user). I had considered just asking you to take care of it in the first place, but didn't want to go excessively out-of-process. I also considered WP:AIV, but since it was already blocked for a week, it would have been removed by the bots right away. Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 15:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

RFCN seems to be a little confused of late. Many new people there that don't seem to understand the policy. Basically they were wrong when they said it was not a username issue. I would recommend becoming an admin, it is great! Seriously though, I would have gone to the original blocking admin about that and spelled out how this is a username violation. Failing that you can always talk to me. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, great, if it happens again, I'll ping the original blocking admin first, and go from there. I can't believe this guy cares that much about my reverting his silly vandalism that he's keeping this up - gotta give him some kind of credit for persistence, I guess :) Thanks! —Krellis (Talk) 15:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Credit for persistence? Nah, a slug is persistent, a nasty rash is persistent, persistence alone is nothing to be proud of hehe. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:44, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth

While the threshold is verifiability, not truth, I only meant If we have three potential images, and we're only going to include two, which should not use one that has verifiable sources saying it's not of him, even if there are also verifiable sources that say it is him. WilyD 17:02, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I was responding to the claim that the image was inaccurate. Was there a source that disputed the accuracy? I did not see it. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:06, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No, but I prefaced my response by saying if we can find a disputing source, so I think what I said makes sense WilyD 17:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that what you said makes sense. My comment was directed to the original objection to the images, and was not meant to contradict you. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Yet another bot question

What do you think of the idea of renaming HighInBCBot? With no offense intended to your choice in naming, of course, it just isn't very descriptive of what it does. I was thinking "Archive Indexerbot" or something (or with an "HBC" on the front if you want, to match with your other bots). I'm not exactly sure how renaming of a bot would work, if we would just create the new account and re-request approval, or if WP:CHU would be appropriate. I'm thinking that renaming it sooner than later would be best, since changing the name in the archive code will be much easier before more people start to use it. Let me know what you think, when you have a chance. —Krellis (Talk) 19:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I did not plan on the eventuality of multiple bots at the time. My understanding that changing names when there are many edits on the account is difficult. I think a new account is the best idea. I don't think we need to get new approval, but just find a 'crat that can move the flag over. Not sure what is the best way to go. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this one ever actually got a flag (though perhaps it should if it's going to get more popular). I'll post about the situation and ask for advice on WT:BRFA, see opinions we can get there. —Krellis (Talk) 20:58, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Good thinking. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a name change is the best idea. I will put in a request. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, sounds good. —Krellis (Talk) 21:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Request made[6]. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

New Idea.

My idea for a new personal award didn't work, as Evrik seemed to be against the proposal, and archived it. I have a new idea for my image here: 1. What do you think? Acalamari 22:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

You can just use an award without the community adopting it, assuming it is withing the realm of polite conversation. I like the userbox. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter about the award; as there are already ones similar to it. As for the userbox, I am glad you like it. Thank you. I hope other people like it too; that way, I can put it on my userpage. I tested it on my userpage using the "preview" feature. It looked good there. Acalamari 22:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Help

People keep giving example of German wikipedia because it has lots of picture and they wish picture here. However somehow on the Dutch Muhammad page is also NOT censored and is very cool. Why English wikipedia cannot be like them? Having said the reason for this message is your help. I have go permission from two more flickr authors. That mean many more picture and one is excellent for Muhammad article. However, one flikr person say that he will like not to give away all rights but wish his picture is used for information, education purpose but not for commercial purpose. What copyright tag I should use while uploading his picture. Looking for urgent reply. Because I need a quick reply hence I am also leaving same message on top page. Hoping that someone will reply quickly. regards. --- ALM 10:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is the general lack of development of Dutch Wikipedia - it's only half the length of the German article.Proabivouac 10:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

What a reason that due to lack of development they decided to have calligraphy on the top and face picture very bottom of the article. Your reason does not make sence because they can still move the picture around right now. Can not they? Tell me the image tag to use so that I can upload your favourite Wazir Khan Mosque Muhammad caligraphy too. --- ALM 12:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't speak Dutch, so I cannot know what their reasoning is. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

They do speak English I hope hence a message to them in English will tell their reasoning. When there is a will there is a way... is one of my favorite quotations. I have changed the picture with 16th century calligraphy and hoping the people who wish to censor the reality will come are revert. They should not censor the relality. --- ALM 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh that you who likes to censored the reality. I have given you three references now that tell that tradition of calligraphy and shown 49 books. Do not know what else to show? -- ALM 13:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not one of those citations say that depictions are so unusual as to demonstrate undue weight by showing one at the top. I think it is bizarre that you are accusing me a censorship when it is you who keeps trying to remove information. You are welcome to add calligraphy, but not as a method of removing existing information. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You have removed a calligraphy picture then it me who is removing and NOT YOU??? Do not remove them to tell lie about reality. Do not censor reality on the name of censorship. I have given you three references they are saying what you wish to have. I will find more references too but looks like that you will never change your views. Which is very unfortunate. --- ALM 14:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I undid the replacement of a depiction with a calligraphy, I am not against the calligraphy being there, just add it without removing valid information. Your references only demonstrate the Muslims have a tradition of not depicting him, but you have not demonstrated that this constitutes undue weight as this article is not about Muslim practices, but a historical figure. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking to report you on WP:3RR. Because you have been warned me when you should not. And have not warned Proabivouac when you should. You are assuming many things yourself (against WP:AGF) that not having picture on the lead is against censorship which is not at all correct and increasingly taking their sides. You are declining to accept the references shown to you. --- ALM 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Do so if you wish. But it is clear from the mediation that the edits I reverted were against consensus. I would prefer not to have such a report against me, I just hope the admin responding looks through the whole complex situation. You may want to look through that pages history and include the others in your report as well. You can include yourself in that list. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that discussion was on-going, these were not reverts in absence of communication. Every attempt was made to explain that these edits were against consensus and not in line with policy. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your references, I have already explained that your references don't prove your claim. I am not the only person who has been unconvinced by your reports. You have demonstrated that a religious taboo exists with those references, nothing more. You have not demonstrated that showing depictions constitutes undue weight. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Every attempt was made to explain that these edits were against consensus and not in line with policy False. Neither any policy say to have picture on the top otherwise it is censorship. Nor we have any consensus to add picture on the top. You are just pushing your view with the help of policy and false consensus. Look though the history of the Muhammad article it never have that picture on the top untill recently by pushing of people like you and Tom. (I do not wish to file report even if it is on merit.) --- ALM 14:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Show me when did the consesus establish to have picture on the top in first place? Do not give me other articles argument because that clearly violate WP:POINT. --- ALM 14:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The only reason it did not have a picture on top was due to pressure from people pushing a religious point of view. Did you know we have people on the Earth article changing the age of the Earth to "about 6000 years" based on the bible? We have people that want the Jesus article to start with "He is the only true path to God.".

There is a current, existing consensus to keep the image there on the mediation page. This takes to form of people challenging your claims that it should be removed. I can see it, they are asking for citations that back up your claim of undue weight, you instead gave citations showing Muslim's have a tradition prohibiting the image. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is against my religion to have a single image on that page or anywhere in wikipedia of Muhammad. Can I please repeat it three time because I wish you to remember it.

1. It is against my religion to have a single image on that page or anywhere in wikipedia of Muhammad. Please WP:AGF when I remove image from the TOP and not others.
2. It is against my religion to have a single image on that page or anywhere in wikipedia of Muhammad. Please WP:AGF when I remove image from the TOP and not others.
3. It is against my religion to have a single image on that page or anywhere in wikipedia of Muhammad. Please WP:AGF when I remove image from the TOP and not others.

I have a presentation now. Please check the kind of harrasment I am getting from User:Alecmconroy on my talk page. However, I know you will support him because it is your side of view. --- ALM 14:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I would listen to what Alecmconroy has to say. You need to work within the community, that is my point of view, that is his, and that is policy. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:55, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

he position that the image should be removed has been discussed and discussed, but the community has not been swayed. I would take this warning to heart, Alecmconroy has explained it very well. Ignoring this consensus is not how to edit Wikipedia. I do not like it at all obviously. Given the fact that there is no concensus at all in putting that image at the top. Hence will report your 3RR if that is on merit. I am the freaky bad guy and people on your side all good? --- ALM 16:42, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That is just a poll, vote counting is a terrible way to judge consensus. The validity of the argument, and policy has to be taken into account to create a consensus. A straw poll tells you what people's opinions are, but opinion only goes so far. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:44, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And obviously you have judged that even though many people are against putting picture on the top but they all are wrong. It is because they do not have your side of arguments? --- ALM 16:46, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I have painstakingly addressed each and every point made in the mediation. The people that want the diminish the presence of the image have failed to provide policy based arguments backed up by citations. Please, I don't want to argue about this on my talk page, lets keep it in the mediation area, then if I am wrong about consensus it will be evident. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

All the argument are waste of time. If you and Tom cannot WP:AGF. As long as you people keep thinking that religion is driving us then no arguments will be enough to convince you and him. I know this is secular place and that why I tolerate many thing s and even willing to tolerate portrait on the top too as long as that is useful. However, nothing has convinced me that it is adding any value to the page other than making a point against Muslim assuming bad-faith. Given my life experience it is really really hard to assume good faith towards any American, however I do assume good faith towards each one of them. Unlike you people who stero-typing me and many Muslim. In these condition when you cannot assume good faith and think that I am drive by religious motive, it is impossibe to convince anyone. --- ALM 17:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Your argument changes, yet your goal remains the same. When your argument is not accepted, you keep making it. I don't know your motives, but you are exhibiting a clear conflict of interest and bias. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

you are exhibiting a clear conflict of interest and bias Yes I am evil. --- ALM 17:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you are evil. I think you are following what you believe is right. But those beliefs are not compatible with Wikipedia. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are following what you believe is right. But those beliefs are not compatible with Wikipedia. When some person derived by his stereotype thinking say me a terrorist, threat to world act then I neglect. Even when they not only say but act according to their thinking and punish me then I *try* to neglect them. Not able to forget them although. What you have said is dead wrong because if it would have been right I would not tolerate any picture at all. I see yours this thinking as the biggest obstacle in reaching to any solution. I can tolerate picture on top (knowing that it is secular place) as long as there is some reason and it is good for encyclopedia. Instead it is giving wrong view to the end reader and anti-information. --- ALM 17:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

And all I have asked for is that you demonstrate that this position really constitutes undue weight, instead you provide citations showing Muslim tradition. If your concern is really undue weight, then find a citation and add to the caption, removing the image is not the only solution to your perceived problem. A little bit of sourced text below the depiction describing it's historical significance should clear up this whole undue weight problem without moving the image. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think adding caption is not solution and not acceptable. --- ALM 18:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not surprised, that solution would leave the image at the top, it resolves the undue weight issue though. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is extremely illogical to keep the picture on the top and then write in caption that the picture is giving wrong information. It is just like that janitor is made to sit on the President seat and a nameplace is saying that he is janitor not president. This is just a stupid way to adjust its weight. --- ALM 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong information? You have not demonstrated that at all. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You will change caption after I demonstrate obviously? Are you thinking to change caption right now? --- ALM 19:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The caption only says it is a depiction of Muhammad, and that has been verified by a reliable source. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You said: If your concern is really undue weight, then find a citation and add to the caption, removing the image is not the only solution to your perceived problem. A little bit of sourced text below the depiction describing it's historical significance should clear up this whole undue weight problem without moving the image.

I replied: ::It is extremely illogical to keep the picture on the top and then write in caption that the picture is giving wrong information. It is just like that janitor is made to sit on the President seat and a nameplace is saying that he is janitor not president. This is just a stupid way to adjust its weight.

Now what we are talking ?? --- ALM 19:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

User Scribble Monkay block

Blimey, that was quick. Thanks - Scribble Monkey 16:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is good to be bold. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Protection templates

Thanks for fixing that. I am now running another try; the bot should ignore templates within the nowiki tag. Tizio 16:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The bot worked great, those sprotect templates should not have been there. I added the nowiki tags after the bot correctly fixed it. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Not indef

You said: "My block to User:Yesyoudid was not indef, but for 4 days. If you have some information I don't then you are welcome to adjust the block length."

Sorry, my mistake. --Yamla 18:29, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

No big deal, just making sure you were not misinformed. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 18:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Simonapro entry in archive index

If you look at your archive index, and search for "Simonapro", you'll see what I'm referring to - it's very funky. It looks to me like a {{userlinks}} or similar template was subst'd for the header of that particular entry. I've already improved it a little bit over the way it was originally rendering - instead of putting nowiki tags around the entire entry if it contained a curly bracket, I just put them around any {{<anything>}} directly. That still hoses the rendering of this particular item, though it seems to work for all the other cases I found where templates were used. Do you think anything more should be done on the bot's end to clean that up, or is that just expected behavior when complex stuff winds up in a header because of subst'ing of templates? I could probably come up with a whitelist of templates that are allowable, but that sounds like a real headache to maintain. —Krellis (Talk) 19:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I banged my head against this very problem in the past. I really don't know what to do about it. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, you're just no help at all, are you? ;) I guess I'll leave it as-is for now and see if any inspiration strikes me at some later time. —Krellis (Talk) 21:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nominee

Hi, High,

I noticed you were the nom for the deleted List of gay slang words and phrases, a list that had been cited in a neologism I nominated for deletion in October. The article Dyke tyke has not improved, and continues to be unverifiable original research. Please take a look and see if you deem it appropriate for a second AfD, since I'd rather not be accused of POV pushing by nominating it myself again.--Leflyman^Talk 19:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know, you can start by removing uncited information, then decide if what is left is worth keeping. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 20:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please help me archive

Please help me archive. I tried to follow the directions on Wikipedia:Archive, but it didnt work.I thought I did it right by adding "/Archive #"but nada happened. Thx.written by 208.58.196.156 23:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

re: edit summary

in reply to your edit summary concerning lack of reasonable justification, please refer to [7][8]. to insert an image that enjoys no consensus, in a place where there has been no consensus for any image at all, isn't the best move in my opinion. when the mediation started, as well as for a large part of the mediation, there was no lead image. it remains one of the most contentious issues on mediation. reinstating a controversial image, in a controversial location sans consensus does little to ease tensions. i would request the image be removed due to the lack of any such consensus and the warring it will facilitate because of this. thank you. ITAQALLAH 22:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the comment on your edit:

(returning removed well cited information. There still has not been a good argument for the removal of this)

Please be more careful in your phrasing. I read this and visualize people screaming. It is true that this in under discussion, and that consensus has yet to be reached on whether inclusion is a good idea. But categorically saying no good argument for deletion has yet been heard is, well, inadvertently infuriating. Saying "discussion ongoing" or "consensus not yet reached" and the like would be preferable. It's a sensitive area, requiring more than ordinary sensitivity. Shenme 22:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The image had been there for days and was removed with no edit summary. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:24, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

While discussion is going on, the information is still cited, and therefore should be there by default during the lack of consensus to act out of the ordinary. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:25, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

the image has only remained in the article for any significant period of time when it has been protected, as i'm sure you are aware. secondly, yes the information is cited - what is disputed is the appropriateness of its presence there, and this is a legitimate argument based on policy. the default, for months prior, was a lead without an image at all - and so this is the default state we should assume. may i re-iterate: the only reason it got into the lead at all was due to the persistent reversions of a disruptive editor. thus, without any consensus to support this extremely controversial insertion (and there should be), i believe the image should be removed until one for such develops. ITAQALLAH 23:49, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

You need to understand that your position that the image should not be there is a significant departure for regular Wikipedia editorial procedure. I have seen no consensus that we should act any differently towards this article as we do others.

The image was removed with no edit summary at all, so I put it back. The information is cited and on topic, I see no justification to remove it, despite the several hundreds of kilobytes of arguing. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:02, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

re:"I have seen no consensus that we should act any differently towards this article as we do others."; for encyclopedic purposes, the only thing the articles on wikipedia have in common is that we apply the same policies and guidelines to them. editorial judgement as to the appropriateness of certain materials, based upon analysis of those criterion, will differ with each article. using one article or a set of articles as an arbitary criterion of what is and isn't acceptable in another is incorrect. with this in mind, we are arguing that over-representing depictions of Muhammad (as the article currently does) constitutes a violation of the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV, and presents the misleading notion that depictions of Muhammad are similarly common. that's not the same with other articles, like Jesus, where depiction is a mainstream, as opposed to extreme minority, tradition. ITAQALLAH 00:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

That argument is flawed, because we are representing to group that thinks the images should not be shown with the section in the article the talks about those beliefs. But what we do no do is refuse an image because one point of view forbids it. Undue weight? We are not saying "Showing depictions is normal", we are showing a picture saying "This is a depiction of the subject", and we have a citation to verify that claim.

Nowhere in that image is the claim that showing images is a mainstream belief being said. What I think is that this is just another way for you to remove an image the offends your religious beliefs. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It never looks good when arguments keep changing, but the conclusion remains the same.Proabivouac 01:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

HighibBC, i would recommend that we maintain the appropriate decorum when discussing. it is miraculous that you have been able to discern what offends my 'religious beliefs'. i fear you have misunderstood the argument. if you analyse the undue weight section a little more closely, you will see that factually accurate, verified, neutrally written material can constitute a NPOV violation. for NPOV also dictates the amount of space, attention and distribution we apply for various assertions, opinions etc. this includes how we present images, external links, sectional and topical distributions. for example, extreme minority viewpoints of a theory are mentioned extremely briefly, perhaps a sentence or two, while much of the article deals with widely accepted theories. the text, images, or whatever can be factual and sourced, but disrupting the balance still constitutes a neutrality problem. currently, the article devotes far too much attention towards an extreme minority tradition (that is, depictions of Muhammad) in terms of image distribution. furthermore, in the light of the fact that the article portrays a number of depictions already, another one in the lead puts the undue weight concern beyond doubt. that is what is meant by misleading the reader. if you dedicate two referenced, neutrally written paragraphs to a fringe-notability pseudo-science theory, you implicitly give a false impression to the reader that the theory is more prominent than it really is due to the excessive attention directed towards it, and this is what undue weight is about.

Proabivouac, your comment implies that i have changed my argument. i would be very interested to know where exactly this has occured. ITAQALLAH 14:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for attributing motives to you that may not be true. But undue weight just does not fly. In order for a position to have undue weight, that position must be put forth. However, nowhere is the position that imagery is mainstream being presented, therefore that position cannot have undue weight. You say the images carry this position, but that is opinion and I have yet to see a citation that interprets those images in that manner. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

well the spirit of the policy seems rather clear. if we have a particular tradition, such as Muhammad in art, we all agree that this should be represented in the article. if 90% of Muhammad in art comes in the form of calligraphy, decoration, abstract and so on, whereas less than 5% comes in the form of human depictions (the rest can be regarded as miscellany, perhaps falling under abstract. these are by the way, ratios i consider relatively accurate), then if we have 4 or 5 images relating to the depiction of Muhammad, constituting much of the images in the article, while we have too few other kinds of images related to Muhammad in art, we have an overstatement and a neutrality problem. it's the same with any article. if, for example, in Syria you have a disproportionate number of pictures exclusively of the Ummayad Mosque or of one specific region or factor only, that too is an unbalance in the image distribution. as a sidenote, one problem i've found in the dispute in general is the assumption on both sides that every image in the article will either be calligraphy or depiction, whereas that is untrue, especially when there are plenty of other types of relevant images we can incorporate outside the field of Muhammad in art. ITAQALLAH 15:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Then where are your forty notable examples of calligraphy? I've seen so far one, from the German article, with which I've just replaced the original work of a Wikipedia editor. It's as if I cried "undue weight"to every one of your edits stating most sources don't agree with the ones you've cited without ever producing them. Thusfar, despite numerous requests and challenges, the only verifiable reality to this whole calligraphy thing is as a talking point against the inclusion of depictions of Muhammad.

We also have the calligraphy (= handwritten font) in the Hagia Sophia and on the Saudi flag, but then those are already included, yes?

I proposed a solution which would have mandated the inclusion of calligraphy alongside depictions, but neither you nor Gren endorsed it. The impression is again that this is brought up not to include calligraphy, but to exclude depictions.Proabivouac 15:43, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Proabivouac, does the fact that the vast majority of art related to Muhammad is in the form of non-depictions really need a citation? ITAQALLAH 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It needs examples that we can include to obtain the balance you seek. If there are no notable examples, then it's merely a failure to represent Muhammad which does not need to be - indeed can't be - represented. It is perverse to hold that "representation" consists solely of blanking something else.Proabivouac 15:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

• i don't think i've seen your proposed solution. my concern is that the images should be correctly proportionalised. ITAQALLAH 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Proposal proposal.Proabivouac 15:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Calligraphy is covered in the article. The idea that images are prohibited is covered in the article. The image does not contradict either without arbitrary interpretation. I will say it again, can you find a source that interprets these images as making a claim that is not true? ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

i explained above how and why undue weight relates to image balance and distribution. the points you have replied with are unrelated. ITAQALLAH 15:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I will make the same offer to you that I did to ALM. f you can find a reliable source to support the facts we can add "While normally shown in calligraphy, Muhammad was also depicted visually." to the caption. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

image caption (with which no major problem exists) and image distribution are two unrelated issues here. ITAQALLAH 15:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I thought the issue was undue weight. That caption would clear that issue up very nicely. If citations were found to show it were true. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

the issue is undue weight, which mandates how we distribute, proportionalise, and balance images. ITAQALLAH 15:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Ya, I just read undue weight, again, and I think the caption solution would solve any concern you have. Unless of course your concern is simply removing the image. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I am a little confused, are you now arguing that the image should be lowered in the article? Your previous position as shown here Mediation#Poll_on_every_little_issue seems to be that no position for such an image is acceptable, as it is not veiled. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:56, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

i signed in numerous sections. my first choice as i think i mentioned before is to have one (or two, at the very most, in the interests of compromise) depiction(s) in the lower regions of the article. the tradition, is, after all, an extreme minority; and not inexistent. ITAQALLAH 16:03, 26 February 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.