User talk:H/Archive 3
- 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.
Contents
Please use the edit summary. thank you.--Procrastinating@talk2me 11:15, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
- After reviewing that article it does appear that I missed a single edit summery, for that I am sorry. I shall try harder in the future. HighInBC 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi HighlnBC!
Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Snail-WA seems to be getting into a bit of a bog. Could you please specify which version your vote goes for? This will help to reach a consensus on which version to promote. Thanks! --Fir0002 10:13, 7 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hi HighinBC, I am sorry if the vandalism performed by this user disturbs you. Unfortunately, we get quite a few stupid people like that on Wikipedia, and you probably should not take it personaly. You did the right thing by warning him on his talk page, and by indicating that you will keep an eye his contributions. In the meantime, since he did not commit vandalism again after your warning, there should be no need to block him for now. All the best, Schutz 15:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Oh, and I forgot to mention one other thing. Since this user uses an IP address instead of an account, there is a good chance that the address may be shared by several people (for example, people connecting by dial-up, or sharing a school or library computer). As such, even if this particular user does not make any interesting contribution to Wikipedia, it may be possible that another user will do, using the same IP address. Cheers, Schutz 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for your look into this matter. I understand the discision to ban or not is up to the admin in question, however I would like to point out that policy does not require warnings or repeat behaviour in areas of physical threats of harm. I will not pursue this matter aslong as the user does not continue in this behaviour. I have sent a complaint to the internet provider of his IP containing his IP and time and a link to the message. HighInBC 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
Just wanted to let you know that it certainly isn't my intention to start an edit war. Checking the history of the article, I see that your example was removed twice within one day, but I only made the second removal. Anyway, I responded in kind on the talk page. Thank you for notifying me and being good guy about all this. David Bergan 06:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
- My choice of words were poor, I did not mean to imply you were warring with me. I was trying to avoid me participating in an edit war. Indeed my example was removed by different people, but even then if I continued to add the line I would be edit warring, even if nobody else would be.
- English is a very ambigous language if one is not careful. HighInBC 13:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
I called it link spam because the link you added appears to be self-promotion, and you've added it to multiple pages. I suggest you take a look at WP:NOT. TheRealFennShysa 20:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
- I am familiar with WP:NOT, and it says to stay on topic and not to be biased. I am not in violation of this policy as my post does not promote my site in a biased way. It says You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. Do you think my site is not on topic? I do not profit from people coming to my site, my purpose was to provide a contextual link to the article. I suppose we can agree to disagree here, but please assume good faith when I say I was trying to improve the encyclopedia. If you are very against the link, and consensus agrees I will not argue it further. HighInBC 20:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
- Also, which multiple pages have I posted this link too? I am sure I would only have added it to topical pages, but I cannot rember adding it elsewhere. HighInBC 21:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply
The closest I have found to me adding it to multiple pages is this: [1]
I certainly think this is on-topic as this page is a work based off the information in the article presented in a manner useful in a way the article is not. HighInBC 14:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
"High" :)
Thanks for you supportive message.
Eric --Ermeyers 15:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
- No prob, there is a tendency for people to sometimes bite the newbies here. A good tip is to read the talk page on an article before doing anything, not just for topics related to what you are doing, but to see if there have been big fights over nothing in the past. Looking through the perl talk archives you will see alot of battling over triffles. Other articles are not so jumpy. HighInBC 15:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)Reply
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this page.