User talk:HighInBC/Archive 85

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.

Thanks

That was fast; I didn't even get the notice on their page before they were blocked. I appreciate your help. — JohnFromPinckney (talk / edits) 03:37, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem. I take a dim view of intimidation and personal attacks. Feel free to come directly to my talk page for this sort of thing if you notice that I am active. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Declining unblock

Why u decline unblock so much? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.0.207.120 (talk • contribs) 03:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

I handle unblock requests as the circumstance dictate. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Use of Anti LGBT image

Just as a note, that image is actually used in a userbox (which are apparently in wikipedia space!) in the Azerbijani wikipedia.Naraht (talk) 11:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It was in a userbox right here, which is how it came to my attention. That user is now blocked. That sort of thing seems to be allowed in some places.

Userboxes in mainspace?! Egad, talk about culture shock. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 11:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Further to IPv6 ranges

I admit to not having a good grasp of IPv6 ranges, but /64 rangeblocks are normally effective from most home IP assignments. If it's a mobile IPv6 assignment, it's often impossible to find a useful block range anyway, they're usually extremely dynamic. You can diagnose a /64 range by checking the first four hex groups of a set of IPs - if they're the same, it's a /64 range. That way you really don't have to think in hexadecimal notation at all, which is a relief, since I can't. Acroterion (talk) 23:36, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I have also found looking at the contributions for the range is a great way to check what sort of collateral damage might occur. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I always check any IPv4 rangeblock in advance - I generally check IPv6 /64 blocks after Twinkle does its thing, and it turns up some surprises from time to time, some LTAsa and general misconduct that wasn't apparent when seen on a single IP. Acroterion (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I am loving the partial block option. It is incredibly useful with rangeblocks. For example an IPV6 /41 range of mobile phones has a ton of innocent users on it but the problematic IP hopper is only interested in one subject. I can block for just one area without interfering with everyone else. I am very happy about this feature. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:58, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you HighInBC and Peaceray Peaceray both, for helping me it's much appreciated :) Joelphotofix (talk) 22:09, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Wikipedia can be a bit of a steep learning curve. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 22:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks!

I write on your page
To thank you for your edit
Please have a nice day
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheerful Squirrel (talk • contribs) 22:55, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for the poetry. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:20, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Here's my edit count [1]

I'm in the CV training

Please grant rollback rights?

Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 00:12, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

I see you have asked User:Casliber. I will leave it to them to decide. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 00:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a fair point.

Asking two admins was bad.

Stay safe and be well.

Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 00:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Errr, you rejoined less than 48 hours after quitting? Umm....that wasn't very long (and Happier Hippo account inbetween??). Also the Pretzel Butterfly editing ended up somewhat controversial (but kudos for putting it on your user page now).....hhmmm (shrugs)....ok yeah why not. You've been around a while and someone will no doubt tap you on the wiki-shouder if you stuff it up. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Real Talk About Future Nostalgia

Ok. So, the rfc was closed by a non admin. I clearly acknowledge that small mistake in my appeal. However, "There's consensus that Tainy should be credited. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 16:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)" was the comment made by the person who closed the rfc. And when I looped back to verify the meaning of where and how he should be credited, the closing admin said that that wasn't clear to him. So I am accused of going against consensus? Consensus was he should be credited, but neither me nor the non-admin who closed the rfc agree exactly where or how.. Sucker for All (talk) 06:09, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

You were blocked for multiple reasons. I suggest you read what people said at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sucker_for_All's_"I_didn't_hear_that"_attitude very carefully. Just pointing out one specific edit that may or may not have been correct does not address the overarching pattern of behavior that you were blocked for. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 06:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Problematic username?

Saw this username
Links to conquests in the war
Now reporting it. Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 16:34, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Please read my talk page. Japanshouldtaketheislands (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

@Cheerful Squirrel: I suggest that you take this to the appropriate noticeboard. I don't feel like watching the youtube video the user is using as an explanation. This is not obvious enough for me to take action now. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 01:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply.

And thank you for your counsel

I'll do what you ask.

Cheerful Squirrel (talk) 01:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacDonnell Road (2nd nomination)

Hi HighInBC. There was no consensus that the sources I provided did not provide significant coverage of the subject of the road. "Delete" is not an accurate assessment of the consensus. Please revise your close to no consensus. Please also explain how you evaluated the arguments regarding a merge to Richard Graves MacDonnell#Places named after him or his wife per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 23:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

My interpretation of the debate stands. The merge option did not gain much traction. It was a minority opinion. That being said there is nothing stopping you from using your sources to add to Richard Graves MacDonnell#Places named after him or his wife if you can get consensus to do so on that page. I suggest that you start on the talk page. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 23:35, 26 June 2021 (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.