Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
HighInBC (talk | contribs)
Administrators
41,784 edits
HighInBC (talk | contribs)
Administrators
41,784 edits
Line 81: Line 81:


{{ping|L235}} can you please confirm that I have the correct names here? [[User talk:Chillum|<b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b>]] 03:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
{{ping|L235}} can you please confirm that I have the correct names here? [[User talk:Chillum|<b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b>]] 03:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Also what does "initiate" mean in this context? Does this mean I cannot request that an uninvolved administrator look into something where I am prohibited from acting? For example does it mean I should not report to ANI if I see a legal threat or other blockable offence?

I may be misinterpreting it entirely and "initiate" is just a redundant form of "take" meaning to actually "do" the action. Please clarify as I am not used to being under arbcom restrictions. [[User talk:Chillum|<b style="color:Blue">Chillum</b>]] 04:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 04:33, 29 June 2015

Tokens from other editors:

Archive
Talk page archives - Archive index
2022 Archives:

Archive 125 (January 1st – Present)

  • Hello and welcome to my talk page! Click the + button at the top of the page to create a new discussion or use any of the "edit" buttons to contribute to an already existing discussion.
  • Postings made in the form of haiku will be given first priority.
  • Note If you are unable to post on this page due to semi-protection you may use my alternate talk page.


Rev del

I blocked WhyIsn'tSheHavingCoitusWithMe (talk · contribs) and started deleting their username from the article histories due to the offensive nature of it, but I noted that their username appears in almost all of the revert edit summaries. Do you think those edit summaries should be wiped out as well? Mkdwtalk 22:46, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REVDEL calls for the deletion of grossly offensive but not "ordinary" incivility.
I don't think rev deletion is needed in this case. The history is full of words far naughtier than Coitus. The important part is that the page with the list of peoples names has been deleted. Chillum 22:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dear "super Moderator"

Reply me. What was the problem. I cited her official website in citation www.myriamfares.com, Still you removed the editing. What is the problem with you?Xishan06 (talk) 23:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)@Xishan06: I think you are harassing the wrong person, as Chillum has not reverted any of your edits to the Myriam Fares article and will probably not know what you are talking about. As a side note the official website is not a reliable source as it's primary purpose is to sell more.- McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 23:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, and I apologize.Xishan06 (talk) 23:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I get mistaken for other people all the time. No worries. Chillum 00:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting the publication lists for BARUT and WAIT?

Can you give the reason? You blocked me without any explanation68.100.166.227 (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I gave was that you were edit warring. Chillum 04:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
O.K. But, MaterialScientist was agreed on this form and then I placed the publications in closed form. What is your objection to these closed-compact form? It does not occupy a large space and only the interested person can look fot it.

68.100.166.227 (talk) 04:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it was edit-warring you should block the party who were deleting the previously published material without giving any explanation.68.100.166.227 (talk) 05:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The person who objects has no scientific knowledge and prepares pages like tr:Merih Aktaş & tr:Kâzım Koyuncu. They cannot comment on scientific matters, you should not listen to their desires. It not reasonable..68.100.166.227 (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to read our edit warring policy. Regardless of who is right or wrong you cannot try to get your way by making the same edit over and over for weeks on end. You spent weeks trying to force your information in the article while multiple editors reverted you. We don't settle disagreements by being stubborn here. Please seek consensus for edits that are challenged. Chillum 15:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: The publication list was prepared gradually and it was accepted by the other editors. They even encouraged me to increase the number of journals in this publication list. Then I have gone and spent two weeks to find the remaining parts of their publications, and I added to the list. It was approved by other people. And this movie preparer came and erased all of it. It is obvious who is doing the edit war. You can not delete or erase other pages prepared by other persons without giving any explanation. It was a work of two and three weeks and prepared gradually and it is erased in one second by an person who prepares singer pages and you are defending this kind of people.

User talk:68.100.166.227 68.100.166.227 (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. The burden of finding consensus is on the person seeking to include information. Chillum 03:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also if you continue the same behaviour then the next block will be longer. Chillum 15:27, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Then also explain what is the benefit of erasing the publication list of an scientist? He is not a movie star or singer.. Probably, this should be the reason. Because, the person who deletes is a preparer of articles of singers, and movies only. And you have not answered why it is not vandalism when something is deleted without giving any reason. I understand that some money should be pay to somewhere for this purpose..68.100.166.227 (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you something

This is encyclopedia for the people on the street. They know everything. They don't need you to learn something. Let them write as they want and then they can read their own writings anytime they want to read. Will always be the encyclopedia of singers and movie players...User talk:68.100.166.227 — Preceding undated comment added 04:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I fully understand you. Chillum 04:22, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

In response to my revert, it has been reported. CassiantoTalk 20:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the revert and the notification. Chillum 22:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, and thanks for chipping in. CassiantoTalk 22:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement

By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:

  1. The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
  2. During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
  3. Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.

You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I think this is the first time I have been subject to an arbcom ruling, and all this for commenting in a thread at AN. Chillum 03:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self, name parties appear to be:

  • GregJackP
  • GorillaWarfare
  • Black Kite
  • Kevin Gorman
  • Reaper Eternal
  • Eric Corbett
  • RGloucester

@L235: can you please confirm that I have the correct names here? Chillum 03:15, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also what does "initiate" mean in this context? Does this mean I cannot request that an uninvolved administrator look into something where I am prohibited from acting? For example does it mean I should not report to ANI if I see a legal threat or other blockable offence?

I may be misinterpreting it entirely and "initiate" is just a redundant form of "take" meaning to actually "do" the action. Please clarify as I am not used to being under arbcom restrictions. Chillum 04:33, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chillum&diff=669139386&oldid=669138729

Leave a Reply