| Revision as of 16:47, 16 April 2007 editH (talk | contribs)23,582 edits →WP:RFCN← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 00:59, 5 January 2024 edit undo64.229.177.95 (talk)No edit summaryTags: Manual revert Mobile edit Mobile web edit | ||
| (971 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ⚫ | #REDIRECT ] | ||
| {{User:MiszaBot/config | |||
| |maxarchivesize = 50K | |||
| |counter = 30 | |||
| |algo = old(24h) | |||
| |archive = User talk:HighInBC/Archive %(counter)d | |||
| }} | |||
| {{bottompostusertalk}} | |||
| {{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=User talk:HighInBC/Archive index|mask=User talk:HighInBC/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes|template=User:HighInBC/indextemplate}} | |||
| {| style="float: right; clear: right; background-color: transparent;" | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| |} | |||
| <BR> | |||
| <!-- Note, new messages go at the bottom of the page. --> | |||
| __TOC__ | |||
| == Adding ] to sockpuppeteer pages == | |||
| I know what you are trying to do by this, simply stop them falling into the tempory category, but, why this template? As sockblock is for sockpuppets, not sockpuppeteers, and adding sockblock results them in looking like a sockpuppet. The whole idea is crazy. ] 18:19, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| : Hello. I noticed you a sockpuppeteer from the temporary userpage category. You can do so more easily by using {{]|blocked}} and removing the indefinite block template (see ). :) —<small>{]} ] 18:44:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)</small> | |||
| == Appreciate input == | |||
| Ryan, as a username expert, would you care to offer an opinion on ? ] ] 18:35, 15 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Hi High == | |||
| Is what we're talking about? ]] 09:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Help Please == | |||
| There is a vandal on here who is trying to get me blocked, I don't know why, he is ]. | |||
| ] 12:55, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :It looks like everything was taken care of. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 14:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == Surprise == | |||
| Now '']'' was a pleasant surprise to discover on Misplaced Pages! Cheers, and keep up the good work. :-) --] 14:06, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :No problem. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 14:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| == WP:RFCN == | |||
| Hi there, I've responded to your block message for User:Spammyou on RFCN with a request that you unblock pending completion of the discussion, and I've outlined some reasons why I believe the block was a bit premature. The discussion may end with consensus to disallow the username, but it hasn't gotten there yet. - ]</small> (]) 14:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :I do not need a consensus at WP:RFCN to give a username block. If it is violation of the username policy then any admin can block at any time. The policy specifically mentions spam, and it gives me the impression of the intent to do so. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| ::As the RFCN discussion shows that there is not a consensus to block and I disagree that it violates, I'll unblock the user, but I want to consult with you first. I'll wait a little bit before doing it if you have any concerns. - ]</small> (]) 16:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :As I said, I don't need a consensus to block. Unless there is a clear consensus to allow I don't see how any lack of consensus overrides my decision to block. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
| :There is not a consensus to allow, I did not block under any sort of consensus at RFCN, but through my own judgment. I suggest you bring this to ANI, because a lack of consensus at RFCN does not invalidate my block. I am going out for a couple hours. <small>]<sup>(Need help? ])</sup></small> 16:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 00:59, 5 January 2024
Redirect to: