This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 1 |

Archive 2

| Archive 3 →

August 2010

RE:

I had to create a new account in commons, as I had an account with SimonKSK, but I forgot my password for it (for some reason, I changed my password for my commons account) and I didn't put an email. That account was only made for commons, but I accidentally created one here when I switched back to seWP. I have no intentions of using that account here, so I'll ask an admin to block it later. Simon^KSK 14:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcoming IPs

Please don't welcome IPs here unless they've actually made improvements to the Wiki. Doing so without them having made any improvements to this site isn't needed because they'll probably never edit again after that first time and because it is pointless. Thanks, Razor flame 05:01, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollback (2)

The edit that you reverted here was probably made in good faith. πr² (talk • changes) 21:44, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Noted. However, the change did not seem constructive, even in good faith, and that's why I used level one (good faith) uw-vandalism, which said "Your change did not seem helpful, and has been reverted." I may be wrong, though. Let's see how he responds. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 21:47, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Erasing User B's comments on User C's talkpage

You can't do it. It's against the rules. Even if you don't care for the comments, you can't erase them. Purple backpack89 00:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Where? What rule? I can do it if it helps the IP editor. You're just scaring him away. I don't care about the comments; I care about the IP. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 00:47, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I warned you already on PBP's talkpage. Do it again and you'll find yourself blocked. @Lauryn (parlez) 02:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't care about me. All I care about is the IP editor. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 02:25, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So you've said. However, if you continue to disrupt our encyclopaedia by removing a perfectly valid, though perhaps superflous warning, from a talk page that isn't yours you will find yourself blocked for both 3RR and disruption. If that's the route you choose to go, then I just want you to be advised that their are consequences when you persist in your disruptive behaviour. If you'd like to be blocked to prove the point you're pushing so hard, please continue. @Lauryn (parlez) 02:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Note (2)

There are 50 edits (be default) on the recent changes page. At the time I'm writing this, 30 of them are you welcoming various IPs and accounts. I hope that you see why this is a problem. I would appreciate it, since you seem to not see the futility in your actions, to at least throttle your edits. @Lauryn (parlez) 21:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

France

The ref you added doesn't show there are regions and departments in France, but instead is a site about gites in certain regions. Therefore I am removing it. You are welcome to find another ref, and help as you wish on the article. Kindly, Yottie ^=talk= 22:17, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me. However, I feel that the ref could still be useful in other parts of the article. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 22:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The new one is better. Thanks, Yottie ^=talk= 22:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe the images are important, and don't clutter the article up. I will ask for extra advice before reverting or not. I would ask you not to add/remove any more. Thank you, Yottie ^=talk= 22:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Issue

This edit should have been treated as an AGF edit. The use of rollback was wrong. Rollback is only for edits that are 100% certain vandalism. Anything less certain and you use undo. fr33k man 01:53, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

All the same, I left an AGF warning/welcome message on the user's talkpage. I thought that I could follow your lead when you reverted this edit. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 02:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That edit seemed like vandalism, then I read the other one and realized the editor was acting in good faith. Thank you for leaving a nicer message, but do be more careful with pressing rollback. Each edit is a separate case. fr33k man 02:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Redlink

Hello. May I ask why you keep a redlink on your signature? Hazard-SJ^Talk 20:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for the lulz. It's where I got my username, actually. This is the only account with such a name you'll find anywhere on the web. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 20:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Hazard-SJ^Talk 20:25, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

:-)

:-) !--Its snowing in East Asia (talk) 15:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Somebody has given you some cookies! Now enjoy them!

--Its snowing in East Asia (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Note (3)

The outcome of an administrative discussion has found:

Findings of fact

Both User:TeleComNasSprVen and User:Purplebackpack89 have a propensity to be involved in disputes with each other.[1] [2]
User:TeleComNasSprVen has on multiple occasions made problematic bot like edits, and administrative tasks, to the point where he has been warned multiple times. [3] [4]

Principle

Editors must collaborate in a calm atmosphere with respect for each other.

Remedy

User:TeleComNasSprVen and User:Purplebackpack89 are directed not to revert each other, even once.
User:TeleComNasSprVen and User:Purplebackpack89 are directed not to interact with each other outside of article and project talk space, however, either is not limited to consensus building discussion within article talk and project talk space.
User:TeleComNasSprVen is directed not to edit other users' userspace, excluding talk space.
User:TeleComNasSprVen will not make repetitive changes so fast as to flood the recent changes.
All remedies are effective for six months from today.
Remedies are enforceable by blocking, for 24 hours, increasing 24 hours each event, up to a week.

Yours, Jon@talk:~$ 13:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked for 24 hours as your restrictions state for your first violation. Here you attempted to engage Purplebackpack89 and comment on his actions. This goes completely against your restrictions. As such, you have been blocked for 24 hours. Remember, any future violations of your restrictions will increase the block up to 48 hours. Thank you, Either way (talk) 16:56, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know about the block, but as I stated before, he also commented on my "rogue" edits, which is a violation of NPA. I wasn't, however, aware of when the restrictions would be in effect, and I thought that I could still comment on the AN discussion, and the charges that PBP brought against me. Please excuse me, but I wished to comment on the discussion at hand, and my concerns have gone unheeded. Can you give me this one chance to defend myself against the claims, and on AN only? Just transmit whatever I say here to there. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 17:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Directly from the post above this: "All remedies are effective for six months from today." In other words, they immediately went into effect and last for the next 6 months. Either way (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand. At the time of the writing, "today" was about twelve hours ago. I was still able to comment on AN. And that's all I wish to do right now. Also, doesn't the restrictions say PBP can't comment about me, as he did on NVS's talkpage? And he called me "rogue".— This unsigned comment was added by User:TeleComNasSprVen (talk • changes).

If that was the case, then I'm sorry. It was a complete misunderstanding. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 17:14, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

To the charges at the AN discussion:

Could an admin please copy and paste the following comment onto the AN discussion?

The first charge is rather ridiculous, almost to the point of insanity. I could have pointed out a similar event: 'Continuing to torment TeleComNasSprVen multiple times after being warned to stand down diff'

The second charge is debatable, to which my accuser may or may not have a COI

The third charge has an appearance of bad faith; I made the first reversion, and the second one should have been discussed per WP:BRD.

The fourth charge is entirely false, and the action warranted: I tried to explain the nature of the sockpuppetry through checkuser, and the proper process to go through for it to work, but my explanations had gone unnoticed yet again.

The fifth and sixth charges are arbitrary. I explained thus, "To refute some of the charges: the very next diff I explained my use of rollback, so that was not an example of "abuse" per se. And I have asked for the flood flag to prevent the RecentChanges breakdown here and here, but was declined both times. May I actually have the flood flag for those occasions, or am I restricted entirely for using the flag for those purposes?"

This is more or less asinine. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 17:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Thanks for the welcome. Why your status is offline? Nataly8 (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to change it this morning. And I'm not allowed to right now as I'm under some changing/block restrictions right now, which means that I'm under a really bad time. If you need help, perhaps it's better if you sought another user. But if you want to know how to use Qui on your talkpage, see here for the instructions. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 20:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I want to complete the article Avatar: The Last Airbender. I will take informations from English and Greek (I know the language, I wrote it in Greek Wikipedia). How to put the template? Nataly8 (talk) 10:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably put the template at the top of the page, where everyone can see. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 17:36, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I put it in the talk page. I have a problem with a template. The Template:Infobox Television Season. Avatar Constantinos (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you erase some of the parameters (see here)? If you plan on making large changes to any page, please use the change summary. And please change your signature so that it includes your userpage, not Avatar Constantinos. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 17:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. But I don't understand what to do. Can you help? I put my first article in the peer page. Nataly8 (talk) 17:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Wait until someone notices your new article, comments on it, and helps you write it. It's just a matter of time. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 17:45, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If anybody interested? Nataly8 (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

If they're not, then you can probably bug them on their talkpage.

:| TelCo NaSpVe :| 17:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Haha. I put in the peer page another 3 articles that help me to complete the Avatar: The Last Airbender. You have anythning to say about the article? Nataly8 (talk) 17:51, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I have to look at your article later. I'm currently a little busy, so could you ask me next time? Thanks. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 17:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. Nataly8 (talk) 17:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And what the user must do? Nataly8 (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Generally, that's up to the user to decide, not the rest of the community. All Editor review is is a way for the community to provide feedback on the user, but that doesn't mean that the user has to listen to the community's will or be dictated by it. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 18:07, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. Nataly8 (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I put another one. Nataly8 (talk) 18:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please, one at a time! Peer review is a slow process, and even the articles before yours haven't been reviewed yet. So you might just want to stick with one article to go through peer review. Also, the article you just created seems like it's been quickly copied and pasted from one of the other language wikipedias; if it is, it will be QDed, I'm afraid. So please simplify it according to our MOS before someone tags it for quick deletion. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 19:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I left a message here. It's not copy-pasted. I did some changes to do it simpler. If you want, can you help me? Nataly8 (talk) 19:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but as I said, I'm still busy. Perhaps Bsadowski1 can help you with the simplification. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 19:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I did it. Nataly8 (talk) 19:14, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You did what? Look, the problem is not that the article hasn't been simplified at all, it's just that it hasn't been simplified enough to meet our standards. As I'm busy at the moment, please seek help from another user. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 19:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I send the message. Which is the page of standards? Nataly8 (talk) 19:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS has a few standards. In addition, you may want to look at some of the links at the top of your talkpage when I welcomed you. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 19:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi! Can you please use a page in your userspace for making lists of redirects etcetera rather than the communal sandbox? The sandbox is there for editing tests, not for a "TODO" list for a simplewiki editor. It should be available for new users to mess around in mostly. Thanks! fr33k man 23:52, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for the heads up; I'll do that the next time I ask for redirect creation. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 23:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop

Please stop mass adding redirects!

--M7 (talk) 23:56, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Why not? :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 23:58, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you show a consensus about that? --M7 (talk) 23:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

As there is now a request to stop, I would recommend doing so and talking about it on Simple Talk. I'm going to remove the flood flag. It is only for uncontroversial edits (and while I didn't have a problem with any of those redirects obviously others do). James (T C) 00:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sigh ...

This edit was not vandalism. I will say this only once; rollback is ONLY for vandalism! If you are not totally and 100% sure that an edit is vandalism, press "undo" or talk to the user. Next time, you loose rollback! fr33k man 00:43, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry! I had heard as much at AN, okay?!? :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 00:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not see the AN thread, but duplication of warning does no harm. fr33k man 01:04, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem with simplification

It' s about the article Avatar: The Last Airbender (video game). Nataly8 (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

blocked

I have blocked you as you have violated the terms of your interaction ban with PBP as shown here. I don't want excuses. Please re-read the ban terms, and come back in 48 hours. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back

I put 5 articles in peer review. Did you have some comments to do? Nataly8 (talk) 16:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. And thanks for welcoming me back after my short wikibreak. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 16:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

What about the List of Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes? Nataly8 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll get to that one when I have the time. I just simplified a bit of the other one for you. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 16:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

BLP tagging

Please be more careful with your BLP tagging. Articles that have sources should not be tagged as {{BLP unsourced}} such as you did at Brian Gerard James and Anthony Norris. BLPs are also not deleted just because of an absence of sources. If there is controversy surrounding particular aspects of the article, then remove that information or find sources to back it up. However, do not tag it as a QD unless it is fully a negatively unsourced bio. Additionally, websites should not be tagged as BLP, only biographies. Thank you, Either way (talk) 17:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't consider "Other websites" to be the same as "References." As for the website, I believed it contained "controversial information" about a BLP nonetheless, so I tagged it (even though it wasn't a BLP, it mentioned and/or came from one.) :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 17:31, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Those are clearly references, just mislabeled as "other websites." As for the website, what is "controversial" about the founder's name and birth year? I'd say that's a very loose interpretation of "controversial." Either way (talk) 17:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so I was mistaken that time. I didn't really look at the websites... :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 17:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Well you really should look carefully rather than mis-tagging things. It's a waste of other people's efforts/time and miscategorizies articles. Either way (talk) 17:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Template:Busy weekend

The page you wrote, Template:Busy weekend, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was deprecated or replaced by a newer template and are completely unused and not linked to. If you think this page should be kept, please add {{wait}} below the line {{QD}} and say why on the talk page. If the page is already gone, but you think this was an error, you can ask for it to be undeleted. Hazard-SJ^Talk 20:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Complex tags

Could you please tell me how I help make the articles I created less complex? --Chemicalinterest (talk) 00:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Try WP:Simple or one of the pages in the welcome template at the top of your talkpage. :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 00:45, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Flood flag

You seem to be done with the flood flag. Why not ask for it to be removed? Hazard-SJ^Talk 02:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week

I have blocked you for one week because I feel that this edit was solely designed to enrage and inflame PBP. You are both going to learn to leave each other alone, trust me! fr33k man 06:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TeleComNasSprVen/Archive_2 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

Look, I didn't know that my tagging was going to have such consequences. I explained as much on the article's talkpage—I apologized to Kansan for using too many tags, and decided that yes, the COI tag was inapplicable and I don't know why I put it up when the POV tag was equally sufficient. We were discussing the broad scope of the subject per se, how the article seemed skewed to a wholly American viewpoint when it could have included different perspectives from the rest of the international community and how they would affect the course of US history. If we included that information in the article, which I saw as sorely lacking, then I wouldn't have put up so many tags. Please, please, to the best of your ability, assume that I had the best intentions in mind when I included the tags. The tags were merely routine when I was using the flood flag to avoid disrupting recent changes—see this edit just prior to the tagging, compared to similar incidences elsewhere on other articles with me again tagging multiple pages in a similar fashion. Please don't block me for tagging an article that would bring me into conflict with PBP89, I honestly didn't realize that the article had anything to do with him. To me, it was just another page that needed to be routinely checked for just three things: external links-->other websites, see also-->other pages, and whether or not the article should be tagged. Look at my contributions and you can see that I already have done so much of those three things, that I simply became a robot and didn't double-check my tagging of other articles, or that whether my changes to them were appropriate. Please, don't block me because I seemingly conflicted with PBP89, cause that's not what I intended. I may have misused the flood flag, you can sure as heck block me for that, but please don't have us as a reason for me to be blocked. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'd have blocked you indef. You play us admins. You asked me yesterday to give you flood flag and I declined. Later you asked another admin to give you the flag and he did it, because he didn't know that I already declined. I explained to you that there is a bot for this work, but it looks like you are trying to get more edits. This behaviour of playing us admins is kind of pointy. Your editing patterns in general look sometimes more like disruption than anything else. Just look at this diff or this one. Tagging of hundreds of talk pages with the BLP tag is kind of useless. Most if not all people don't even look at talk pages here. Such edits let you look like someone trying to get editcounties. Take a break for this week and come back when the block ended. -- Barras (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

This blocked user asked to be unblocked, but one or more administrators said no to this unblock request. Other administrators can also review this block, but should not unblock the user without a good reason. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

TeleComNasSprVen/Archive_2 (contribs · deleted contribs · block log · filter log · global contribs)

Request reason:

Okay, that was an accident. I wasn't trying to get more edits; I even notified the bot operator of the situation, and after waiting for a great while, I thought he wasn't going to do what I had asked him to do, so I had another admin grant me the flood flag. I explained why I thought that those two changes were necessary to Either way (see here for the explanation); I was being bold, he reverted me, and we discussed the matter. And no one had interrupted me when I made those changes, so I thought that they were appropriate. But I let it go. Here's my thoughts on tagging; they signify to other editors that the article to which they are attached to needed work, that's why I'm used to tagging so many articles and their respective talk pages; I couldn't possibly see how mass tagging could have been considered disruption or pointy. I'm not trying to get any more editcounts, I'm just trying to improve an article with how I saw fit at the time. Please, I ask of you only a simple matter: either if you decide to keep me blocked, please change the block reason to reflect your opinions on the matter, I don't want to be blocked for being in conflict with PBP89, and if I am blocked, please let it be because of some other reason; or if you do decide to unblock me, I promise not to ask for the flood flag again or tag multiple pages for at least a week. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:08, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's not just these issues though. Your behaviour has been unacceptable in multiple ways, and you've been asked to cease multiple times. Please wait out your block and come back refreshed in a week. -- PeterSymonds (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

(change conflict) × 2 First, there's no rush in having something done here. Waiting for a few hours/days to get this done isn't bad. Noone really cares. Maybe he's busy with other things and planned doing it later. You state that you want to improve articles. To tag articles hardly improve them. It means they go into a category. Nothing more. To improve an article means to actively edit it and make it better, to add sources, to expand it. I think you clearly don't know what making an article better means. Tagging an article with blp surely not. It's waste of time. It is much better to make only 50% of the editsIt doesn't necessarily help tagging them as BLP, unsourced, adding qd or whatever. It is more useful to add references. -Barras (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I beg you, please, the very least you could do was change the blocking reason... :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 19:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know that it was urgent. πr² (talk • changes) 22:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

? :| TelCo NaSpVe :| 22:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

"...I even notified the bot operator of the situation..." πr² (talk • changes) 22:41, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Blocked Indef

I have reviewed your contribution history, and I don't see any real contribution. For example, I can't see for the life of me why you would qd Bill Clinton, other than to be disruptive. you already know that the QD criteria exist, so yes, you must know that article, among others did not meet it. The editing is really disruptive. I've also posted my actions to the noticeboard for review. Jon@talk:~$ 22:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. If you believe this block is unfair you may request to be unblocked by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. If you cannot do this or the reason is private please send an e-mail to simple-admins-l@lists.wikimedia.org and an administrator will look at your reason and reply. You may want to consider reading our guide to unblock requests before requesting to be unblocked. Jon@talk:~$ 22:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Jon@talk:~$ 22:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Block length defined...

Your editing block has been defined as three months, and the software has been set accordingly. Please direct any appeals to the mailing list. Jon@talk:~$ 12:47, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

User:TeleComNasSprVen/Archive 2

Contents

August 2010

RE:

Welcoming IPs

Rollback (2)

Erasing User B's comments on User C's talkpage

Note (2)

France

Issue

Redlink

:-)

Note (3)

Blocked

To the charges at the AN discussion:

Thanks for the welcome

Sandbox

Please stop

Sigh ...

Problem with simplification

blocked

Welcome back

BLP tagging

Quick deletion of Template:Busy weekend

Complex tags

Flood flag

Blocked for 1 week

Blocked Indef

Block length defined...