Wikipedia

User talk:Reception123/Archive 3

< User talk:Reception123
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Reception123 in topic The kind of thing we want you to stop doing
Learn more about this page
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Closing deletion discussions change

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Receptie, if you are going to take it upon yourself to close deletion discussions, please do the whole job and take the tag off of the articles as well. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok. Sorry, I forgot. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 08:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
That being said, you really shouldn't be closing them. Unlike en we don't need non-admin closures here. -DJSasso (talk) 11:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok. I saw BlueGoblin7 close a few so I thought that was a usual thing. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Vandalism in progress change

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments6 people in discussion

I notice that you sometimes clear the entries at WP:Vandalism in progress. If you must do that (and I really think it's for the admins to do), then please be sure to wait enough time for interested parties to see the action that was taken or not taken. IMO, that would be at least several hours. Other admins might have other ideas about how long to wait. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure we agreed 24 hours a few years back. Goblin 19:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC) I ♥ Yottie!Reply


Ok, I get it. From now on I will wait 24 hours approximately. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:28, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I generally don't mind non-admins closing admin related duties (if its done right), but VIP should really be left to admins. Even if the vandal has stopped it could still be blocked etc. Admins should really be the ones to update that page imo. Kennedy (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok, so from now on if more than 30 hours pass and admins don't clear WP:VIP than I will. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 08:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
That's... not really what I said. I'm generally opposed to non-admins updating VIP unless its to report someone. So increasing the time to 30 hours makes no difference. I'll see what other admins think. Kennedy (talk) 08:50, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok, until other admins make up their mind I will not do anything (except tell users when the vandal has been blocked and by who) to WP:VIP except reporting users. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Kennedy. Admins might have reasons for leaving the information there. Even if they don't, it's not up to the non-admin editors to do the admins' job. It's not like leaving things there causes a particular problem.
Receptie: it's not that the admins haven't "made up their mind". It's more like we expect that the non-admin editors will not do the admins' job. It can take a while for us to notice that someone may be overstepping their bounds and say something, but that doesn't mean we're OK with it. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Also, please don't post that an action has been taken, either. Please leave that to the admins also. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

 (change conflict)  ::::::::Ok. From now on (9:00 UTC 10/07/2013) I will only report users and not do more to the WP:VIP page. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 09:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 (change conflict)  (change conflict)  (change conflict)  Most cases on VIP are straightforward vandalism. I wouldn't mind these being removed by a non-administrator. However, for other reports where an administrator has added {{VIP}}, I would rather that you not touch them for now because such reports require discretion from an administrator or veteran editor prior to removal. This remains my opinion - others may think otherwise. That said, I think I should emphasise that the wiki will not blow up just because VIP has been left unmaintained for merely a few hours. Chenzw  Talk  09:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I can't believe such a big deal is being made over such an insignificant matter. The entries on VIP will be removed anyway, and it makes absolutely no difference whose name shows up in the history (but if an entry is marked with {{VIP}} it should probably be left). If this is the type of thing editors are thinking about, it's no wonder our article quality is so low. -Mh7kJ (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

warning users II change

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

RE your warning to user 94, who blanked the Admin noticeboard: although in general warnings should go step by step from bottom to top, cases of clear vandalism should be handled proportionately. Thus, at the extreme, a really obscene and racist rant might warrant an immediate indef ban. Blanking one of our central pages is fairly serious. It was not any kind of a trial, and IMO was clear vandalism. I would think L2 or maybe even L3. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

I thought that as well only thought that it was the wrong thing to do. From now on I will do like you said. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 12:47, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Talkback change

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
 
Hello, Reception123. You have new messages at Aaqib's talk page.
Message added 17:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply

Aaqib 17:10, 10 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #66 change

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Wikt links change

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Reception. Tried to catch you on IRC, but it looks like you're offline. I noticed that you're getting in to maintenance work a bit, which is fantastic. I did it constantly for about a year, but I'm taking a bit of a break at the moment. One thing for broken Wiktionary links you might need to know is that the {{broken wikt link}} template is just to make a link appear red (in the hope that other editors see it and decide to create the entry). It's the same as any other red link on the wiki, so they're good to leave in place. Just mentioning it because I saw you make these edits, but the only need to remove the template is when the entries have been created. The templates were added several years ago so there will be quite a few of them that need removing. Osiris (talk) 06:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks for taking the time to tell me. As I said on my userpage I will be taking a small Wikibreak (that's why I wasn't on IRC). I will continue with maintenance taks next week. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 10:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Great! If you need any help with any of it just let me know.   Osiris (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I will! Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Lake Malawi change

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks for the new article about this lake. It appears to be based on the article on English Wikipedia. It is OK to do that, but you must give attribution. Please add an appropriate attribution template to the article's talk page to indicate the specific version of the enwiki article that was used. For some information on how to do that, see User:Auntof6/How to#Find the permanent link for a page on English Wikipedia. Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I will do that from now on. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 18:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

RE: Revert/Undo change

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thanks, but reverting vandalism without Twinkle isn't too difficult, and I don't stumble upon vandalism often. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I was just telling you that so you know. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #67 change

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Notificare de traducere: Wikimedia Highlights, June 2013 change

Hello Reception123,

You are receiving this notification because you signed up as a translator to română on Meta. The page Wikimedia Highlights, June 2013 is available for translation. You can translate it here:

Prioritatea acestei pagini este medie.


Please consider helping non-English-language Wikimedia communities to stay updated about the most important Wikimedia Foundation activities, MediaWiki development work and other international Wikimedia news from last month. Completed translations will be announced on Facebook, Twitter, project village pumps and (for some languages) mailing lists. If you have questions about the translation notifications system, ask them here. You can manage your subscription here.

Your help is greatly appreciated. Translators like you help Meta to function as a truly multilingual community.

Thank you!

Meta translation coordinators‎, 16:45, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Chalet Robinson change

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
 

The page you wrote, Chalet Robinson, has been selected for quick deletion. 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. You can find more information about the reason here. Auntof6 (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Reception. What makes Chalet Robinson notable enough for its own article? Please add some references and something about why it is notable. If it isn't notable, perhaps you can cover it briefly under Bois de la Cambre instead? Osiris (talk) 20:08, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok, sorry for creating this not very notable article. I will make a section in Bois de la Cambre. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Overdue award change

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
 
This editor is a Journeyman Editor and has the right to show this Wikipedia Little Red Book.

Here is your new book, and you are so close to getting your next one. Good work on the new Japanese pages, these are always a challenge, but we need to encourage the new editors rather than just deleting. Thanks for your efforts.--Peterdownunder (talk) 07:57, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for this award Peterdownuder! Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 14:09, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #68 change

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.

Rename confirm change

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I confirm that I am user Reception123 or Receptie123. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC) ....and that I would like a rename on the German Wikipedia. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 13:31, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata weekly summary #69 change

 
Here's your quick overview of what has been happening around Wikidata over the last week.
Read the full report · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 16:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The kind of thing we want you to stop doing change

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

This is another example of the kind of administrative task that you should not be concerning yourself with. The unsigned message was not left on your talk page, and the message did not concern you. I'm concerned that you keep doing more of this type of thing even after being told not to. I'm starting to think your edits might need to be monitored to watch for more of this kind of thing. What can we do to make you understand this? --Auntof6 (talk) 05:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, the best way would be to make a list of administrative tasks that I shouldn't do. I will try to stop. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Basically everything that doesn't involve writing on an article or otherwise improving content. Or asking for help on improving an article. Literally the only thing you should be doing is something that involves improving articles or categories or templates. Basically if it involves any sort of admin request page or a talk page where its not a discussion you are involved in then you should probably just let it be. -DJSasso (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok. Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
When you say "Ok", what do you mean exactly? This edit is another example of what you need to stop doing. Not only did that discussion not involve you, but you spoke on behalf of another user. You had been doing so well, please don't go back to what you had been doing. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I am very sorry if I have done something wrong. I thought that talk page stalking was something normal to do (not only for admins). Isn't it? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 14:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
This isn't related to whether you're an administrator. Talk page stalking doesn't mean commenting on user talk pages, it means watching them. Anyone can watch any page they want, including user talk pages. With this post, a user asked Chenzw why he deleted some pages, and you replied with your guess as to why. That is not helpful, because only Chenzw knows why s/he deleted the pages. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Oh, so talk page stalkers can only interfere when the user isn't asking the user but asking generally, right? Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Sorry to take so long to reply. If it's actually interfering (which means involving yourself in something that isn't your business), you probably shouldn't do it at all. If a question is asked on a user talk page, the person is asking that user, not asking generally. If you have something constructive to contribute, then it might be OK to jump in if it's something that needs input from outside parties. For example, if the discussion isn't taking into account something helpful or important that only you know. Consider, though, that if someone wanted input from other people, they could post at Simple Talk or somewhere else instead of on a user talk page. Most conversations on user talk pages aren't meant to be free-for-all discussions.
This is a case of needing to learn the "rules" (although this is really etiquette, not rules) before you can break them. Some of the things we've called you on aren't really that bad, but they're part of a pattern that is bad. Etiquette can be hard to learn. I've been trying to think of a way to help you. The only thing I've come up with is to have you ask an experienced editor if they think it would be OK before you jump into a conversation. I'm not sure either you or other editors here would want to do that, though, so please don't start doing it unless a specific, experienced editor has agreed to help you that way. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Ok, I get it. --Reception123/Receptie123 (talk) 07:55, 4 August 2013 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Reception123/Archive_3&oldid=4553479"
Return to the user page of "Reception123/Archive 3".