User:TeleComNasSprVen/The Piggy Bank/8¢
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:TeleComNasSprVen. 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 main page. |
| 7¢ | 8¢ | 9¢ |
December 2010
Talk page comments
Hi. This is just a reminder for you not to remove other people's talk page posts like you did on User talk:Justice America. This is against Wikipedia rules. Perhaps you thought your message was better, but you should not have removed mine. Sincerely, --Diannaa (Talk) 02:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
- Oh, I did not mean to do that. I just did not realize that you had already posted. Perhaps that was an edit conflict? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if you realise that the same edit also changed the referenced page from U2 to Ralph Nader? Wikipedia, unsafe at any speed? Kiore (talk) 02:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
u r not dumb, but u made a dumb edit, and, as we all know, bad edits are dumb
you try to delete evidence that i was the arbcom guy of 2008 :-(--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 18:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry that I imposed my inappropriate retardation on you. I will try to refrain from doing so in the future. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
- that is ok i am sorry i call u dumb and things like this.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi; I've declined the db-nouser tagging with an explanation in my edit summary. [1] You can find what pages a page links to by going to the toolbox and clicking "what links here". If I'm unclear, please tell me. Thanks, and happy editing. Airplaneman ✈ 05:31, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for telling me. I wouldn't have seen it coming. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- It happened again at User talk:Freedompress. Please be careful and always check "what links here" before tagging. My rationale can be found in the edit summary. As always, just ask if you have questions. Happy new year, Airplaneman ✈ 22:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, I did check that one, and I had originally that the tangential references to a bot's COI report on two noticeboards were unimportant. But the user was speedily renamed and the username most likely forgotten, so I guess since its your call, the point is moot. And thanks for the New Year's greetings, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
- It happened again at User talk:Freedompress. Please be careful and always check "what links here" before tagging. My rationale can be found in the edit summary. As always, just ask if you have questions. Happy new year, Airplaneman ✈ 22:37, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Put it back
Do not remove comments, please. Please put the comments that you took out back.
You are just a kid in school. Don't mess with classified information. If you do, you could find your future life ruined. See how fun are the lives of Assange and that Army guy who got the info. They will never have a happy life but rather a life in jail. This is not a threat but a fact of life. Similarly, do not use cocaine because your life can also quickly get out of control. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warning warning 2 (talk • contribs) 08:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. It's fine to have such information when the goal of the encyclopedia would be to include it in an encyclopedic manner, just as we have articles relating to Cocaine. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:54, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
The Bored
I am polite and helpful to newbies. I am not when one of a bunch of school or college kids creating what I consider a hoax deletes my post an hour and 18 minutes after I have made it. That's not edit conflict. The SPAs concerned with this AfD are trying to protect their article to prove they can get away with it. If it was an accident, and I can't see how, the SPA has only to say so. It's happened before - i've restored posts for others like Metropolitan90 did for me. My last post was aimed at stemming the influx of SPAs, and preventing any more messing around with the discussion. When you're in AfD a lot, as I am these days (Mean as Custard having taken over the spam warrior position from me...), you see all sorts. Peridon (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've added multiple references here, which might address the concerns you expressed at this AfD. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 04:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
RFA Page
I do not want the RFA on the page because it wouldn't really serve any purpose.
--Thebirdlover (talk) 13:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Your Abuse Response Filing
Greetings! Thank you for filing an Abuse Report for abusive behavior originating from 178.94.2.251. Unfortunately, there was a problem with your filing and it has been rejected. Please see Wikipedia:Abuse response/178.94.2.251 for details on why the filing was rejected. You may also review filing criteria for abuse reports filings. -- DQ (t) (e) 20:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Ughhh
I'm leaving your MDB request on hold, as I'm still removing the numbering, duplicates, prefixes and /Signpost suffixes or derivatives thereof. Please read the instructions carefully next time as this is incredibly annoying. —Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 5:43pm • 06:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Signpost Subscription List
You have not gotten consensus to mass unsubscribe the large number of users who have requested they receive the signpost. Until you do that, you should not blank the list, and you should not send mass notices to subscribers. I've stopped the message bot and restored the subscription list. Prodego talk 06:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- And the bot is definitely sending your 'inactive' message to active users, ex. Brad101 and Catalan. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 10:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Don't mean to sound too critical, but if the message does go out again, it needs to be better worded and formatted - I'm pretty good in the English comprehension stakes, but I was scratching my head over what it meant. For example, we shouldn't have to edit the text to see the format of the "#[[User talk:MessageDeliveryBot|MessageDeliveryBot]]" examples - if you wish to present source examples, you should really <nowiki> them, or similar, so they are displayed and not parsed. And it really wasn't made clear that those are example formats and that one should substitute one's own user name (I know that would be obvious to many, but non-techie newbies could easily end up adding MessageDeliveryBot to the list lots of times). I also wouldn't use the word "signing", as it's not the same thing as adding the usual varying number of tildes. Finally, the phrase "send a reconfirmation edit" is poor English. Anyway, sorry if this sounds picky, but messages that go out to hundreds or even thousands of people need to be carefully considered, should be in very clear English, very clearly formatted, and should give instructions very clearly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have a degree in English and I've been trying to figure out what the bot message on my talk page was asking me to do. I understand the idea behind what you're trying to accomplish here. A lot of blocked, abandoned and inactive users have talkpages littered with signposts. But when I went to the signpost list to resubscribe, I saw my name already there and was totally confused. Now that I've come here I see what happened, but from the looks of the subscription list, some other folks are still confused and are now subscribing themselves twice. I support what you're trying to do but not necessarily in this manner and certainly not without consensus. The great thing about consensus building is that others may have better ideas for how to proceed or ways to improve your idea. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Thoroughly confusing... --Another Believer(Talk) 17:54, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- I was an active user who got that bot. Fortunately, the message was so unreadable that (a) I didn't know what to do, and (b) it screamed spam to me. Bellagio99 (talk) 02:17, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have a degree in English and I've been trying to figure out what the bot message on my talk page was asking me to do. I understand the idea behind what you're trying to accomplish here. A lot of blocked, abandoned and inactive users have talkpages littered with signposts. But when I went to the signpost list to resubscribe, I saw my name already there and was totally confused. Now that I've come here I see what happened, but from the looks of the subscription list, some other folks are still confused and are now subscribing themselves twice. I support what you're trying to do but not necessarily in this manner and certainly not without consensus. The great thing about consensus building is that others may have better ideas for how to proceed or ways to improve your idea. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 13:23, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
- Don't mean to sound too critical, but if the message does go out again, it needs to be better worded and formatted - I'm pretty good in the English comprehension stakes, but I was scratching my head over what it meant. For example, we shouldn't have to edit the text to see the format of the "#[[User talk:MessageDeliveryBot|MessageDeliveryBot]]" examples - if you wish to present source examples, you should really <nowiki> them, or similar, so they are displayed and not parsed. And it really wasn't made clear that those are example formats and that one should substitute one's own user name (I know that would be obvious to many, but non-techie newbies could easily end up adding MessageDeliveryBot to the list lots of times). I also wouldn't use the word "signing", as it's not the same thing as adding the usual varying number of tildes. Finally, the phrase "send a reconfirmation edit" is poor English. Anyway, sorry if this sounds picky, but messages that go out to hundreds or even thousands of people need to be carefully considered, should be in very clear English, very clearly formatted, and should give instructions very clearly. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Declined PROD: Glecia Bear
I've added a few sources to the article toward establishing notability. You are welcome to send the article to Articles for Deletion if you still contest notability. Cheers! --j⚛e deckertalk 17:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/"A" Is for Alibi
You are aware that it's articles for DELETION, not articles for MERGING, right? Then care to explain why you've made a MERGER proposal at articles for DELETION? Are those words synonyms in your world? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 23:43, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- (Lurker comment). Leave off the sarcasm please. If you think an editor is using an XfD forum incorrectly and you wish to comment, WP:CIVIL places restrictions on the way you are allowed do it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- (Also lurking) I think Hammy may be a little too course in his language, but I agree with his sentiments. The inappropriate XfDs have become disruptive, and need to stop immediately Purplebackpack89 21:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)`
- I stand by my comments. You have created far too many inappropriate AFDs. And the template you cite is a reference to how AFDs should be carried out; a person can still be criticized for creating multiple inappropriate AFDs, as it is clear from your TP archives you have. As for the policies you cite, you again wave them around without truly understanding them Purplebackpack89 06:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- What part of "commenting on people... is considered disruptive" do you not understand? It is completely clear and straightforward. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- What part of "stop making bad XfDs, as a bunch of different editors have told you dozens of times?" don't you understand? As I said before, that notices is for XfD discussions, not TP comments Purplebackpack89 06:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Really now? What is this then? That's an XfD discussion. And now you're trying to circumvent it by applying WP:NPA only to XfD discussions. WP:NPA is a policy, meaning it should be applied everywhere, not just XfD. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- OK, so what you're essentially saying is me agreeing with multiple people, including mops, who have said that your XfDs are ill-conceived and disruptive, amounts to an attack on you. There's a solution for that. It's not bashing me over the head with some policy, it's for you to stop making bad XfDs Purplebackpack89 06:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Really now? What is this then? That's an XfD discussion. And now you're trying to circumvent it by applying WP:NPA only to XfD discussions. WP:NPA is a policy, meaning it should be applied everywhere, not just XfD. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- What part of "stop making bad XfDs, as a bunch of different editors have told you dozens of times?" don't you understand? As I said before, that notices is for XfD discussions, not TP comments Purplebackpack89 06:28, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- What part of "commenting on people... is considered disruptive" do you not understand? It is completely clear and straightforward. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- I stand by my comments. You have created far too many inappropriate AFDs. And the template you cite is a reference to how AFDs should be carried out; a person can still be criticized for creating multiple inappropriate AFDs, as it is clear from your TP archives you have. As for the policies you cite, you again wave them around without truly understanding them Purplebackpack89 06:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)`
- (Also lurking) I think Hammy may be a little too course in his language, but I agree with his sentiments. The inappropriate XfDs have become disruptive, and need to stop immediately Purplebackpack89 21:06, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Inappropriate removal of talk page comments
This edit and this edit are highly inappropriate. You are not allowed to remove other peoples’ TP comments on a page other than your own, no matter how inappropriate they may seem to you. If you had a problem with the way Fr33kman dealt with the issue, you should have brought it up on his talk page or created an AN thread, not deleted his TP comments. I seem to recall this isn’t the first time you’ve removed other peoples’ TP comments on a page other than your own. Please stop, or I may have to refer you to AN Purplebackpack89 21:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Well, you edit-warred on this, so see below... Purplebackpack89 06:26, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
December 2010
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:SleehWnOnehoC. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.