User talk:Allen2/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Allowing/prohibiting signature templates on Wikipedia

I don't think my signature page is going to be vandalized if I signed it with a signature template on talk pages, or maybe just four tildes is better. Signature templates are not vandalism targets, so maybe if it was the same going with the signature policy on Wikia allowing it on Wikipedia? Where, it goes against WP:SIG#NT?! --Allen ^talk 17:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Should it be allowed signature templates on Wikipedia that way, or it goes against WP:SIG#NT using only four tildes instead of signing with a template in? I think four tildes is good, or else someone were to vandalize my signature page! --Allen ^talk 22:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lucas Thoms and Redrose64: Am I right with this one: signatures must be signed with four tildes only according to the signature policy? --Allen ^talk 23:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, correct.

~~~~

is the only way to sign, and your signature can't be a transclusion (and it probably shouldn't be a substitution).—LucasThoms 00:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If I mentioned the signatures can be signed only using four tildes (instead of signing their transcluded signature template, but substituted actually), then the signature is good on talk pages! However transcluded signature templates are not vandalism targets that another user who trying to vandalize my signature page! --Allen ^talk 00:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if anyone's trying to vandalize it or not, you can't transclude your signature.—LucasThoms 00:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

All users' signatures are substituted only on talk pages, so no signatures template transclusions allowed. --Allen ^talk 00:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Via signing with four tildes on talk pages is good on Wikipedia, so their signature page is a secret place where they sign it with a substitution not a transclusion. :) --Allen ^talk 21:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Clear revision log

It's a problem that I want all my revision log from my talk page cleared or deleted permanently, because of some users who was attacking me! And also know that WP:OVERSIGHT or WP:REVDEL pages to get revision logs all infinitely removed from my talk page for serious vandalism and personal attacks!

--Allen ^talk 00:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lucas Thoms: Get an admin on Wikipedia as my request to get all my history log on my talk page infinitely/permanently removed, because I didn't need it stayed there or they know me my grammar was poor! --Allen ^talk 13:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Allen, I don't know what you think I can do that you can't. If you're offended by the mild personal attacks in your page history, don't look at your page history. Revdel (RD2, at least) and oversight are for things that are so blatantly offensive that leaving them on Wikipedia would be a terrible idea. RD2 specifically says it's not [for] "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations. Also, I removed the revdel template, because it says very clearly in multiple places that it's only for copyright violations.—LucasThoms 00:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

A good faith idea is clearing history logs, so I'm fine/okay with it! RD2, saying that I want to hold personal attacks off my talk page by me, or another user who has admin, reviewer and rollback rights on Wikipedia! --Allen ^talk 01:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or do things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. We're sorry if this message has discouraged you from editing this website, but the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia (please see WP:NOT for further details). Thank you. Dromioofephesus (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, and thanks for leaving a message on my talk page. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia website only. --Allen ^talk 00:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Request bot account: TwilightBot

I requested my new bot account on Wikipedia for TwilightBot and need to run that for administrator, bureaucrat and checkuser rights. As identified that my bot account on Wikipedia to make an encyclopedia better. On talk pages, it would be the same thing as BracketBot's.

--Allen ^talk 18:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I get an admin to approve my bot account, as it was used with BracketBot's job and also the available rights are admin, bureaucrat and checkuser rights as making the encyclopedia very clean and reverse vandalism. Also I called this is Twilight Sparkle's bot (character from MLP:FiM) and alicornic/celestial. --Allen ^talk 20:17, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

TwilightBot is not running on Wikipedia, so I cancelled/rejected it at this point unless I need to have that active on Wikipedia. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 01:55, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Occupied from Wikipedia

I'm doing something from Wikipedia right now, because I'm actively on YouTube, Google+, Twitter, Tumblr, DeviantART and SoundCloud that loves My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic and Littlest Pet Shop. Also I do contribute here for long sometimes, if checked for vandalism then I might be helping to stop them from vandalizing the page. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 00:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Userboxes

Why did you add {{User wikipedia/Rollback}} & {{User wikipedia/Reviewer}} to your user page when you have neither of these rights? Are you trying to mislead others? Kirin13 (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kirin13: Hi, I want to know that I have these rights but don't have it actually, because I want to help make the encyclopedia better by fighting vandalism and undo/revert vandal edits from articles. Also pending changes reviewer rights can review pages. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 02:45, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

	My Little Pony "True FRIEND" Barnstar
	Awarded to Officer Allen. Thank you humbly for all you do in advancing the cause of The Pony, Keep up the great work! — 47.55.204.240 (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, thank you! :) --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 03:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Signature

Allen, your signature is currently 354 characters long. Signatures are not allowed to be more than 255 characters. Please shorten it. Thanks in advance. —LucasThoms 03:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lucas Thoms: Hi, but my preferences I updated from this page to this one as substituted, so maybe I use a signature that way. So why my signature shouldn't exceed 255 characters long according to this policy? --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 03:40, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Right, your signature cannot exceed 255 characters. The SIGLEN guideline specifically says that if you subst a signature page, it is your responsibility to make sure it doesn't exceed 255 characters. —LucasThoms 03:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, fixed! --Allen ^talk 03:55, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It's almost fixed. It's down to 268 right now. —LucasThoms 04:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There, fixed! So I decreased it to 252. Unlike it was Jonny Manz's signature, he signed it that it contain 255 bytes. --Allen ^talk 04:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Friendly request.

Hello Allen, I'm wondering if I can convince you to please update your signature to not use deprecated code. I suggest replacing:

--<span style="font-family: agency fb">[[User:Allen2|<span style="color:#0000ff;">Allen</span>]]</span> <sup>([[User talk:Allen2|talk to me!]] / [[Special:Contributions/Allen2|ctrb]] / [[Special:EmailUser/Allen2|E-mail me]])</sup>

with:

--[[User:Allen2|<span style="font-family: agency fb; color: #00F;">Allen</span>]] <sup>([[User talk:Allen2|talk to me!]] / [[Special:Contribs/Allen2|ctrb]] / [[Special:EmailUser/Allen2|E-mail me]])</sup>

which will result in a 235 character long signature (19 characters shorter) with an appearance of: --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} compared to your existing 254 character long signature of: --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} — Either way. Happy editing! — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 15:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@Technical 13: Hi, my signature that I was using it is spans instead of using font codes. For a signature that you made for me is 235 characters which is a good way to sign it that I updated mines including this page, thank you for reminding me this one. :) --Allen ^talk 16:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Rollback / Reviewer

Hi Allen. You have the rollback and reviewer topicons on your userpage, but you do not have these user permissions on Wikipedia. Please remove them for now. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: Hi, and I seen it above on their user page that they got rollback rights (like k6ka does). So, I did remove it from my user page until I have rollback and reviewer rights on Wikipedia. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 18:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Topicons

First of all, of the articles you linked, only one is GA and one is FA - the rest aren't. You can't just randomly call articles GA/FA when they aren't. Second, you only list topicons when you were one of the primary editors to get the articles to GA/FA status - which you weren't since those articles had GA/FA before you ever edited them. Thus, you should have zero GA/FA user topicons. By putting them there, you are purposefully trying to mislead other editors. Kirin13 (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kirin13: Hi, I actually used GA and FA topicons of my primary edit on encyclopedia articles such as games and TV shows. Are you trying to stalk me online? --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 20:58, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

You made an edit to your userpage adding topicons for articles that aren't GA/FA. The two that are, you didn't contribute to them becoming GA/FA. If you want to make a list of your favorite articles, go ahead and do so. However, using the topicons, you are trying to mislead other users on your editing contributions. Accusing me of stalking, because your talk page is on my watchlist, is not going to make your lie a reality. Kirin13 (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mislead them, also that you followed my talk page in your watchlist was a good reality sequence. What I did contribute to Wikipedia was a good editor here to build an encyclopedia with working hard on featured articles (FA) and good articles (GA). --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 23:32, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your above comment did not make any sense because of the incorrect English. Putting those topicons is misleading other editors because most of those articles are not FA/GA. The two that are, aren't due to any of your contributions. By putting those topicons, your claiming that it's your work - and that's utterly false. Kirin13 (talk) 23:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe this one is a good article I work on, so I have this one better. Please, just stay nice, Kirin! --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 00:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You've edited your topicons down to three now. Of those, Littlest Pet Shop is not a GA article. You have zero edits on Pokémon. That last is My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic which was already in GA status before your first edit. Looking through your nine edits on the article, none of them were significant. People list topicons for articles that they worked on to get to GA/FA status - not articles that they made contributions to that already were GA/FA. Kirin13 (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

As I'm a brony of that show, My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic is GA and also Pokémon (edited in these before). However if Littlest Pet Shop have a GA topicon there, then I would re-add it back. Thank you and true friendly, --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 02:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You obviously don't get it. And btw, if you want to make an article GA don't just add the topicon like you did at Littlest Pet Shop, you actually have to go through the process at Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Kirin13 (talk) 04:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kirin13: Obviously, I agree with your comment since Littlest Pet Shop was an animated TV show or film by Hasbro Studios, and specifically it supposed to be a GA article as it's the original article of LPS. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 00:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Allen, I think you've misunderstood a number of things about good article icons on userpages and what a good article means. As Kirin13 said above, the userpage icons are reserved for editors who have created the article or made substantial contributions to help it become a GA. I've removed these icons from your userpage because although you have edited these articles, these contributions occurred well after the article became a good article. Please do not put them back there or comment them out. If editors want to see that the article is a good article, they can go the article itself. As for good article status, "good article" is not simply an opinion, it's a designation for an article after it has gone through the good article review process. These designations matter a lot, because they indicate a level of quality that is supposed to be meaningful to readers and editors alike, so please be careful with this in the future. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: Hi, but I didn't mislead them. Also you did remove them from my topicons page, but you should have to leave that there while I edited on some of them (such as TV shows, films and games). And I'm still affiliated with some companies in the future. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 02:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Our policy on living people Mental aberration by Dougweller (me)

Please see WP:BLP. In a nutshell, we can't call living people "gold bugs" without very good sources that meet our criteria at WP:RS. I've deleted them from the article, so please don't reinsert them. I realise that you probably are unaware of this policy but we are very strict about it. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Hi, but I'm a good editor on Wikipedia. So what we can't call living people "gold bugs" without very good sources and can't add them to article? --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 13:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: was the above comment intended for Iotablue? Kirin13 (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry allen, you don't deserve my idiocy here, especially as I meant to come here to thank you for your kind comments. Not a good way to thank you!. Thanks, User:Kirin13 you're right, it was meant for an entirely different editor, Iotablue, almost certainly a sockpuppet. Many apologies. I had two tabs open and was in a rush to get the dogs in the car and that's not a good time for serious editing. Many apologies again. Dougweller (talk) 15:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller and Kirin13: Thank you for your response, as you mentioned above that Iotablue was a rush user. I'm a brony true friend on Wikipedia. :) --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 20:32, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the days of little ponies all over the house. Long gone now I'm afraid. Dougweller (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

As a true friend, I love that show a lot and around with ponies. Also, your message on my talk page is a false answer response, so another admin just blocked that sock-puppet user now. Thanks, brony! :) --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 21:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism readiness information safe level

As DefconBot updates the vandalism readiness information level on Wikipedia every 30 minutes, I need to keep it at level 5 but not high as levels 4, 3, 2 and 1 (keep it at blue alert will be fine). --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 02:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Allen, while you're fighting vandalism, make sure not to break WP:3RR. The rule basically says that you are only allowed 3 reverts per article per 24 hour period. You currently have 3 reverts on Sony Xperia Z3 - that means you're not allowed to make any more reverts on this article until approximately 03:00 10 October 2014‎ UTC. If you make a fourth revert, then per WP:3RR, you will be blocked. Allen, this is not to say you've done anything wrong, I'm just making sure you are aware of this very important rule. Kirin13 (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kirin13: I hate to be blocked on Wikipedia, but I'm aware of WP:3RR means you sure that I don't violate the 3rd-revert rule! Please try to help me build an encyclopedia, then I'm fine of editing here! --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 04:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Important rule

Below comment moved by Kirin13 from Wikipedia talk:Edit warring at 05:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC).

@Kirin13 and Lucas Thoms: Why I should don't break or violate this policy (a 3rd-revert rule) means I don't revert over three times in a same or single article? You should help me why this is important to me and other users?

Consider an admin/bureaucrat help me not to violate this policy, which means I revert vandalism with twinkle I don't do it in three times until 24 hours has passed. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 05:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Allen2: First of all, this question doesn't belong on Wikipedia talk:Edit warring. Either you could have asked it on your talk page or at the WP:Teahouse. Wikipedia talk:Edit warring is to discuss edits to Wikipedia:Edit warring, not questions about it. Second, the WP:3RR rule is important to everyone, so don't break it. When users see others make three reverts on same page, it's not unusual to post {{Uw-3rr}} on their user page to warn them not to make a fourth revert. I decided to post an lighter worded explanation. Kirin13 (talk) 05:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kirin13: So, do I have to be careful not to violate the 3rd-revert rule policy means that I don't make a fourth revert on the same article page? I said before for your reply: I hate to be blocked on Wikipedia! An admin/bureaucrat tells me not to break that policy at all. Try to help me on Wikipedia not to get involved what I made. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 05:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Everyone, including you, has to be careful of not breaking 3RR. As long as you don't make a fourth revert on same article, you'll be fine. Kirin13 (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Kirin. Just reminder that all users on Wikipedia are aware of 3RR policy, I wish to edit and build an encyclopedia. And remember I don't get involved on Wikipedia, I'm still a wiki expert. :) --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 05:54, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Contact

Please refrain from contacting me, here or anywhere else - as you've been told before, doing so will be considered harassment. I also don't appreciate you looking for my profiles and going through my personal pages. Thanks, TheUltimateH4M ^Talk 10:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

@TheUltimateH4M: Oh, hi H4M! I finally found you on Wikipedia, also I'm looking at them that even your contributions was semi-active. So I contacting them here on Wikipedia since they're from Wikia or anywhere else isn't considered a harassment if I use kind words, and refrain to contact you once more. Specifically, this site isn't Wikia, it's Wikipedia (the encyclopedia). And, I don't get involved by another user who is from Wikia. Thanks and best regards, --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 13:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Soundtrack list of 2012 film

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on Soundtrack list of 2012 film requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:32, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@RHaworth: Hi, that article is a subpage that Doniago just removed the list from the main film article seen here. So I added it back to the page where it was gone. Thanks and best regards, --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 20:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware the article name provided is neither in a standard format nor grammatically correct, and I question whey the soundtrack merits its own article at this stage, especially as most of the tracks aren't likely to be notable. But whatever... DonIago (talk) 21:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

@Doniago: As I mentioned you in a comment about why you did remove the soundtrack list from the film articles, means I look in the difference at the history about why you remove it? So I have to make a subpage on that article that is a soundtrack list. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 21:58, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all, you don't have to do anything. If you're referring to my removing the album art and the track listing from the film article, as I noted in the edit summary I left at the time, I did so because the appropriate Manual of Style recommended not including them under the circumstances. DonIago (talk) 22:07, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see the difference above the article history in the film articles, means I see that you removed them from there so I might have to copy the source that you removed it and go into a new film subpage for albums and soundtracks list. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 22:12, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm having difficulty understanding what you're saying, but if you intend to continue creating a page for the soundtrack for the film, knock yourself out. That said, I can't really see how this particular soundtrack merits its own article. Good luck. DonIago (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I've nominated the article for deletion. Aside from reproducing information available at the film article and including a track listing of insigificant track titles, I don't see how there's any notable content here. Your best option would be to provide third-party sourcing to establish the significance of the album per WP:NALBUMS. Best of luck if you wish to pursue this. DonIago (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Doniago: I used to associate the film soundtracks subpages on Wikipedia instead if replacing it into the main article by a subpage link, however the subpage template on articles was not installed yet by MediaWiki software. Track titles exist of main film articles, just to remember that! --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 20:56, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonfree images

Allen, you've been on Wikipedia more than long enough to know that you can't use non-free images on pages other than the articles they're destined for. I've removed the non-free logos from User:AllenHAcNguyen/Userboxes/Hasbro1 and User:AllenHAcNguyen/Userboxes/Hasbro2. This is the second or third time I've had to remind you of this. Don't let it happen again. Wikipedia takes copyright (and everything related to it) very seriously. —LucasThoms 00:33, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Lucas Thoms: Why they're non-free? So, do I have to borrow images from articles or use them in file links only in my user namespace? You reminding me this as images from articles are non-free and probably restricted to user namespace on Wikipedia? --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 01:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

They are non-free because they are copyrighted. If you go to an image's description page, e.g. File:Hasbro_Studios.png you will see the copyright notice. Go to Wikipedia:Non-free content to read Wikipedia's policy for use of non-free images. As far as user namespace - you are not allowed to have any non-free images - you can have a link to an image but not the image itself. Kirin13 (talk) 04:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kirin13: Thank you for your response, as a restriction to WP:NFC on Wikipedia: images are non-free and doesn't belong in user namespace. Lucas did reminded me I don't use images in my user namespace because they're copyrighted, so I only contain/include an image link there. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 04:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Request bot account: AlicornBot

Hi, I'm Allen requesting my bot account on Wikipedia presenting AlicornBot at this point. The bot can run the alicorn process across Wikipedia that reverts vandalism and also disruptive edits. To mention that alicorns are winged unicorns, they also have a rollback tool too. For that case, this will work on the process to make the encyclopedia very clean against vandalism from users or anonymous users. This was identified as a request to leave a message on their talk page who vandalize the article may warn them. Thanks and best regards, --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 06:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Alright, it's right here pending on my request to approve this bot account by an admins' or bureaucrats' job. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 22:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Anomie denied my bot request, but this bot account is used for revert possible vandalism on Wikipedia which is a good thing to run it here however why that can't have admin and bureaucrat access right now? --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 23:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of 2012 (film soundtrack) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2012 (film soundtrack) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 (film soundtrack) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. DonIago (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

@Doniago: The film soundtrack article should not be deleted because of an album list supposed to exist on that main article. To remember that, I still see it in the history that why you did removed a film soundtrack there. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 21:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Please discuss your concerns at the linked discussion. DonIago (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I see, but I'm talking about it why you removed the film soundtrack list from the main article. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 20:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

As I said at the linked discussion, the track listing was not in compliance with the Manual of Style for film articles. DonIago (talk) 13:12, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The film articles that includes soundtrack listing was a Manual of Style, it supposed to be included there. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 23:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Paranoid

I feel like I'm paranoid here on Wikipedia, means I maybe go on to something else except for editing here. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 00:44, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Allen2/Archive 3. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Chamith (talk) 02:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Talk-backing to it at the Teahouse Q&A board. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 09:37, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hosting (again)

@Allen2: Hi Allen, I saw your question about hosting at the Teahouse. Looking over your recent activity again, I've noticed a number of things that give me concern with regard to your desire to host at the Teahouse:

• This request for approval for a bot which demonstrates you didn't understand what was needed. Instead of providing source code, you wrote, In Canterlot where they found intruders on this site, detected automatically by alarm intruder detectors. While this might have been the inspiration for your idea (maybe you misunderstood what was meant by "source"), it's not what was needed.
• You have a tendency to state what is pretty apparent to other editors, like that this is Wikipedia, not Wikia ([1]), and your response to concerns about following 3RR is to remind everyone about 3RR.
• You continue to use this talk page to make what are essentially status updates.
• Your communication is marginally understandable, but as it's been continually pointed out to you, it is still sometimes hard for people to comprehend you. You have consistently said that English is your native language. While that may be the case, you must accept many editors have had difficulty understanding you, and this presents obvious problems with regard to answering questions from new editors.
• Your creation of Template:Spoilertop and Template:Spoilerbottom redirects misunderstands the purpose of collapsing information. We do not try to hide spoilers on Wikipedia.
• Telling other editors what they can and cannot edit like you did here is inappropriate, regardless of your personal conflict with the editor.

I do not believe that you fulfill the pretty loose criteria at the Teahouse that hosts should be generally knowledgeable about Wikipedia and be able to express themselves clearly. Hosts don't need to be perfect, but the above points informs me hosting would not be a good fit for you. Therefore, I don't think it's appropriate for you to host at this time. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jethro, I'm a teahouse guest (but not a host right now) where I know to experience about Wikipedia a lot. I don't get involved on Wikipedia. My English is my first and native language, and know it's understandable that don't misunderstand them. On my talk page, I don't use status updates here but only used it at Twitter or any IP. Board forum sites. To realize that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but Wikia may have less strict policies on Wikipedia but this isn't Wikia. You know me a brony on Wikipedia that is a perfect contributor here, but also don't try to look over on my contributions what I've done here. :) Thanks and best regards, --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 23:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with User:I JethroBT. Hosting at the Teahouse is out of the question as long as you don't evince proper knowledge of Wikipedia's rules and policies (perhaps even its purpose), and as long as we are seeing the kind of linguistic difficulties I see in your response to their message. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Thank you for your response. I'm on Wikipedia that is a good contributor of building an encyclopedia plus reverting possible vandalism. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 01:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, my concern is with your English (your response is grammatically incorrect) coupled with a lot of inappropriate article talk page edits: I just removed a bunch of them, from Talk:Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare and Talk:Rio 2. In addition, I see this ongoing stuff about whether One World Trade Center and whether it's finished or not and whether the infobox should be update; I suggest you leave that decision to the more experienced editors, like you were asked to do at Template talk:Nosubst. I appreciate your youthful zeal, but cleaning up after your editing zeal has caused a number of editors a lot of work; COMPETENCE is necessary. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I just happened to look at your user page. I think you should remove the first sentence: it's really creepy. Drmies (talk) 01:51, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is that first sentence on my user page look creepy? Not really creepy, but used it that I was affiliated with other companies and being associated with TV shows and films. Thanks and cheers, --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 01:59, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Look, you claim to be a native speaker of English and a professional translator, but you don't see how "If you see me as Allen on Wikipedia, then I find out where you edit somewhere" is creepy? You are going to find out where I edit somewhere? You're not helping your case. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies:, That's my quote, you mean. Not even creepy. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 03:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

You clearly don't understand what you yourself wrote. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

What are you talking about? That's more to come later! --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 03:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Allen has twice posted his age indicating that he's still several years away from being an adult. Yet he claims to be affiliated with Hasbro, Disney, American Airlines, and United Airlines. Furthermore, he claims he speaks native or near-native in six languages and has some abilities in nine other languages. Given this info, one would think he is a child prodigy. However, considering his writing and reading comprehension abilities, I don't believe his claims. Another words, if you're going to lie, lie believable. Kirin13 (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kirin13:, Are you kidding me? Exactly what I'm still affiliated with Hasbro and other companies of my current business, I'm a teenager who passed the beginner, middle, and advanced editing on wiki sites since I was passed about 13 birthdays. I don't think I'm a child prodigy right now, passed that already. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 03:55, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding roleplaying on Wikipedia

I'm asking admins/bureaucrats about this: can we allow any roleplaying on Wikipedia or we don't allow that here? --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 04:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(Comment from uninvolved editor) Perhaps you could clarify on what you mean by "roleplaying"? What, like permissions? I don't think any sysops (admins) or bureaucrats will likely be able to make much more of this than I can (although they may prove me wrong). Dustin (talk) 05:05, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Dustin V. S.: I was talking to admins or bureaucrats about roleplaying on this site, does roleplaying is allowed or restricted on Wikipedia? Not just you answering this one, Dustin. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 05:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Admin here. Dustin is correct in asking you to clarify what you mean. If you are as good at English as you claim, you will have no trouble explaining more specifically what you are talking about. But make no mistake: wikipedia is not for playing games, or causing editors to spend time doing things other than writing an encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 08:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@DMacks: Does roleplaying allowed or strictly disallowed on this site? But furthermore, that is a restriction to our policies on Wikipedia. --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 09:07, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing Wikipedia with a forum – constantly posting chat messages to other users, making a friends list, wanting images in your signature, focusing on prettifying your user page, posting random personal notes on article talk pages, and now wanting to role play. None of this belongs on Wikipedia. If that's what you're interested in, go find an actual forum, because you're just wasting time here. Kirin13 (talk) 09:52, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Roleplaying is not allowed. Wikipedia is not a chatsite or social-networking. Now is the time to demonstrate that you are here to write an encyclopedia with us, or to stop wasting our time. Consider this your final warning, Allen. DMacks (talk) 09:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Editors have been blocked for this before. Dougweller (talk) 12:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@Kirin13, DMacks, and Dougweller: Thank you for your response, also Wikipedia is a site that to build or write an encyclopedia. Consider roleplaying zone on Wikipedia is strictly disallowed. Kirin, don't hesitate to get involved in my talk page but I don't get involved and confuse on this site. But to mention that for admins, I'm still here whether I include those reliable sources or cite them on articles and revert possible vandalism across this site. Thanks, --Allen ^{(talk to me! / ctrb / E-mail me)} 16:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)