User talk:Kavri/User talk posting to others

I will eventually have a content table of some sort, and a better way of listing the posts. For now, I just wanted somewhere where I could quickly refer to posts I made on another person's talk page. Kavri (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Entry: posted on User talk:Scjessey on 04:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

teapot tempest - I didn't assume good faith, apologies, and a request

Scjessey,

I didn't assume good faith. I had very little time to react, and felt that I was being ignored, however you are perfectly correct in the fact that any number of editors/admins would have just deleted without even fixing.

I was suprised that although you kept no record of our transaction here on your talk pages, and did not make any response here, or my talk page regarding the situation, that you did on JForget's talk page.

I had posted to JForget, in order to obtain some feedback. I make it clear in that post, that I am uncertain of what transpired, that I was to a degree venting, and that I was needing feedback as I was unsure of how much of my own reaction was out of line.

I'm not sure if he directed you to my post, or if you had some alert of some kind that would let you know I posted there. Either way, I responded to you there, as that is where you posted. I have, however, posted there, that I'll direct all continued dialogue, if there is any, to my talk page.

If you have any reply or comments, I would appreciate if you would post them to my user talk page, as I already regret having posted to JForget, let alone having a continued dialogue on his talk page.

Again, apologies that things didn't get off on a better footing. Perhaps I underestimated my readiness for the day to day culture of Wikipediaverse. I do thank you, again, that you didn't just delete my pages and leave, but took the time to fix them. Take care. Kavri (talk) 04:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Entry: Posted on User talk:JForget from 00:47 to 04:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

a question regarding ettiquette - I was going to ask for your help before someone else swooped in

Hi. I've been back doing Wikipedia stuff for one day, and already I'm grimacing at the 'same old, same old' that seems to pop up here. I have a favour to ask, a question really. If someone puts up a speedy delete (which is valid), and the user, according to its directions, does a 'hang-on' and gives reason (which was valid), then is it 'business as usual' for the person that put in the delete, to go ahead with fixing the problems without asking the user, and then proceeding with the delete?

I'm putting the question to you, because I had a muddled time trying to archive my user talk page, and accidentally created an article page. Now, I have put off archiving for ages, because I couldn't quite make sense of the Wikipedia pages about archiving/moving/sub pages/cut paste vs move/etc ad nauseum. So, tonight I thought what the hell, I'll forge ahead anyway. I used you as a template of sorts, because you had reverted my two little news items when they were taken out, and once I saw you were also in Ottawa, and do a lot of stuff (a LOT of stuff), and in areas that I'm interested in, I figued I'd ask YOU for help fixing things up. To this end, I went to the page that comes up for the 'discussion' tab, even though it was to an article page, and I wrote in what I was trying to do, and what pages I had made (and links for them) that I needed to delete. Amazingly enough I did that part quite succinctly. I was double checking to make sure there were no other pages I created that needed deletion, when I got a notice that the very page I was writing the instructions/links on, was up for speedy delete.

Well, you know the rest from the question in the first part of this diatribe. I was annoyed that he just went ahead without any kind of conversation with me, especially as I had done a 'hang-on' with reasons stated. I had read the archiving page, and his suggestion to use the sandbox was ridiculous, as I was making a new page to archive (unless that can be done in a sandbox, but I'd have no idea how to do it there). Wikipedia is far from user friendly until you've wrestled about with it for awhile, and his taking over didn't help me understand at all where I went wrong, or how to do it correctly in the future. Furthermore, when I went to see if he responded to anything I had written on his talk page, where I said I appreciated the help but would have appreciated it more if he had asked first... he had deleted all reference to what I had written, and had made no comment on my talk page.

Okay, I'm reasonably sure you are reading this and thinking "of course he deleted it, she writes in novel form"...which I understand. In fact, I won't be offended at all if you delete all of this and put in <brief conversation regarding admin ettiquette>. I realize this has now gone from 'question' to a venting of sorts, but, I feel as though I barely dipped my fingers back into Wikipediaverse and was somewhat immediately (if inadverdently) scalded. I do realize that any form of thin-skinnedness is untenable here, but, I guess I had lost sight of whether i was getting my panties slightly twisted for no good reason, or, if when one responds to a speedy delete with a hang-on, that they should at least have a chance to rectify the mistake. As I pointed out to him, this wasn't a page that would be seen, it merely existed when it shouldn't have...it wasn't affecting articles, etc.

So. Feel free to respond back on my new nifty newly minted User talk page, that I had no hand in fixing up myself, as I wasn't given the time. And do feel free to delete all of this except the initial question, if you so desire. Kavri (talk) 00:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a mischaracterization of events, and fails to assume any sort of good faith. Kavri, in attempting to archive a user talk page, managed to create two article pages instead. I noticed one of them in the course of patrolling Special:RecentChanges and put up a CSD notice. This was immediately (and inappropriately) removed. Kavri then compounded the problem by adding messages (including a misuse of a "hangon" template) to the newly-created "article" and its talk page. I pointed the user to WP:ARCHIVE. Discussion was difficult because the user had redirected their talk page to the new "article". With the user in question continuing to misunderstand how the namespaces work, I quickly moved the "article" to an appropriate user archive space and tagged all the problem pages with the appropriate CSD notices. In short, I did the user a favor and cleaned up a pretty awful mess. Had I not "swooped in" to fix things, another editor may have simply deleted the content without rendering any assistance. I came across the above message when I checked back later to see if everything was happily resolved, and so Kavri's comments above have left me feeling more than a little miffed. I have no idea what the reference to a sandbox is all about - I made no reference to one. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the events I outlined are not mischaracterized, though I agree, I didn't assume good faith. The changes took place in approximately ten minutes, all the while I was trying to keep my page from being deleted (before I knew he was going to fix it, instead of just deleting), while at the same time trying to post on his talk page. He is perfectly correct in that I was lucky he rescued me, before someone else came along and just deleted me. I tried to use the 'hang-on' appropriately, but as the delete message came up, and it was only minutes before things started changing, I wasn't trying to do anything more than fix things before they were deleted. It was obvious that I had made a mistake, by my own admission, and was fixing it on my own to at least have it in a state where I could ask for assistance, and be able to find out what I did wrong. I apologize, that I've brought this little teapot tempest to your door JForget. I had originally planned on asking you to help, and then with everything that happened, I was looking for some feedback as I wasn't sure what was appropriate for the situation, and obviously knew it might be just my lack of how things work, or that I was being thin-skinned. Whether or not it was even appropriate to ask you for that feedback is a completely seperate issue. Regardless, either you pointed Scjessey to my remarks in the hopes that he would discuss the matter with me (which, if it was the case, I would have presumed he would have done it on my talk page), or, some kind of gizmo/notice alerted him to where I posted (Wikipedia's labyrinth of instructions/gizmos/ettiquette/logs etc. never ceases to amaze me) when I posted here.

I have no intention of dragging you into this now, though, that is a bit like trying to put a cat back in a sack. If you are thinking of replying to me, don't. Since it is now not a matter of feedback from one person, but, both parties airing on your talk page, no good will come of it. I'll not continue anything further on your talk page. I did post this here, as Scjessey posted here, and I responded to him here. I'll leave a brief note for him on his talk page to inform him I posted here, and direct him to my talk page for any further dialogue if he feels the need. Apologies for my lack of forethought in posting here in the first place. Take care. Kavri (talk) 04:26, 13 July 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kavri (talk • contribs)