User talk:Speling12345

Welcome!

Hello, Speling12345, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! SamanthaPuckettIndo (talk) 07:25, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speling12345, you are invited on a Wikipedia Adventure!

The

Adventure

Hi Speling12345!! You're invited to play The Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive game to become a great contributor to Wikipedia. It's a fun interstellar journey--learn how to edit Wikipedia in about an hour. We hope to see you there!

Play The Wikipedia Adventure

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 17:41, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am! Speling12345 (talk) 9:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussions about the articles

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Clock are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic or unrelated topics. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic or unrelated topics? Thank you, for posting a note on my page! As a Wikipedia contributor, I am glad to talk to a fellow contributor. Speling12345 (talk) 10:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed a number of your recent edits —about half of them, I estimate— to articles that were just comments about about the subjects. Note that we can only user article talk pages for concrete suggestions about improving the articles. We cannot use them for discussions about the subjects. Also, if you post such a comment on a talk page, be prepared to follow up on comments by the other contributors. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Because user DVdm reverted the talk pages before speaking to me about the pages, I cannot take his actions in good faith. I am undoing his edits. If DVdm contacts me again, or reverts the talk pages again, I will contact a Wiki administrator for advice relating what to do. Speling12345 (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted some of your talk page messages because i.m.o. they were not about improving the articles, but rather comments about the subjects of the articles. That is against our talk page guidelines—see wp:TPG. - DVdm (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As an example, this edit says that you are "surprised that D is a letter in the classic Latin alphabet". That comment does not suggest in any way how to improve the article. It says something about you. It is therefore 100% off-topic in article talk space. Do you understand that?

As an exercise, using what you have read in wp:TPG, can you explain why this is another example of an entirely off-topic talk page comment? - DVdm (talk) 09:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise with this edit. If you have any ideas on how to actually improve Switzerland, I would love to hear them! Otherwise, tangentially relevant observations are best left to private discussion. Uberstadt (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop using talk pages such as Talk:Switzerland for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article; not for use as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 07:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I have removed a little handful of similar talk page edits. Some of your talk page chat edits were removed by myself and by users Uberstadt (talk · contribs) and Rothorpe (talk · contribs) now. This time, please do not go about undoing the reverts, and take some time to read the wp:talk page guidelines and perhaps to answer the questions that we asked you here. - DVdm (talk) 08:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:TPO it is permissible to remove talk page comments about the article's subject rather than the article. I myself have removed whole sections of such discussion in the past. However in that case the discussion was old, and I don't think any of the contributors minded. While you can similarly target a particular user's comments for a tendency to do this, it would probably be better to do after approaching the user about it first. Doing it unilaterally looks like harassment. Daniel Case (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Daniel, point taken. However, harassment is the last thing on my mind. Helping out was more the idea. The user seems to work in good faith, but is not very responsive, and apparently not interested in getting the kind of help I am offering. Anyway, his chosen field of subjects is hardly overlapping mine, so I will leave it at this. Thanks for your reply. - DVdm (talk) 22:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TPO. It is permissible, or good. Bad to revert aggressively or uncarefully, for zero reasons. A point of agreement. The reverts were unilateral, as noted with additional details at the administrator's page, User talk:Daniel Case#A disruptive user. As the administrator has pointed out that user DVdm's actions look like harassment, I have undone his second pass of reverts. I will mention here that of all the pages reverted by DVdm the Talk:Question Mark page was the worst, as the name of the question mark is a key discussion topic at the talk page. Thank you. Speling12345 (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speling12345, I took care examining your hundreds of entries one by one, and then only removing those that—i.m.o.—were really off-topic. Perhaps I made a mistake with the question mark question, although it does not look like a suggestion to improve the article. If it was indeed, then please accept my apologies for having missed the point. On the other hand, when I look at this comment, I really don't see it. It even looked like vandalism to me. But as I said above, I'll leave it to you and to the judgment of others from here. - DVdm (talk) 23:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi to user DVdm. Why are you continuing to talk to me? Speling12345 (talk) 11:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To explain what I was doing, and to apologise for the question mark thing. - DVdm (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Speling12345 (talk) 11:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Manga page

Hi there! This is where the admin (User:Daniel Case) told me about it. Cheers! EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Ok. @Re:, thanks for replying. Speling12345 (talk) 9:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

JamesBWatson blocks Speling12345

It has been explained to you clearly and at length that article talk pages are for discussions relating to improving the corresponding articles, yet you still continue to use them for general chat about the subjects of the articles. What is more, you have been edit warring to keep your chat in place, that is to say that you have been repeatedly restoring your edits after others have reverted them. Apart from the other issues, edit warring in itself is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and can lead to being blocked from editing. This, for example, is about a village with a church, not about editing the Wikipedia article Karja Church. This is about "awakening" as a common theme in Europe, not about editing the Wikipedia article Estonian national awakening. This is about your opinions concerning overhead views of Gifu city, not about editing the Wikipedia article Gifu, Gifu. I have taken the trouble to list a few examples and to spell out how they are off-topic for a Wikipedia article talk page, despite the fact that I think the issues have already been adequately explained to you, in order to be 100% sure that you really do know what the problem with your editing is. If you continue in the same way you may be blocked from editing, without further notice. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have not been pleased to address me. I expect you to attempt to write me a sensible note, if any at all. No lengthy discussions have taken place, only an unusual series of reverts from one user that an admin has called 'harassment-looking'. Speling12345 (talk) 5:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

December 2013

You have made what appear to be a series of retaliatory reverts of my recent edits, including removing relevant talk page comments and deleting sourced content. Please stop that. Kanguole 11:03, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where to start... December 2013 isn't anywhere. Thanks for your message, regardless. Speling12345 (talk) 11:14, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Varieties of Chinese shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. --David Biddulph (talk) 11:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have confronted user David Biddulph on his (or her) talk page without success. That user has reacted as a robot might be expected to react. Ok. And David Biddulph will not post the same 3rr warning on user Kanguole's talk page. A curiosity. I cannot take user David Biddulph seriously and if given the opportunity will advise others to ignore that user or possibly take actions against that user in line with Wikipedia policy. Speling12345 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please stop requesting personal details from editors on this site. This could be construed as harassment and is surely not proper etiquette. Tiderolls 13:55, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This request for details about persons should not be continued, if this is harassment. Speling12345 (talk) 1:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely

Based on your pattern of edits and all the concerns expressed by others at the discussion thread you opened, I have blocked your account indefinitely. It is clear to me that you are only going to continue this pattern of disruptive editing. You are ignoring the comments/suggestions for what you need to change and what you need to stop doing. Your continual nonsensical questions to other users at their talk pages, your edit warring, and your immature summaries and actions show that you are not here to help build an encyclopedia. As before, blocks can be appealed via the use of {{unblock}}. only (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]