User:TeleComNasSprVen/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1
| Archive 2

June 2010

Welcome to Simple English Wikipedia

Hi, TeleComNasSprVen, welcome to Simple English Wikipedia! Thank you for your changes. If you need help, check out the Help section of Wikipedia, or leave a message on my talk page. Whenever leaving messages on talk pages, please remember to sign your name by typing four 'tildes' (like this: ~~~~); doing this makes your name and the date show up. Also, it helps if you write something in the box that says 'edit summary' whenever you change an article. Below are some useful links to make your time here simpler. Happy changing! {{Sonia|talk|en}} 07:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Other
You have a new message at my page. (P.S. When writing here, do remember that this Wikipedia is for people who do not speak English well, and so words need to be simple.) Cheers, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
One more thing: about your query at Barras's talk page, User:Barras/Wikiproject_Maths/Pages is what we're working on right now. Not really your question, but... {{Sonia|talk|en}} 08:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No linking

Please don't link to enWP or enWikt. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

But Griffin, you deleted a bunch of other changes... TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I did? I was sure all of them were linkies. Shouldn't be editing at this time of night anyhow, please fix. Sorry, Griffinofwales (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Wait, first thing, I don't understand why we can link to the enWiki on here but we cannot link on article mainspace.
In the template or on the page itself? Griffinofwales (talk) 02:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
On the page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Because its not an article. Linking to a complex article on a Simple English Wikipedia article defeats the purpose of wiki, and discourages article creation. Griffinofwales (talk) 03:01, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh, okay, thanks. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 03:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick deletion of Cubic equation

Ambox deletion.png

The page you wrote, Cubic equation, has been selected for quick deletion. This is because the page was a page that had little or no meaning. 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. I-on/talk/book/sand 15:31, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

helpme

{{helpme}} I don't know why I could change this but not this. P.S. I need to add the Student Nav Bar onto the page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

You cannot edit this because it is fully protected; you can edit this because it is not. To add the Student Nav Bar to the top of this page, simply place {{Wikipedia:Student tutorial/Nav bar}} at the top of this page. Lauryn Ashby (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I can't add it to the page because it is protected, though. Could you do it for me? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 06:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I see what you mean. I thought you wanted the NavBar on the top of your userpage. I'll add it to the tutorial page in a moment. Thanks, Lauryn Ashby (talk) 06:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Just a note to say that I've undone your change here. If Lauryn would like the userbox, she can add it herself. If I've misunderstood the situation, feel free to put it back. Regards, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 09:00, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Census

You might want to sign the WP:CENSUS. πr2 (talk • changes) 02:00, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Note

Hey there, TeleComNasSprVen. I just wanted to let you know there is already a template in use for those. It's called Template:SharedIPEDU/Template:SchoolIP. --Bsadowski1(Talk/Changes)' 05:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see. I have already tried to create a redirect. Thanks for letting me know. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Should I create redirects for these templates and their docs, considering they're also used on enWiki?: Template:Shared IP edu, Template:Schoolip, Template:School IP, Template:School ip... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Not sure. I just use Template:SchoolIPEDU for my taggings. --Bsadowski1(Talk/Changes)' 07:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I'll create them to make sure that nobody gets the spelling wrong... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

checking

Is my userpage looking fine in Internet Explorer now? {{Sonia|talk|en}} 06:16, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, better than ever, actually. It kinda looks like your enWiki account too. (Speaking of which maybe I should notify Barras as well.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I copied the code over since it worked well there. (By the way: you should probably make yourself a userpage, even if it's just a redirect to your talk page, so that your name stops showing up in red in the recent changes). {{Sonia|talk|en}} 07:04, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you on your kind welcome, dear user!--Mychele Trempetich (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome! :D :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:07, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I will made references.--Mychele Trempetich (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For TeleComNasSprVen (interesting name, by the way :) ), who has jumped right into the community and begun helping us very actively! I hope you continue to enjoy editing here and have a great time. Sincerely, —Clementina talk 03:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you so much. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:08, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

{{Shortcut}}

I've undone your edits today on this template as they broke the shortcut box on the 260+ pages and categories the template was currently used on! I know you caught the problem pages here, but no one appears to be actually fixing them... Maybe if you redo your template updates then you can then AWB the changes on all the required pages (from that cat)? - I don't know how much you'd need to change on each inclusion as I haven't really looked at how the new template would work. If you're still experimenting with them template, do it in a sandbox of course. But anyway, I just thought I'd let you know :) - tholly --Talk-- 21:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

AWB? I'm afraid I don't understand. Do you mean given the flood flag to change everything that's linked to the template? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:17, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Oh sorry! It's - a program that lets you set a Bot (or a user with a flood flag) to run lots of repetitive edits that can be done by the computer automatically. I don't know whether this will work or not as it depends on how you will change the template as to whether you can set a computer to automatically correct the boxes. Why do you want to change this template anyway btw? - tholly --Talk-- 17:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, I believe that the new settings will make it more convenient, like how the template is set up in the normal English Wikipedia version. Do you want to bring this discussion to the Simple Talk page for consensus on whether we should change it? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:36, 25 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't personally see any need for it, but bring up a discussion on the template's talk page - it would be much more appropriate that ST - and then just link into it from ST so that people see it. ST shouldn't be the place to discuss templates and things individually. ;-) :-) Goblin 17:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC) I ♥ GoblinBots!

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TeleComNasSprVen. You have new messages at Sonia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

templates

Please put your interwiki links and categories inside <noinclude> tags so that every page that uses them doesn't end up categorized, thanks. Also, another talkback. Cheers, {{Sonia|talk|en}} 01:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

VIP

If an admin empties VIP, please don't undo their edit. Thanks, Lauryn Ashby (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

But I just reported a disruptive IP. There was no response to the matter. Isn't that what VIP is for? Sufficiently addressing vandalism complaints? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:02, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
The matter has been taken care of, that's why I emptied the page. Lauryn Ashby (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
How has it been taken cared of? I want to know first before the IP starts harassing Sonia again. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:09, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

July 2010

{{Welcome2}}

I think that the comment is breaking Twinkle's welcome feature (see here). πr2 (talk • changes) 23:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you please explain the "break" to me? I'm sorry, but I must be missing something, because I can only see that you've reverted your revision. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
I don't understand it. How could a hidden comment simply break template code? It's just a hidden comment. How does the wikicode handle hidden comments anyway? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
All fixed, no worries. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Wait, what? You simply reverted back to my version. Nevermind. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:25, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TeleComNasSprVen. You have new messages at Sonia's talk page.
Message added 03:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

πr2 (talk • changes) 03:28, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

90% for an adminship?

That'd lead to way too much red tape and bureaucracy. Purplebackpack89 20:26, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to me the percentage isn't, and that's where our views differ. But let's take a step back and forget about numbers; like Juliancolton had said "I think we need to focus on the word "consensus" and abandon the silly percentage requirements altogether" and I had said "About defining the nightmare scenario in numbers: I think mere common sense, consensus, and simple concern for an amount of privacy on a Wikipedia that is already quite public will justify higher standards for checkuser". I prefer that high standard. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
If the allowing of common sense is the rationale for setting the bar so high, I don't think the results would be satisfactory, since people occasionally place votes for reasons that do not seem to correspond to the merits of candidates (for example, users who vote for all admins to be bureaucrats based on WP philosophy, or users who vote against all admin candidates based on there being too many admins already (I've seen it on en, but not here, but it's possible.) Even 80% would help avoid this from being an issue. Kansan (talk) 20:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Fine, 75-80, if we have consensus on that, it would seem to be an improvement from our previous. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I said pretty much the same thing as Kansan at Simple Talk, and added that it's not the strongest of arguments to say something should be that because of "common sense"; bringing up facts and figures is a much stronger argument, in almost any discussion. Purplebackpack89 20:48, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Lincoln

I really don't like what you implied. You took me out of context. If you had done that to one of our mops, they might have blocked you Purplebackpack89 06:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no way that is a blockable offense, so please don't suggest it. sonia♫♪ 07:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Sonia, it was a personal attack, and therefore is blockable. Legal threat, Tele? That ain't a legal threat, that's a user warning Purplebackpack89 15:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It was not as much a personal attack as what you said afterward. TeleCom, a legal threat is "I'm going to sue you". "You're going to get blocked" is not a legal threat. Similarly, "rednecks" is not remotely outing, whatever other issues there may be with it. I know I wouldn't be happy if a user I was in a spat with edited my userpage, so that wasn't the wisest move. Do remember that besides abiding by policy, there's also a degree of respect we must accord each other if the place isn't going to fall to bits. (Stay away from PBP's talk for now for the same reason.) sonia♫♪ 20:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It was nonetheless still a threat, and a violation of policy (e.g. en:WP:Harassment#Threats). I would have preferred if he just told me "you may be blocked for doing this..." rather than have the appearance of cowering behind a blocking admin (aka mop). As for rednecks, let's pretend that one of the actually literate "rednecks" happens to stumble onto Purplebackpack89's userpage, got disgusted at the comment pasted on there, and decided to leave simpleWiki forever. I would not be happy with that scenario either. But I'll try my best to follow your last advice about staying away from PBP; perhaps a couple days or two, or even a week provided, may produce a cooldown yet. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89

Nuvola apps important.svg Your new changes to User:Purplebackpack89 are vandalism and this is not acceptable on any Wikipedia. Please stop. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from changing Wikipedia. Purplebackpack89 15:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. I corrected the POV and OUTING nature of your userpage. May I remind you that the term redneck is against NPA? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not NPA or OUTING, and you don't just edit someone else's user page. That is essentially vandalism. If it bugged you, you could drop a message on my talk page or take any other numbers of actions before editing my userpage. It should be noted that that's been there for almost a year and no one has taken umbrage at it, because they knew it was a joke. Purplebackpack89 16:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
You really need to stop falsely accusing people of things. You don't own your userpage anymore than you own any other page. Anyone has the right to be bold and edit it. Calling it vandalism is a bad faith action. Your recent behaviour if it keeps up is likely to get you into trouble. Personally I think you should remove the rednecks comment because it could be considered insulting and could possibly confuse non-native english speakers. -DJSasso (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
PBP: this edit was not vandalism by TeleComNasSprVen. Any editor is allowed to correct or revert that is in violation of WP:5. It is a common misconception that people own their userspace, they do not: it is only a courtesy that permits a wider latitude than mainspace. fr33kman 21:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and don't template the regulars. Talk to them instead please. :) fr33kman 21:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Fr33kman, you do realize you're kinda late in joining the discussion, right? NVS already had PBP unblocked. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Competely different block! Different offences :) fr33kman 21:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Note

As you have no doubt witnessed in the past little while people who have allowed temper and passion to get the better of them have been blocked. I am cautioning you to calm down when you get into discussions with certain editors. Argue with the facts and not with the people. fr33kman 01:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I will keep that in mind (hopefully). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:58, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Quick deletions

Make sure that you closely check what you nominate for quick deletion and the rationale used. When "keloids" was recreated, it wasn't an exact recreation of what was previously nominated. It wasn't in good shape, but I think it was salvageable, and probably not necessary to delete/warn the user again. Thanks, Kansan (talk) 02:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the confusion; I wasn't aware of the old page. Thanks again. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

welcoming

Please only welcome users that have edited. Thanks, Griffinofwales (talk) 02:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry? Which ones haven't edited? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Garylarsen - Griffinofwales (talk) 02:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
User talk:Garylarsen doesn't exist. And I haven't welcomed him/her yet. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Garylarsendds! I thought you'd have remembered a name from 2 minutes ago. Griffinofwales (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm so sorry! I'm just editing like a bot now. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback

Thanks for all your help in reverting vandalism today! It was really helpful. :) If you think it would be useful, I could give you the rollback tool. It helps in reverting obvious vandalism much more quickly. What do you think? Kindly, —Clementina talk 06:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I humbly accept your offer; not because its cool to have something new, but because it will greatly assist me against vandalism. I won't abuse it! :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll use the tool wisely and carefully. :) Please try reading through the instructions, and if there's something that's not absolute vandalism, just remember that it's much safer to just undo good faith edits. Thanks for your help! —Clementina talk 06:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Unfortunately I'm winding down and going to bed now, so maybe I'll save the vandalfighting for tomorrow. Catch you later! :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For your great work on vandal-fighting you did recently. :) The rollback tool Clem gave you seems very helpful and well-deserved. And your name shows that you're a very smart editor, aren't you? ;) I like those kind of scientific names, like PiR's. Well, anyway, it doesn't matter about the name, you still deserved this barnstar for your work. Keep it up! Belle tête-à-tête 05:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! I love the creativity dedicated to these barnstars (and the vandalfighters behind them too). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcoming

Dear Tel, it's really nice to see you being so friendly and welcoming all those users! :) But some of the IPs you welcomed, like this anonymous user, had only one change that did not seem to be helpful. It might be considered nonsense or a poorly made good faith change by different users, but I thought I'd tell you just in case. Just remember make sure that the people you're welcoming had good faith edits that would help Wikipedia if/when they become a user, okay? :) Kindly, —Clementina talk 03:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

For those people, I would usually subst: {{welcomevandal}} instead, but this time I'd AGFed and assumed that the anon was more suited to uw-npov, albeit in good faith, than uw-vandalism. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:06, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Why?

Why do you ask? fr33kman 03:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just interested, and in case he comes back, we need to apply a rangeblock to his IP address. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:11, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
We'll just let the admins take care of that, okay?! fr33kman 03:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting Epic Movie

This was not a test. In justmade the plot like in any other language. Why was it deleted? --84.113.33.181 (talk) 20:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete it! Your edit was reverted because I found it humorously unverified, unsourced and rather biased. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Attributions

I think attributions on talk pages are not signed. They are not personal comments, just factual links. Macdonald-ross (talk) 05:40, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll try to be more careful next time. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

ST thread

Please do not recombine those thread, they are unrelated, and even the original thread start speaks of "Under a different note". Jon@talk:~$ 20:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I suggest you reread my post. "Hoots was recently banned from editing due to sockpuppetry. However, upon looking at his contributions page, it does look like he's trying to become a productive editor. I suggest giving him the one-strike rule instead of having an indef block. He has admitted as much in his unblock request. On a different note, User:Eptalon/bannedUser is used widely throughout the AN archives since its conception in Feb 2009. I want to propose that it be turned into a guideline." The first couple of sentences talks about User:Hoots, who is inextricably related to User:Kennedy and is thus related to the section regarding Kennedy. The last sentence talks about User:Eptalon/bannedUser, a page that I proposed to turn into a guideline and is thus related to the separate section that I created. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Since the majority of the conversation has to do with the proposal/guideline status it reads better with a level two header, as its own thread... otherwise it looks very confusing, actually. I hope this finds you well, Jon@talk:~$ 21:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for the welcome, but I'm curious as to how you came across this account and welcomed it two days after last edit, without noting the userpage. Openstrings (talk) 03:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:uw-spam

Thanks for the template. Why aren't these templates posted on WP:TM?  Hazard-SJ Talk 05:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks.  Hazard-SJ Talk 05:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Moving

Hi there! I've reverted your move since it actually is our standard to have regests for adminship/bcrat etc instead of permissions. Just letting you knwo. -Barras (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I also undid your change to WP:RFA as the transclusion needs to be done by the nominator or nominee. -Barras (talk) 14:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know, but now I do. So I'll remember next time. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 14:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk archive fixed

Hello, I fixed the talk archive you asked me to. Hope it owrks now.--Eptalon (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate all the time that's been spent trying to fix the archives. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion

Why did you delete that talk page for deletion? This is the second time in the last few days I've seen you nominate a talk page for quick deletion that seemed like a legitimate attempt to improve the article. Please do not do this. Kansan (talk) 04:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The talk page had information about the article that was already included within the article itself before the time that the talk page was changed. If it was a legitimate attempt to improve the article, I fail to see how it can possibly be used. Could you please explain to me why it is? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 05:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Even if this was the case, what was written correlated to the article and hardly qualified for deletion. Kansan (talk) 05:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Kansan is right here Telecom. :) Though the talk page did include the same information as the article, it was about the article, and seems to have been made in a good faith attempt to make the article better. Talk pages of articles can't just be deleted solely because they're too short, or poorly worded, unlike articles. ;) We really appreciate your help though. Keep the good work up! Warmly, —Clementina talk 05:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Flood flag

Hi, Tel, thanks for all your hard work on the wiki! I see you've been welcoming a lot of new users :) Do you think you'll need the flood flag, or are you almost finished? Kindly, —Clementina talk 05:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done No need, but thanks. (Finally caught up with two days full of unfinished work!) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay then. :) Keep up your lovely work, and please tell me if I may have the happiness of assisting you in any way possible! Warmly, —Clementina talk 07:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

My recent Changes

I'll do that next time. Can't do much now. past my bedtime.  Hazard-SJ Talk 06:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Yeah, I know. Messed up a little there. I used to welcome loads of new users back on en, but it's been a long time. :/ SimonKSK 16:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. Just consider him a little warm-up then. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 17:03, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Template:Uw-vandalism3

It's irrelevant that the vandalism is unacceptable on "any Wikipedia". Here we're talking about this wiki! Protector of Wiki (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. We do have wiktionary and don't forget about our big brother enWiki. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
It's not irrelevant at all. If the warning prevents one user from going off and vandalizing another language Wikipedia, then it's worth it. Plus, it tells people that this is a real Wikipedia. Some people think that only the English WP is the "real" Wikipedia, and this warning tells them otherwise. Kansan (talk) 19:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
I fail to see the point. If the user is intent on defacing content, nothing will stop them. Adding "any" does not make them back off!
Having "any" does not mean that "this is a real Wikipedia". Merely having "Wikipedia" already means that! Protector of Wiki (talk) 19:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
What if the user isn't intent on vandalizing? What if those are test edits, and those warnings will surely back him off? If all such users really are being disruptive, why bother with vandalism templates? Why not just block every Tom, Dick and Harry out there that decides to defame a page? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Having "Wikipedia" without the "any" is already a general term, thus referring to the other wikis! Protector of Wiki (talk) 19:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
We have the Wikimedia foundation as well as multiple interlanguage wikis. I honestly think that "any" will clarify the state of the other wikis as well. It may be general to you, but it may not be general to others. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome (2)

I'm sorry, but you caused an edit conflict. I was welcoming and informing the user of the unsigned comment. I didn't want to "bite" either, and since I saw the page empty, I added them both. Hazard-SJ Talk 02:05, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Archive

Would you consider archiving your talk page? Its getting long.  Hazard-SJ Talk 02:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I know. There's no need to make it even longer by creating these unnecessary sections. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:37, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

blocking templates

Let the admins place (or not place) blocking templates. We can do our jobs just fine. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, then. Can I still place {{openproxy}} templates? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 22:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I guess you could but it's not really necessary. Griffinofwales (talk) 22:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Why do you want to? You have a new message at my talk. sonia♫♪ 22:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
I specifically do not place the template on proxies that I have blocked and would appreciate you not following behind my blocks and placing the template on IP talk pages. -- Lauryn (talk) 22:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Rollback good faith change

Why did you rollback that edit? Rollback should be used for vandalism, and that appears to be a good faith edit. EhJJTALK 23:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, it didn't seem right to put the information in the article like that, so I reverted it. I was going to revise it later after I'm finished with the flood flag, and I had welcomed the IP and didn't call him a vandal or anything like that. Go ahead and revert my change if you didn't find it to your liking (I've had to place way too many welcome templates in a single day...) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism article

Dear TeleComNasSprVen,

You wrote the following message:

Please do not make unhelpful changes to Wikipedia, like you did to Libertarianism. The changes you made seem to be vandalism and have been removed. If you want to try changing Wikipedia to learn more about how it works, please use the sandbox. Thank you. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong when you call my changes unhelpful. You are even more wrong when you say they seem to be vandalism.

According to the main page,

Simple does not mean little. Writing in Simple English means that simple words are used. It does not mean readers want simple information. Articles do not have to be short to be simple; expand articles, include a lot of information, but use basic vocabulary.

My edit greatly expanded the libertarianism page, providing a great deal of accurate information, all the while keeping the prose simple and easy to understand. The only "difficult" word I used was the word legitimate, and I only used it because I there is no simpler word available.

Not only were my changes 100% helpful, but moreover, I believe that, with my changes, the article could qualify for the very good articles section.

Please do not delete the changes again. If you think some of the words I use are not simple enough, please edit the article to replace these words. Deleting the entire article does not appear helpful.

Thanks.

98.117.49.203 (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcoming (2)

Oops. I was so tired that I forgot.  Hazard-SJ Talk 20:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)