User talk:NonvocalScream

Retired

This user is no longer active on the Simple English Wikipedia.

This is a Wikipedia user talk page.

If you find this page on a site that is not Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. The page may be old and the owner of this page may not have a relationship with sites that are not Wikipedia. The original page is located at http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NonvocalScream.

Wikimedia Foundation

This is the User talk page for NonvocalScream, where you can send messages and comments to NonvocalScream.

Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Please leave a message and sign your posts! Thank you! NonvocalScream (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Balder

The article I have been working on has been deleted without reason. Someone say "cross wiki spam". This is stupid. The article has been aproved at the english wp, well referenced, and it is a vandalism from a Dutch user, calle MoiraMoira, who is deleting the article or recomending to other collegues who obviously are not investigating the matter. --Lolox76 (talk) 19:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the deletion request was removed. Hope this helps. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 01:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changing username

Hello NonvocalScream,

I wasn't sure how to reply to your question on the changing-username page, so I am answering here. I am new to Wikipedia and have realised that my username on other pages are all equal except for Wikipedia, so I wanted to change it. I dont know where to request the change on my home wiki, to be honest, could you tell me where that would be please? Thanks for your help MadameBruxelles (talk) 18:38, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may be what you're looking for. :) MJ94 (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Flags restored

After you asked me on IRC, I have restored your admin and crat flag. You resigned them for valid reasons and were not under a cloud, so granted! :) fr33k man 17:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jon@talk:~$ 17:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for placing the block on Racepacket. I hate to see anyone get blocked or banned, but it was just getting out of hand. Question: Was I correct to put a request like that on Simple Talk, or should I have brought it to Administrator's Notice board? Just trying to make sure I get it right, but hoping I don't have to make a habit of it. --Gotanda (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broken Redirect

Hi. Didn't want to tag it for deletion, but noticed you have a broken redirect on a subpage of yours. Up to you if you want to delete or move or create etc... :) Kind regards Ydennek ^(talk) 12:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did I do something wrong?

I just noticed you removed my flood flag. That's OK, but I hadn't forgotten I was supposed to let you know when I was through. Did I do something to get my privilege revoked? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Complex' tags

On both wikis I have put up a total of over 1000 new pages. In the course of this I have developed a technique which works for me. I return to a new page two or three times in the week or fortnight after putting it up. This is because the distance helps me get perspective. With Plover you jumped before I had a chance to re-edit. You have every right to complain if my pages are too complex. (But on the other hand, I do know how to edit!). Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:28, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is less for you and more for me. I keep a list of articles to which I added the complex tag. At some point I do want to come back to it. I found it whilst looking at new pages. Will you tolerate them so that I can keep my pages straight? :) And on another note, after I added the tag, I looked at the history. I thought about it, I really did. And I know how to change pages too. Also, the complex tag populates a maintenance category for tracking purposes. Is this not a good thing? Jon@talk:~$ 04:29, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess you'll do whatever you think is right to do. Many in Simple think that neither stubs nor complex flags do us any good. Certainly, if you put up flags on borderline cases, there is nothing left in the tool-box when really dreadful cases turn up. What really does hurt us is these people who dump whole long pages of unsimplified text on our wiki.

Anyway, it is less harassing for me if people do not jump on my new pages too quickly. Macdonald-ross (talk) 15:14, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be more mindful when I see your acct in the history. Please forgive, I do not intend to be a bother to you. R, Jon@talk:~$ 16:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter

Why did you changed the abuse filter number 12 (this) to tag only again? it is working fairly well, and stuff created usually gets deleted. Why is the change needed to watch this for a while? -Barras (talk) 15:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am concerned regarding false positives. I'm going to monitor this. Jon@talk:~$ 16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I monitored this before and am still monitoring this. When I last checked there was 1 or 2(?) out of about 1000 changes a false positive. That is why I set it to disallow. All things caught by this were good. -Barras (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not comfortable with this. I have reverted my change to the filter. Very best, Jon@talk:~$ 17:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on the deletion discussion for Three valve manifold

You mentioned that the page is little more than a dictionary definition. I agree, but I've seen a lot of pages like that here on SimpleWiki. That made me think it was more acceptable here. Is that not so? For example, I keep seeing articles for the 850 simple words, and many of those are pretty much just definitions. Just wondering. --Auntof6 (talk) 08:53, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At some point in time, we will need to take a look at those, yes. The harvest is great, and the workers are few, is a maxim I am reminded of. Jon@talk:~$ 23:30, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why I took Goblin to AN

You asked why I didn't leave it at DYK. Because I thought he needed to be blocked. DYK talk is no place to discuss blocks/topic bans, and half of my beef (and all of Jona's) was about non-DYK stuff. Oh, why was it closed before Jona got a chance to answer your question? Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 02:44, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend next time you come to AN with an editor, please supply diffs and a longstanding pattern where this has been discussed with the editor before and failed. Without really good cause it would be difficult to block a long standing and contributing editor. I've already warned him and yourself for edit warring, I'm not sure what more can be done. I'm hesitant to block for the dispute. Jon@talk:~$ 02:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I provided diffs when I first made the request..."this" and "that" will link to my diffs. My issue isn't the dispute, but his complete lack of civility to me or Jona (who you didn't let finish, and should've), and his tone that indicates he will ignore any rules and attempt to OWN DYK (Jona argues that he also tries to OWN GA and VGA; he can provide diffs for that). The problem is now that it's clear that many editors will never block Goblin, he has no incentive to obey the rules. Please reopen the discussion so you can examine the diffs and let Jona finish Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 03:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---> AN. Jon@talk:~$ 04:00, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My changing username request

Hello Jon

Can you have a look at my request here. Thank you very much. Best regards--Hoangquan hientrang (talk) 16:42, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

Hello NonvocalScream! I don't think I've ever talked to you before, so I just dropped by to say hello. :) –Orashma tash 19:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, is there something you need help with doing? Best, Jon@talk:~$ 03:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but no. I'm just saying hello to some editors that I've never talked to before. It'll pay off at one point. :P –Orashma tash 17:21, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hardcor

I updated the QD. Please reconsider deleting it. πr² (talk • changes) 03:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PBP block length change... again.

Hello Jon. I'm not sure quite how you arrived at the conclusion that there was no consensus for a community ban of PBP. There's already a very clear indication of such a consensus forming at Simple Talk, with something like ten regular editors in favour of a community ban and one in favour of a six-month block. The purpose of the indef block was to allow this discussion to conclude before making a final decision on the block duration. Perhaps you simply were not aware of the discussion but your comment about no consensus for a ban is quite mistifying to me. I will not adjust your block duration (i.e. I won't wheel-war) but I would ask you to read the ban discussion and re-consider your appraisal of no consensus at this time. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:03, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've only checked my userpage at this point... I'm heading over to check ST right this moment, however, firstly, I'm going to undo my action. I don't want any of this, and I'm not really around enough to address it. I had no idea this would incite so much. Jon@talk:~$ 01:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will note it is already done. Jon@talk:~$ 01:51, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

Whenever you have the time. Regards, Albacore (talk · changes) 12:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) My goal is to have one done today. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 16:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human swimming

Do you plan to expand this article? If not, I think it should be changed to redirect to Swimming. What do you think? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:25, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may split the article. Very best, Jon@talk:~$ 03:30, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Afternoon. May I ask how your investigation into canvassing during my RfA has progressed? Normandie 12:48, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need more time, a week perhaps. I can only go as fast as people are willing. Jon@talk:~$ 14:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair do's. I look forward to your report. Normandie 15:00, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to get your hopes up. If I find anything I'll have to carefully substantiate it on wiki, and most of it is covered by private correspondence. We have no Arbitration Committee and that makes things a bit harder, as I have no real body to forward anything. But what I can do is be very generalist in the event of negative finding and mostly specific as much as I can in a positive finding. For example, having those concerned admit anything they might need to, if it is found that they need to admit anything at all. I'm not complete, for now, I think the less heat and attention in the next few days would be best. Jon@talk:~$ 15:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any luck? Normandie 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any information you can send me privately? Jon@talk:~$ 02:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My email address is linked to my account. What information are you looking for? Normandie 09:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anything to substantiate what you stated at the RFA would be most helpful at this juncture. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 20:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So... you've done nothing since 'starting' your investigation? Have you just tried to humour me thinking I'd forget? I'm basing my thoughts on what was said at the RfA. You were there, you don't need diffs. Normandie 20:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I assure you, I'm looking into things. I hope you will respect the fact that I've done what I could off the wiki. I'm asking you if you have anything additional to offer me that I could follow up on. At this juncture, anything is helpful.

On the other side, if you insist on making this adversarial towards me, when I'm spending my free time looking for stuff for you, I will be less inclined to do anything. Remember, I'm a volunteer as well. Jon@talk:~$ 03:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not turning this against you. You volunteered to do an investigation. Normandie 12:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conclusion

At this point in time, I've found no credible evidence to support:

This charge of canvassing.
This charge of canvassing.
This specific and named charge of canvassing.
This specific and named charge of canvassing.
This charge of canvassing.
This charge of canvassing.
This nonspecific charge of canvassing.
This specific and named charge of canvassing.
This charge of canvassing.

I find no reason to find the validity of the Request for Adminship to be in question. I am unable to substantiate any claim by the candidate that his RFA was canvassed directly or indirectly. I will submit to any private request for review by any crat. Regards, Jon@talk:~$ 03:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask what action you took? Just so that I know that every avenue has been explored and if I can take action following on from your investigation? Normandie 12:14, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took no action, there is nothing I can do at this point. I was unable to find anything. As far as detailing my specific methods, I pray you understand why I would not share them so openly. Please don't misunderstand, I'm not "wiki sleuthing", I would like to respect those individuals who gave me information in confidence. If you are not completely satisfied, I would not be offended if you asked another crat to look at the accusations separately and independently of me. I'm not the end all say all. I'm just an editor, however, as far as the RFxs are concerned, I did my best to expose anything that might be amiss. I found nothing. I hope this finds you well, and for me, this closes the matter. Very respectfully, Jon@talk:~$ 18:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I find that very disappointing. Both the result and the fact that you are unwilling to say what you actually investigated... At this point I'm not sure if another crat investigating it is worth bothering with, and will only serve to damage my reputation further. Thanks, I guess. Normandie 19:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that you care a whit about what I have to say, Normandy, but I'm not standing for persistent accusations of canvassing. Yottie advised me to let it drop, so I didn't defend myself on-wiki. However, you're clearly not happy with this, and fair enough, so I'll have my say too.

MOX stated at the RfA that he was online when I was drafting my RS page. I asked people for advice who I knew to work with new editors on en.wiki, which requires many of the same skills I was looking for (the ability to express policies and guidelines simply and clearly). That is how he ended up editing it. For attribution reasons, I cannot take other people's suggestions and wordings and make the edit myself; it is their work.

As for the RfA, I was made aware that it was being discussed on IRC by en.wiki editors like MOX. That he was not as prudent as the other editors who just watched it, and that he felt that weighing in abruptly with such a violent diatribe would be a good idea, is not my fault. Jon can back up that I felt his original vote was a personal attack. You're flattering yourself by suggesting I cared enough about your RfA to go and scrounge for votes, and so desperately so that I'd recruit someone who I had repeatedly denied rollback here and the bureaucrat flag on flaggedrevs.labs (under his old username).

I don't know what else Jon has done, but he's certainly quizzed me about this matter, which is more than due diligence. It's up to you to present evidence to the contrary. sonia♫ 04:12, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~To be honest I never accused you of anything.~~ I don't care who canvassed who. All I asked was that people were coming out of the woodwork and their first (and only, in some cases) edits were to oppose me. That is very very unusual. James brought your name up as being in a behind the scenes discussion, not me. I still believe that someone canvassed. Who that is I care not. Unfortunately I also know not... Normandie 12:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not accusing me of something? Ah well then, guess I'll knock my babelbox back down to en-1 since I clearly can't read English as well as I thought I could. sonia♫ 23:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I retract the above statement. Normandie 09:13, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Capital City Weekend

Please take part in the Capital City Weekend challenge. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crat rights

I was never a bureaucrat so I shouldn't have crat rights. Thanks for restoring the admin bit, by the way. Kansan (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Kansan Jon@talk:~$ 04:12, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And...

(show/hide) 12:21, 24 April 2011 Djsasso (talk | changes | block) changed group membership for User:Kansan from oversight and administrator to oversight, administrator and bureaucrat ‎ (promoted per Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Kansan)

So, color me confused :) Jon@talk:~$ 04:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, you are welcome. Jon@talk:~$ 04:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er, you're right. I was confusing that with the oversight flag (which I didn't want back). Time for me to trout myself. Kansan (talk) 04:14, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It happens. For oversight I would have to defer to another community discussion, however, I'm not sure if one is needed. Perhaps a quick query to the other oversighters... but I'm sure this would not be an issue. You call on that one. Best of luck, Jon@talk:~$ 04:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

A 680.000 char addition like "Ổm²ς" is usually intended to damage a page, and is considered flooding on any other project. My block was intended as a precaution and a safeguard to this project, especially because that IP Address was never active before. --M7 (talk) 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

odd... I did not see so many, perhaps the connection reset when the page was loading for me. Jon@talk:~$ 21:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My bot.

Hi NVS. I saw you approved my bot. Thanks a lot for that, but you didn't give it the flag. Did you do this on purpose? Thanks. -Orash matash- 13:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to be sure there were no objections. I've flagged the bot. Thank you for your work. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 15:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stuff

I was doing a minor edit to that page, since null editing it hadn't moved it out of Category:Articles with invalid date parameter in template. On en: the template is at {{Disambiguation}} rather than the short-cut {{Disambig}}, and to me using full words is clearer than abbreviations (even if they are obscure words). As far as the templates, by which I guess you mean stuff like {{Otheruses674}} they are something I'm still thinking about. They are left overs moved form en:, where even the pages they redirected to have been killed with fire. Probably the best move is to subst: them out with some kind of {{Hatnote}}. Rich Farmbrough, 23:34, 19 December 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you for getting back in touch with me so quickly. I'll leave be, looks like a larger plan is in place. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 21:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RfD

I assume your comment was meant to be in the discussion area? I have moved it hoping this is correct? Kind regards Normandie 13:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you. The template is a bit complex in the way of a regular user should not have to hunt for the correct area to comment. I'll be looking at that over the next few days, perhaps come to a solution to make it easier. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 21:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I find the [change] link next to Discussion helps me locate the correct area... ;) Normandy 10:58, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Complex Pages

Hello there. Please see my comment at Wikipedia talk:Requests for deletion/Requests/2011/Category:Complex pages as it may affect the final outcome. Best, Orashmatash (talk) 23:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Done I've adjusted the closure notes. Best, Jon@talk:~$ 23:16, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This edit.

Hey scream, just wondering what your thinking was with regards to the above edit? In the spirit of BRD I've reverted the change as I couldn't understand where you were coming from, and in my opinion it makes perfect sense, though admittedly the entire spiel at the top is a relic of 'old' PGA that never got fully updated, so it could be slightly confusing and misleading to 'outsiders', which is something I will - eventually - get around to doing. A review of articles is supposed to take place when the article is nominated at PGA, and has never taken place at PR. PR was an additional, redundant process, which is why it was removed. AJona is particularly bitter about this and refuses to accept it's gone and to work with PGA the way it has always worked. I'd appreciate a little insight into your thinking, and will happily elaborate on any aspect of the process or statement if required. Thanks, Gob lin 17:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton![reply]

English-Simple English translation project

Hi, glad to meet you and I have a little problem. Do you know who can make general English become simple English? I need a good guy. I'll thank you if you have a good list.--俠刀行 (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hai sir

~~==Quick deletion of Wikipedia:Sandbox==~~

The page you wrote, Wikipedia:Sandbox, has been selected for quick deletion. 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. You can find more information about the reason here. Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:25, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was a test edit, I did not mean to notify you. Apologies --Tsugaru Let's Talk! :) 🍁 20:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall

An editor has requested deletion of Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall, an article you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2022/Wikipedia:Administrators open to recall and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Ferien (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Template:Wtf

An editor has requested deletion of Template:Wtf, a page you created. We appreciate your changes, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article meets Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Please comment on the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Requests for deletion/Requests/2023/Template:Wtf and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also change the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns. But you should not remove the requests for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you very much. --Ferien (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]