User talk:Creektiming

Hi

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Creektiming, 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:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Xx236 (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recreating of deleted re-directs[edit]

Please stop recreating multiple redirects to the same page after they have been deleted as implausible, they are necessary and your editing appears disruptive. Melcous (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Melcous. Yes I recreated them, because I had no idea why the heck they were deleted. Don't worry, other editors have done your job for you by explaining the situation. But I make no apology for having acted in good faith. Your pathetic little template and your malicious (repeat, malicious) endeavour to destroy my contributions by themselves did not satisfy me that my contributions were in any way wrong. Creektiming (talk) 19:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with this - the problem with the redirect "Rep of Ire cheeses" is that it's extremely unlikely that someone will type in that specific phrase in order to get to the list page for Irish cheeses. I could maybe see "Republic of Ireland cheeses", but even that might be pushing it a little. The thing about redirects is that we don't need to have every possible or potential search phrase - we only need to have the most common ones and "Rep of Ire cheese" isn't something that would be seen as a common search term, especially as these terms would have to be input into Wikipedia in that specific style to get to the desired page. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I also have to warn you - creating multiple implausible or unlikely redirects can be seen as disruptive. This can lead to a block and we actually had an editor create redirects in the same manner you are... and he almost got permanently blocked from editing. The only reason he didn't was because he had years of editing in other areas that saved him. As it stands, he is banned from creating any new redirects. It looks like you've gone back to creating several redirects despite indication that they're implausible (ie, they're unnecessary and unlikely search terms), so consider this a warning: if you continue to do this then you run an extremely strong risk of getting blocked from editing. Now I'm aware that you haven't received an official warning, so this serves as that warning. I hate to sound harsh, but one of the most important things here is that if you see that something you've made has been deleted, it's a bad idea to rush and recreate this. Doing this can be seen as disruptive even if you're a new editor, as at some point it stops being a case of someone being unaware of Wikipedia's guidelines and starts looking like it's deliberately done. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question was blocked (and de-sysopped) was Neelix (talk · contribs). I endorse what the above two have said. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 08:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@RHaworth. Thank you for the additional information there. I hope that other issue will resolve itself in due course. I now know the situation here and what not to do once I am unblocked. Creektiming (talk) 19:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RHaworth, I'm giving this user a temporary block - they were warned in the past and made a fairly nasty comment when removing the template warning from their userpage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it looks like you were warned once before (the user posted a template message) and you went and re-created the redirects anyway. This shows that you are aware to some extent, but didn't listen. You removed the template message, which is perfectly fine, however when you did this you posted an edit summary that was, to be blunt, quite hostile in nature.

Malicious? Are you sure you know what you're talking about love? I'd gp back and check the definition of that word and when you learn what it means, you can come back and edit, but for now, I'm not having any templates here

While yes, they could have given more of an explanation, you also could have asked for clarification on this matter if the template message didn't seem clear enough to you. Template messages can be fairly broad, as they're meant to apply to a wide variety of situations. In the case of Melcous, they likely meant that the redirects weren't helpful for the reasons I stated above and that adding a ton of these right away can be seen as disruptive, even if this wasn't your intent.

I'm going to give you a temporary block because you re-added the templates despite the speedy deletions and the warning on your talk page and because of the message you left in the edit summary. If it was just the recreation I might have stopped at the warning, however the edit summary comment comes across as insulting and hostile. You need to be careful about how you interact with others. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:02, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed the reasons for the block above, but I'll restate them here for any other incoming admins. The reasons are

The re-creation of implausible redirects despite one warning and several speedies.
An edit summary comment that directly insults the person who posted the warning and assumes bad faith on their part.

Once the block is up you can edit again, however I would recommend that you not create any new redirects for the time being. Instead it'd be a better idea to get more familiar with Wikipedia and its policies and to ask for help at the WP:TEAHOUSE to see if a redirect would be a plausible search term (meaning that it'd be a commonly used specific search term). If you recreate these redirects or redirects like the ones that were speedied, you are likely to be reblocked - possibly permanently depending on the situation. You also need to interact better with others. Do not insult others, as this is received very poorly on Wikipedia and can be seen as an WP:ADHOMINEM attack, which is not tolerated on Wikipedia and can also lead to a swift reblock. You need to be able to work peaceably with others and the comment you wrote makes me, as an admin, concerned that you might not be able to interact well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tokyogirl. You have given me a lot to read, and I see that you made an official warning, and then stepped over it ostensibly for "not having realised" that I had already addressed the case. I realise my block is partly for the recreation of deleted redirects, and partly for my alleged "hostile" reply to another editor from whom I apparently did not "assume good faith". Having read your full dossier, I wish to produce the following statement:

I made a heap of redirects originally, in good faith as you know, and then quit my session. I arrived hours later to find a templated, and wrongly issued, warning from Melcous. It accused me of making "malicious" redirects, and since it was a template, the user added none of the explanation given to me by both you (in your first posting), and Sphilbrick. Obviously I have the right to remove any warnings from my talk page due to the BLANKING conditions, whilst templates are not designed to be handed out to good faith editors, least of all those that use summaries and those that actually talk. So I make no apology for removing the warning. Of course that wasn't all. This user alone proceeded to nominate a speedy for every single redirect I made. Yet there was I logging in to be told my redirects were "malicious". Now it's all good and well you telling me I didn't assume good faith. But if this WAS good faith from Melcous, how would she have acted had her intention been BAD faith? Do you really think it is nice for a human being to make a contribution, and then find someone has desecrated it and insulted you in the process? Now I know for a fact that there are more editors than the number to speak English as a first language. I don't now that Melcous is not really a native Spanish speaker, whether she knows what "malicious" means (because it doesn't look to me like she does) and above all, I don't even know whether she confused IRELAND with ICELAND. Obviosuly if I redirected The cheese of Iceland to List of Irish cheeses, then yes, there is a chance that I am not acting in good faith and that could be seen as malicious, but I assure you there was no malicious intent from me.

I know now not to create such redirects, and this has discouraged me from doing hundreds more in other places. I had my reasons for wanting to keep Northern Ireland within the "island of Ireland" bracket, to be more geographical and less political, but I am now clear on the issue. Apart from that, this is all I have to say on the matter. Creektiming (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to repeat that the first message posted by Melcous was a template message, which you can read at Template:uw-redirect1. These messages are pre-written and meant to cover an extremely wide amount of situations, meaning that the template can contain things that may not pertain to a given situation, so you should not assume that this means that every word of it applies to a given situation, especially if the message contains the word "or". Some edit the template messages or leave an additional message, some do not. I usually try to leave some explanation with my template messages, but this is not a requirement on Wikipedia. What I'm saying here is that you should not take the template messages personally. If you have a problem with the phrasing then that's something to take up with the redirect WikiProject and/or the templates WikiProject.

As far as good faith editing and templates go, templates can be handed out to anyone, regardless of who they are, their experience, or their intent. I still get templates on occasion and I've been on here since 2006, and I know other long term editors (and admins) that still get them. They're considered to be a polite way to let a user know about a potential issue. You can remove them (I almost always do), but it's an extremely good idea to open up a discussion if you are confused about the reasons for the tag or believe that you are in the right. The worst thing you can do is make a nasty remark while removing it and then go back to doing what you were doing, since that can look extremely bad.

It still bothers me that even after I explained about the template message, that you still assume bad faith on Melcous's part. I understand that you're a new user, but when multiple redirects are speedied and you receive a warning template, it's a good idea to stop and open up a discussion in a calm manner. I also understand the desire to vent, but you shouldn't do this on Wikipedia if you're going to make comments like the one you made - and the one you made above. Especially if the comment is about a template that Melcous did not write, but was written by editors who are proficient in English as far as I'm aware.

Getting mad and making assumptions that come across as attacks doesn't result in good things on Wikipedia. It puts others on the defensive since other editors will have to assume that you may make a similar comment to them if they do something you don't like. (IE, if you source something properly and someone tries to correct you, will you make a similarly nasty comment and assume bad faith on their part as well?) This makes it harder for you to work with others, especially if you start gaining a reputation for being hot headed because it also impacts how much good faith people assume on your behalf. Trust me on this - we have a few people on here who are fairly well known for being hot headed and these people tend to routinely be involved with disputes, sometimes warranted and sometimes not, because they gained a reputation for not being easy to work with and talk to. Now the reason I say a few is because those types of editors tend to not last long on Wikipedia for various reasons. I'm saying this because I want you to understand how important it is to work well with others and to respond calmly to something if you think that the other person is incorrect or posted the wrong thing. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Melcous can put things up for speedy deletion if they think it's warranted. In this case, some of the redirects were. It'd have been nice if they'd given you more information about this, but the lack of information is still no excuse for making the type of comments you did. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since I did not appeal the block (and it is a short time from being lifted), I think most of what you point out is academic. Obviously it looked to me I was being treated like the common vandal which provoked my response but essentially, I am aware that a great many of my redirects were implausible, and that my responses were inappropriate. As such I have little else to add other than when extricated, you can expect immediate improvements from me. Thanks for the last posting. Creektiming (talk) 04:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't jumped in here because I didn't want to inflame the situation and others have explained things very well, but I will acknowledge yes I could have explained the template message initially and perhaps this would have avoided much of the above. I don't tend to add explanations to low-level templates (Level 1) to (what appears to be) a brand-new user because my assumption is that the template message itself contains enough information/links to both be sufficient and to not overwhelm the with information. I may re-think that practice after this. In terms of the template itself, however, obviously I did not write it, but it explicitly says "edits have been considered malicious and/or disruptive" so I think reading that as a personal, bad faith accusation from me of maliciousness is a stretch. The kind of editing certainly appears to me to be disruptive, and could appear to other editors to be malicious, but obviously there is no way of knowing that, which is why the template is more carefully worded. I'm sorry you missed that nuance. A couple of other nuances - I didn't nominate all the redirects you created, I left about 5 which I thought were plausible. And finally, you said you didn't know if I was a native English speaker, but you could easily have checked my user page which clearly states that I am Australian and a native English speaker, which might perhaps have given you some basis to consider that I do understand the meaning of the word "malicious" as well as the word "disruptive" as well as the implications of "and/or". I have no way of knowing whether you are a brand new user who has had a rather unfortunate introduction to wiki-editing, or a user who has previous experience and was therefore a bit more jumpy about being templated, but if it is the former, I do hope that this experience does not put you off contributing to the project and hope it can be left behind as something we have both learned from. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Melcous. Well the whole thing is one big experience. As I come near the end of Tokyo79's blocking, I feel ready to move forward accordingly. Yes I had seen your user page and I noticed Australia as given homeland. I didn't want to be stereotypical, I realise this is a country with a great many speakers of other languages such as Italian, Greek, Korean, Spanish (e.g. I know of LOTS of people from Columbia and Chile specifically that have gone to Australia permanently), so there was no ill sentiment in my assumption either despite the wording looking as if it might have been "hostile". Once the block is lifted, I think all of us can move forward and forget this chapter. Thanks. Creektiming (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects[edit]

Please be aware that reasonable redirects are a good addition to Wikipedia. However, we had a recent incident where an editor went overboard, creating all kinds of redirects most of which were implausible. The dust has not yet settled from that incident; indeed, just yesterday I was thinking about how we could best approach attacking the problem. A few of your redirects make sense but some do not and may unfortunately remind others of that still unresolved situation. I urge you to slow down. Redirects such as "Food of Nothern Ireland" are not appropriate. We accept redirects for plausible misspellings but if we allow a redirect for every possible misspelling of a word, we would literally be opening the door to hundreds of millions of redirects. (I hadn't seen the above comments before I wrote this so I'm can leave it anyway if only to show that there are a lot of experience editors on the same page)--S Philbrick (Talk) 11:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@S Philbrick. Points taken. I thank you for the SP on this matter. Except immediate improvements from me once my block is lifted, and with regards the other matter, I hope that too will be resolved. Creektiming (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Micky Murphy[edit]

Oops! My mistake. . . Mean as custard (talk) 18:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so, strangely enough!! All in the past. Creektiming (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for July 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Empress State Building, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages West London and Stamford Bridge. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Creektiming. You have new messages at Sro23's talk page.
Message added 18:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Woodstop45 (talk) 18:41, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July 2016[edit]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at The Early Years 1965—1972. Final warning for repeated disruptive editing, particularly repeatedly restoring material that is a clear copyright violation, in spite of being told that it is a copyvio. Thomas.W ^talk 20:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at The Early Years 1965—1972 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Montanabw ^(talk) 20:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian, as you did at User:Pigsonthewing. Thomas.W ^talk 20:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Pigsonthewing/bearded twat[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as User:Pigsonthewing/bearded twat, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

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 "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. clpo13_(talk) 20:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Account blocked indefinitely. Harassment. Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]