User talk:Retiono Virginian/Archive three

This is an archive of past dicussions from Retiono Virginians talk page. The past 20 dicussions are archived here. Please do not modify it. Retiono Virginian 21:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem[edit]

We have a problem, a new account has been created and they created the article just deleted with a fake protection tag on it.Telly addict 14:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

its User:Lonasd

The user above has sent me a message explaining his actions and that he needs the page to be protected from recreation as it is a attack page against him, even if this is not true it should be protected as its been recreated three times in the last few days, I'll leave a comment to an admin shortly.Telly addict 15:09, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were not acting like an idiot, if you needed to go for personal reasons then you have every right, no-one will judge you.Telly addict 15:46, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SOCKS[edit]

The users you listed on WP:AIV should be reported to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets.Rlevse 15:24, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't block them because there was nothing in the contrib logs on them. Were they speedy deleted or something? Do they still need blocked? Pls respond on my talk page. Thanks for the help.Rlevse 15:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if they persist, just leave a note on my talk page and I'll block and if you tell me the article names, I'll prevent them from being recreated. I'll remove them from AIV for the time being. OK? Rlevse 15:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that I know the article name and can pull the logs, I'll block recreation of the article and Longla, but I don't see that IP in there, so I'll hold off on him for now. Give me a few moments to do all this. I'll get back to you.Rlevse 16:03, 4 March 2007 (UTC)...PS Now I see the IP, I'll do him too. Rlevse 16:04, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, do you want the IP blocked? About as long as I could go is 31 hours in this case.Rlevse 16:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retiono and Telly: I've blocked Fran Timbers from being recreated, this will prevent both problem users from editing it, naturally, so I didn't block them. If they cause more trouble, let me know or report to AIV if I'm not online.Rlevse 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rlevse, Retiono Virginian/Archive three told me to tell you about the circumstances of this, I answered a question on the Help desk by a user who said they were adding DB tags and they were being removed, thinking this to be just one count, I answered and advised the user and left 1 warning for about 10 times of removal (in which he later blanked) I then left {{notability}} and Template:Db-nonsense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) in which were instantly removed, I then checked the page history and it was clear tags had been removed at least 10 times, mine was removed so I reverted it and he removed them and Retiono Virginian/Archive three helped keep the tags on as this turned into an edit war. Later User:Lonasd said they were attack pages being made against him, I then asked him why he removed the tas in that case and he was a but unclear, however I checked the user creation log after I saw and multiple accounts in which appeared were reverting tags and the accounts were created within a few mins of each other. The page was deleted and that seems to be the end of it. I told the user that I'd keep an eye on the new pages and that another administrator in which I contacted to protect the page from recreation would also to. I am not sure whether a block wold do it or not because if these are attack pages against him were made by who he were taking the mic which I'm unsure about whether he is innocent or not but he was causing trouble prior to this, sorry for long msg.Telly addict 16:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on I'll have a look around and get back to you on that one!Tellyaddict 16:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read that he pretended he had PHD's and was a professor or something and he used this to win arguments nad it turned out as a matter of fact he wasn't. I'm not certain though so I'd probably have a look around for yourself.Telly addict 16:55, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

Sorry about what I did to the template. That was an accident. For some reason, I thought I was at the sandbox. >Kamope< Talk · Sign Here 16:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Hi, The only reason i did a supposed "Personal Attack" at that salt dude or whatever his name was, was because he deleted a notable article about my band that my friend worked very hard on, he didn't just delete it, he protected it against future creations with that name. I hope you understand, he is really being unfair. And i hope you can help me, my friends username is NeilHamSandwhich. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Milaneus (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Re: Gwern[edit]

I was watching the IRC feed when it started and they've all been deleted. Thanks for you help. :) Zsinj^Talk 19:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Thanks for the barnstar! =) Nishkid 64 23:40, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for saying you feel I'm ready for an RfA for me in the future, you see the thing is my failed RFA was only two months back so I'd like to leave it for 1-2 months, however your comment is greatly appreciated and if you would like to nominate me or voice your opinion on a future RfA in the future months I would be overjoyed, thanks again and happy editing.Telly addict 17:06, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign my autograph page[edit]

Please sign my autograph page. A•N•N•Afoxlov e r PLEASE SIGN, ANYONE!!! 14:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting Vandalism[edit]

Hi there, Could you please be a bit more careful when you are reverting vandalism? This recent edit created a problem which took a while to get properly cleaned up. As you can see, you reverted a reversion -- thereby restoring the vandalism. Subsequent editors (or their bots) assumed that your reversion had left a clean edit, thus prolonging the mess. Obviously, that wasn't what you intended! But this kind of sloppyiness sure isn't helpful.

Also, please take a look at the edit summaries you've been leaving, all of which read the same: "Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3". I don't use popups myself, but I presume that you need to adjust the settings in some fashion.

Personally, I prefer to do things manually -- even though it probably takes a little longer, it avoids these errors. Also, it allows me to look at the user's talk page to assess which warning template is most appropriate to post -- a crucial step in dissuading them from further vandalism. Cgingold 14:19, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, again. I believe I've already given you a good deal of input for your Editor Review in the above message. You might want to slow down a bit in your revert edits, just to avoid this sort of mistake. Glad you care enough to take this seriously, and I hope my comments prove helpful. But I can't really spare any more time for additional comments, sorry. Good luck, Cgingold 17:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Review[edit]

Thanks for taking it well as I didn't mean for it to sound cheeky and/or disrespectful but it was just that bit mainly in thr editor review about the Newpages and RC patrol, I'm glad you took it well as I did not mean to offend you under any circumstances. Also, because you now say you feel because you have 1,000 edits you are an established wikipedian - Do you think there is any need for me to still to adopt you because you've been here a while and seem to involved in many areas and I think you would be able to cope on your own but you can still feel free to leave any comments or questions on my talk page and I'll reply A.S.A.P. its up to you however, which ever way I do not mind as if you wish to stay adopted for the minute I would be happy with that.Regards - Tellyaddict 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you still wish to remain adopted then that is fine with me, it was completely up to you, when you say about I will always have more experience I think you could be wrong, for all we know you could have a much large knowledge of wikipedia policy than me, all Wikipedians are treated with equality no matter how old or new they are, I greatly value your comments and I thank you very much!! Regards - Tellyaddict 16:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA[edit]

Hi, I'd just like to say that although I was a little unsure at first I am happy to tell you that I have greatfully accepted the nomination and answered the questions, I'm not advertising my RfA but you may wish to leave your comments there as the nominator, however if you make a self-nom you cannot support yourself (← That was a bit random??) Anyway another note to say thanks for everything you have done, I have only just submitted it so I have no idea what the majority consensus will be in 1 weeks time. Again Thanks!! --Regards - Tellyaddict 21:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is advised against to "advertise yor RfA" so I am going to ask you not to but its much appreciated that you are willing to do this, I think many of the Wikipedians I know regularly vote at RFAs, but yes you are allowed to vote as my nominator but on self nominations it is not permitted to support yourself, I only told you and Snowolf because I did not want any users to feel I was advertising the RfA just incase users get the wrong end of the stick. Again thank you for nominating me and always being polite!!! Regards - Tellyaddict 22:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your contrib histories are broken[edit]

Hi - after you left a Welcome message on someone's talk page, I was going to remind you to {{subst:}} it. So I looked in your contrib history and saw you were an experienced editor and figured there was no reason to bother. But THEN, I noticed that many of your recent reverts probably using a bot, like this one, show an edit history of (Revert to revision $1 dated $2 by $3 using popups) (note the $1, $2, $3). So I thought I'd mention that you might want to get that checked. Cheers! - Aagtbdfoua 01:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, after committing the comment, I noticed that someone else mentioned it above. Disregard! - Aagtbdfoua 01:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took into consideration the fact about how users may think I am a sockpuppet however to avoid this confusion I have said on my User page that I will not be participting in any discssions/debates in which I contributed in under Tellyaddict or this would make them unfair but I'll still be contributing to ones I have not previously, It says here that many users can have multiple accounts for manner permitted ways, I had my User talk and my User page fully protected to prevent future trolling and I'm shortly going to contact that administrator and ask he/she to add a mesage saying if anyone does not believe me thay can ru ba checkuser on me. Honestly though, please do not feel bad! I'm actually looking forward to starting fresh here, my Tellyaddict account is inactive and I feel starting fresh when actually familiar with policies will benefit me greatly - again, please don't feel bad! I like my new account here, I dont mind if you wish to removed the userbox but I can still help you along the way! Thanks for contacting me and their is no need to feel bad -

.Aquasplash 12:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tellyaddict[edit]

You're not supposed to canvassing candidates in the first place. So, don't come to me and tell me what I did was wrong. I have my right to oppose, and it's a fair evaluation. I've helped Tellyaddict a number of times with AIV reports, and other cases, and I've found that his judgment is not too great, yet. I believe he still needs time to hone his judgment before going up for RfA. Also, there is no need to start a new account. If he is not so concerned about adminship, he wouldn't have done so. Remember, we're here to build an encyclopedia, not to get adminship. Adminship should have been something that he might have considered down the road when he realized it would be quite helpful when dealing with vandals or closing XfDs. Nishkid 64 17:14, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's not violating any part of WP:SOCK. If he had, I'm sure someone would have already blocked his other account. If he uses Tellyaddict and Aquasplash on the same XfD, for example, then that would be a violation of WP:SOCK. Anyway, I'm trying to get him to reconsider his hasty decision to start over new. Nishkid 64 17:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retiono Virginian/Archive three, I would like to tell you I am back on this account and my newly created account User talk page and User page have now been deleted by Nishkid64 at my requests, however their are a few things I would like to point out.

I can remember asking you not to tell users about my RfA as its seen as advertising it, but it appeared as if you ignored this - I am not going to hold this against you but I did specifically tell you.
On Nishkid64's userpage you left comments about how you though his oppose of my RfA was bad, Thank you for sticking up for me but he/she has the right to their opinion, you also made it sound to him as if I'd left because of that, I had left because I though I needed a fresh start but I've reconsidered and I realise now my decision was hasty and little silly so I'm keeping this account.

You may wish to re-add the userbox to your userpage about me being your adopter as I'm definitely keeping this account. I am happy you were sticking up for me and I'm assuming good faith but I would appreciate it if in the future you would listen to my opnions instead of going and doing this anyway, regardless of whether somebody asks you to or not. Anyway not meaning to sound disrespectful. Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 19:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to volunteer at the help desk please refrain from making fun of other users requests for help, even if the comment was not for the appropriate place, there is no need for comments like this. This edit edit was removed by a user saying that it was "not an appropriate response". I also noticed you said HA to her, this is strongly against the civility policy, the instructions for volunteers clearly states as the most important to be friendly, courteous and helpful at all times. If you are going to continue making offensive commnents and making fun of people please do not volunteer at the help desk any more where there are many people who are new and do not understand many areas of wikipedia, however if you are willing to be friendly even if the comments or in the wrong place then please continue to do so there but please remember to remain polite. Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 22:33, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was not calling a vandal its just saying HA could be seen by most as making fun of them and it does say to be polite. Best Regards - Tellyaddict (Talk) 13:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal?[edit]

Is there some misunderstanding here? I don't recall saying that you were a vandal, and I think I'd remember if I said that of a long-term contributor (as best as I know, I've never used that term for anything other than new contributors). If I did, I certainly apologize, but I'd appreciate your telling me where I did. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:48, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. Apologies for the confusion. What I was telling Tellyaddict was that Sharoncooper1963, the user who posted the question at the help desk, had posted a bogus question, and I considered him/her to be a vandal. The content I removed from the Help desk page was only what was posted by that user account; I didn't touch (as far as I know) the postings of other editors in response to the question. And I was telling Tellyaddict that he had made a mistake by posting a comment to User talk:Sharoncooper1963 in which he more-or-less apologized for what I did; in fact, Tellyaddict agreed, since he went and removed his posting from User talk:Sharoncooper1963.

I hope that clarifies things; if not, I'll be happy to walk through the edits (diffs) for you. -- John Broughton (♫♫) 14:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: That Ip[edit]

Hm. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. Adjusted some things, hopefully that takes care of it, for now. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have new questions at Editor review[edit]

The Transhumanist 04:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have new questions at Editor review[edit]

The Transhumanist 04:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popups[edit]

Hey your Popups are working again..What did you do so that I can fix mine..--Cometstyles 16:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an Old Glitch has been Fixed..I'll Find Out..Thanx Anyway..Cheers..--Cometstyles 16:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject NEE[edit]

Well because the change over is recent, we are still in the process o tagging tha articles, all of the aproppriate articles can be found at:

their are load of sub pages for these areas, I tagged about 200 articles today as theres is now an automatic button I can use to rate articles for quality and their class, you can tag these articles if you wish or help at the above categories, but yes its definitely something to explore. Thanks for your comments!! Telly addict 21:12, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is still classed as NE England.Telly addict 21:14, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

Thanks for the Barnstar! Hopefully, it will be the first of many. :)

Kriak 02:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MartinBot protection[edit]

Hi - I would probably protect, were it not for the fact that I prefer the praise for the bot, welcome as always, to be able to be added directly by users. Of course, we get some vandalism, but this is usually quickly reverted. Mart inp23 17:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User page[edit]

Thanks for the revert. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]