User:TeleComNasSprVen/The Piggy Bank/6¢

= October 2010 =

WP:WWF/D/2010/O
Would you like to join in the fun of wikifying pages at our wikification drive? Barnstars will be handed out to participants. WikiCopter (radio &bull; sorties &bull;  images &bull;  shot down) 00:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

NPD
You marked quite a few images one week ago today at npd. Many of these images are marked pd-self (e.g., ), with no compelling reason to mark as npd. May I ask you to be more careful in your image tagging? Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

In fact, today alone on patrol I had to remove 9 {{subst:npd}} mistaggings of yours on images. Out of those, 3 of those might be considered unfree due to being a derivative work - really they should be going through WP:PUF, as they're not clear-cut cases - but the rest are just inexplicable. Just as bad, not a single npd edit you made was actually valid - none of them were deletable. This not only creates more work for us as administrators, but is rather WP:BITEy towards our users. Please consider being more careful with Twinkle - I do warn you that other users have had their right to use it revoked in the past for being too hasty with it.

Apologies if this message is harsh but hopefully you understand the need for it. Thanks. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

HareKrishnaPortal
I see, that wikipedia is mostly atheistic. So what should I do? Wait till atheists kill whole world??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.132.108.252 (talk) 13:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Abdullah a khoshaim
Is "unreadable" a good justification for requesting speedy deletion of a user page in Arabic? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:56, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Files that you tagged
Sorry, but if a source is valid at one time, it is always valid for the purposes of this criterion. It's vaguely like print sources: unless we have good reason to believe otherwise, we assume good faith on the part of the uploader. Alternatively, think of rotten links as sources for content: as long as they're properly sourced, with access dates, all style guides accept them as valid. Even if you have good reason to believe that the uploader didn't follow policy, do not edit image descriptions as you did: sources are provided, and removal of them is disruptive. If you find an image whose rotten link you don't trust to have contained the permission that is claimed, you should take it to FFD. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed speedy deletion tag: User:Levani1980
Hi TeleComNasSprVen! Firstly, thanks for helping out in CSD areas. I just wanted to inform you that I removed the speedy deletion tag you placed on User:Levani1980- because: blanking is not taken as a deletion request in the userspace. If you have any questions or other message, please contact me. Thanks Kingpin13 (talk) 15:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion, again
I see you mistagged the above image again. I'll overlook the fact that WP:CSD doesn't apply to images on commons, and assume you meant F8 - but the images aren't even of the same tint. Please slow down TCNSV, your talk page is littered with requests to review CSD better and slow down. If you don't, we may have to remove your ability to use Twinkle at all (yes, we can do that). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but I believe that was established after the fact. In any case, if it is that important, I might as well bring it to FfD sometime; I cannot see any mention currently of the tint of the picture having a bearing on the csd criteria. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  04:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording states Images available as identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons (or higher quality/resolution). The previous wording I suppose was clearer: "bit for bit copy". Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:47, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

User talk:69.181.249.92 (2)
Thanks. I really, really hate Huggle from time to time. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 04:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  04:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI
FYI, please keep this in mind when you MfD multiple pages. Cunard (talk) 07:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Would tag all the pages listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dp67/Sandboxes/rail-terms with the MfD tag? This helps closing admins who use User:Doug/closemfd.js delete those pages automatically. Otherwise, they would have to delete them manually. Cunard (talk) 05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  05:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Alexytor
How does this qualify for G6? I've declined it for now. Airplaneman  ✈  05:04, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Same for User:Wbvanrij. I am aware you moved the welcome to the talk page, but not via page moving, so just keep the pages for attribution, if anything. Airplaneman   ✈  05:08, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Same for User:N8-2007. Deleted the rest you tagged per G6. Got your message on my talk as well, Airplaneman   ✈  05:11, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I've declined your G7 of User:Dp67/Sandbox as well because it is a sandbox, and I would think they'd be cleared periodically. It doesn't look like the user explicitly requested deletion, so I see no harm in letting it remain. Airplaneman  ✈  05:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alright, thanks for the notification. If I see any more of his sandboxes, I should probably undo the same. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  05:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedies declined
Hi, I've declined your speedy-deletion requests for User:Randfan/Vandals and User:Randfan/Vandalism, because the relevant MfD, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Shanel/Vandalize, does not appear to extend to all similar pages. Feel free to open a separate MfD for these two pages. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:07, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Bulk prod tagging of Lotus cars
Really bad move. Did you have a WP:POINT, or were you just trying to disrupt things for other editors? Your talk page is full of complaints about your over-hasty seeking of deletion. Hasn't the hint dropped yet? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, why are you using a sockpuppet to do this. Are you simply ashamed of the contributions history for it, and want to distance yourself from your own edits? Andy Dingley (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You have listed as a doppelgänger account, however doppelgängers are not supposed to be used for editing, they are to be used to prevent someone from impersonating you, by using a username that is similar to your own.  --kelapstick (talk) 06:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive picture move requests
Please stop them. The file name does not violate the generic provision of file naming conventions. In addition, you requested a move after it was clear there was no consensus for the move on the talk page, and in addition made the strange implication that the uploader was a Texan. Remember that the uploader has a fair amount of leeway in naming files. Thank you.  Pur ple  back pack 89    06:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "Requests"? It was just one file name request that you refer to. First, what proof do you have I made more than one such request? Second, where is the policy that states "the uploader has a fair amount of leeway in naming files"? Please remain under good faith and tell me sincerely since I don't know all of Wikipedia's rules. I'll also be happy to discuss this on the talkpage instead if you want. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  07:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Need to use edit summaries
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to LO-NOx_burner. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.

Using inappropriate summaries such as this  'rv promo.'  when applied to a non-controversial formatting or linkage issues create an unwarranted appearance of an overly-promotional article and could be considered as WP:POV. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet issues
Raised at Sockpuppet investigations/TeleComNasSprVen Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Talkback: Template Talk:Citation needed
—  Spike Toronto  18:08, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa, whoa, stop first
Whoa, hold it with all the Youth Olympics AFDs. As you can see from Articles for deletion/Canoeing at the 2010 Summer Youth Olympics – Girls' K1 slalom, there is no consensus yet on how to treat these articles — but there is agreement that these are not "non-notable". I'd ask you stop AFDing any others for now and open a discussion on the individual events' notability first (WT:OLY I guess, or Talk:2010 Summer Youth Olympics) — and if there's agreement the individual events aren't important enough, we can then go about AFDing or merging them. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 10:59, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notification. After reading over the AfD and the link you've provided, it was good you intervened in time, seeing as how I was still poring over Special:PrefixIndex/Athletics at the 2010 Commonwealth Games before the banner came up. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  11:04, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding the deadlinks — I mentioned it to AngChenrui recently, and we're planning to go around and fix them asap. It should be able to reference results, even for each individual phase of the competition, if that's any sort of issue. The main issue I can see is introducing prose into the article to make them less sports-results-y. Strange Passerby (talk • c • status) 11:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Online Video Streaming
Thanks for the heads-up. I just forgot (and, I guess, I was a little ashamed of having blocked so quickly). Daniel Case (talk) 15:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI @ RFA
See Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship. – xeno talk 20:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review notice
Please see Deletion_review/Log/2010_October_25. -- Cirt (talk) 13:22, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Essay
I don't really think this essay is a good fit for project space, since it's essentially just one person's view, and more importantly it seems you moved it without asking them (unless you're in contact with them off wiki). You're welcome to edit it though. I changed a few typos, and also changed Asperger's Syndrome to Asperger syndrome, as that is the most common spelling in the medical field, even though "Asperger's" is used when the word stands alone.  — Soap  —  00:23, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

good faith and civility
For good faith and civility, see here. --Sreifa (talk) 06:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of User:Eseki
I've declined your speedy deletion request of User:Eseki. It's not clear why this is uncontroversial maintenance. It needs to go to WP:MfD. Thanks. Ged UK  08:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I put my reasoning down as "Crosswiki abuse" but if you say so... :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  14:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problems
Hi. I appreciate your attention to copyright on Wikipedia. We need people to keep an eye on that! I do want to ask you, though, to please be careful when tagging to check to see if the site in question copied from us. The article Codian, for instance, which you tagged on the 20th has just come due for admin closure today. The page you listed as the source,, is a collection of web links and info copied from various pages around the web. The content it duplicates is cited to "Codian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". Yesterday's list for admin review included M. M. Ispahani, which you were concerned had copied from. Although they certainly don't make it easy to say, that website displays this text in a box below "Related categories": "Some data may have been obtained from the M M Ispahani page on Wikipedia and used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License." It's better to bring up copyright concerns and be mistaken than not to bring them up and be right, but we don't want to blank content unnecessarily when somebody else is copying from our contributors. Thanks. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"What standards?"
If you don't know the standards for naming conventions, you clearly shouldn't be requesting name changes. Full stop. To is disruptive and a violation of WP:CLUE and numerous other policies. In addition, your persistent attempts to move an image I uploaded even when you've been told you're wrong multiple times show that you are again hounding me  Pur ple  back pack 89    15:38, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Funny, you accuse me of hounding, and yet just after posting your message on this talkpage, you decide to vote in one of the MfDs, especially since you don't hang around MfD much? Furthermore, you start engaging in WP:MAJORITY and WP:ADHOM, not very aware of the guidelines for deleting pages and making breaches of policy everywhere. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  19:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * So, when are you going to address the fact that you admitted to not knowing the standards for image naming conventions after you nominated something for renaming? Instead all you do is talking about how I breach policy, according to you and only you   Pur ple  back pack 89    21:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * When are you going to address the fact that I was clearly within my rights to request a rename of the file, per Image file names and other conventions? Files should be as descriptive as possible, and your naming of the file only adds to ambiguity, as you yourself have confessed. I don't keep "talking about how [you] breach policy" since you were the first to accuse me of disruption. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  21:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, Tele, File Image Names clearly says it has to be very ambigious, not just a little ambigious. You were in your rights the first time, but by the second time, it just got disruption   Pur ple  back pack 89    21:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Prove to me how so? Did I readd the tag on the image page after you removed it? No! I decided to waste my time on the talkpage instead. Please tell me how that is disruptive, especially when considering WP:BRD. Furthermore, one-word answers such as "No" without any policy or reasoning behind them are a) ambiguous and b) disregarded. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  21:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

fyi
WRT your prod of Icebreaker Kingfisher... Geo Swan (talk) 15:41, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm happy to be proven wrong. Thanks for the notification. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  22:36, 31 October 2010 (UTC)