User talk:Aviyal/Archives/2012/January

deletion
Before you nominate any further article for deletion, please read WP:Deletion policy and WP:CSD -- and WP:N. Not being notable is not a reason for speedy deletion, only having no indication of any possible good faith imporance of significance--and that only for people, groups, or web content. Not books.  DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)== Sorry to bother again ==

Hello, sorry to bother again but could anyone please notify Ronhjones, that I'm a safe guy to process with (as AGK, the checkuser mentioned). I so excited to get an IPBE, I never had one. | Special thanks to AGK and thanks in advance for Ronhjones 'nd you! /\ talk←   Aviyal   →track ) /\ 20:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

auto-block, again
Thank you for helping Ronhjones. aviyal want's water 16:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Can you explain the reason behind this edit? JamesBWatson (talk) 17:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I wanted to get an IP block exception for 81.111.254.223, so I asked for a template that is available. /\ talk←   Aviyal   →track ) /\ 17:56, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Aviyal is a straight match to the sock-master who made this range-block necessary, but collateral damage is certainly feasible. The accounts in question are what we sometimes call "technically indistinguishable", and in appeals of blocks based on such a connection, behavioural evidence must be relied on in determining how likely is a link between the appellant and the subject of the RB. In this case, with a somewhat generous assumption of good faith, I am happy for Aviyal to be unblocked (or granted IPBE as the situation actually seems to require). I will leave this in the hands of the reviewing administrator, but this checkuser's opinion is that it is safe to unblock (with my apologies to the blockee for the disruption). AGK   [• ]  22:37, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

block

 * The account isn't blocked directly. You'll need to follow the unblock request details you see when you try to edit.  Please also advise as to where AGF recommended to make the new account.  Thanks!  ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 12:56, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

aviyal want's water 23:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC) Can you copy and paste what you see when you try to edit? We can't help you without that. Daniel Case (talk) 05:42, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but ...
I've been editing on Wikipedia for longer than I care to remember.

I have no desire to create a user account because there is no need for me to do so. It offers no advantage apart from having to remember to log in every time I access Wikipedia. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You can use many tools and you can easily access templates. If you have an account. /\ talk←   Aviyal   →track ) /\ 18:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)== Blaming others for doing 'vandalism' when they are not ==

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"), and be very careful about posting vandalism warning templates on users' talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See also Avoid the word "vandal". --188.113.91.110 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks but ...
I've been editing on Wikipedia for longer than I care to remember.

I have no desire to create a user account because there is no need for me to do so. It offers no advantage apart from having to remember to log in every time I access Wikipedia. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

You can use many tools and you can easily access templates. If you have an account. /\ talk←   Aviyal   →track ) /\ 18:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)== Blaming others for doing 'vandalism' when they are not ==

Please don't accuse editors of vandalism unless you're sure they have committed it. In particular, avoid using the word in edit summaries (such as "reverting vandalism"), and be very careful about posting vandalism warning templates on users' talkpages. Review the vandalism policy thoroughly before you do that, and see especially the section "What vandalism is not". Note that content disputes are not vandalism, and that good-faith edits of any kind, even if you think them misguided, are not to be considered vandalism. Vandalism accusations without any basis in policy are bad for the climate on the wiki and make constructive discussion more difficult. See also Avoid the word "vandal". --188.113.91.110 (talk) 18:20, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit to talk pages
I'm perfectly entitled to remove content from my own talk page and I don't have to provide an edit summary either as the appropriate comment is automatically added. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to MPlayer, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.&mdash;J. M. (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)