User talk:Mr. SvMvP

Accidentally editing welcome template from your Talk page
You ought to use to avoid that problem.—Largo Plazo (talk) 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Adoption
Hi there. I saw that you're looking for adoption. I'm available to adopt you, if you're interested. What are you looking to learn from the adoption process? [ roux  ] [ x ] 00:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Let me choose, if you were to give me the list.--Mr. SvMvP (talk) 17:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't follow. What I meant was: right now you're a fairly new user. At the end of the adoption process you will be less new. Is there anything specific you want to learn between now and then? [ roux  ] [ x ] 17:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am interested. --Mr. SvMvP (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Your 'you have new messages' box
Hi there. It's true that generally speaking you can put whatever you like in your userspace. Almost. There are some things you aren't allowed to put there, and that includes messages that look like system messages. That is why Gb removed the box from your userpage, and it's why I'm going to ask you to remove it. If you need any help with this, please let me know, or read this page, which explains what you can and can't put on your user and talk pages. Also, since userpages are part of the wiki project, other people can edit them. It's generally polite not to, but when something is in violation of policy it is perfectly okay. It's more polite to leave a message on the talk page and ask the user to make the change, of course! [ roux  ] [ x ] 17:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you ask first. But thanks for doing so anyway.--Mr. SvMvP (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, it's generally okay for policy violations to be removed on sight. Asking first is a courtesy. One we should all do, obviously, but sometimes stuff just needs to be removed immediately, especially if it's an attack or violation of our Biography of Living Persons policy. Have you thought about my adoption offer? [  roux  ] [ x ] 17:42, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Heh, my answer to that is to continually revert back until someone asks politely if I can remove it. Thank you.--Mr. SvMvP (talk) 17:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, when someone removes something like that from your userspace, the implied meaning is "Oh hey, I know you know this and it's just an oversight on your part that you forgot to remove it, so I'll just do it for you." That's all. Replacing something in your userspace that you know shouldn't be there is not acting in good faith. It takes a while to get used to all these things around here, but that's basically how it works. [  roux  ] [ x ] 17:57, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Tagged for Advertising
The page for Jacob's Pillow has been tagged for readding too much like an advertisement, I am trying to edit it, because I know that it is a historical place, that i have research for college papers. I don't know what Languege to cleanup after my last edit, and how to get it untagged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilittle (talk • contribs) 17:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC) (Camilittle (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC))


 * Well, for a start sign your comments. Try comparing it to other articles. Try asserting facts about opinions but not the opinions themselves.--Mr. SvMvP (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So, I am still confused are you saying that once the problem is resolved by editing the tag will go away, And it is best not to save changes until the problem is solved.(Camilittle (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)).

Editing comments
Please don't edit other users' comments on talk pages, the way you did to mine at User talk:Camilittle. [ roux  ] [ x ] 18:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My mistake.--Mr. SvMvP (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Tom Sayle (3) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page.

Specifically, how long? Also, what's this apparant seventeenth chance?--Mr. SvMvP (talk) 15:52, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My standard suggestion to sockpuppeteers who want to make a fresh start is that they take a week away from the encyclopedia for each sockpuppet they created. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Then that's a big problem. All of next week is my half term of nine days. One week, I can probably try, but 42? Add 9 to that, that's a full year!--Mr. SvMvP (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, for someone who has created as many sockpuppets as you have, that's about the earliest you'd be likely to get anyone to take an unblock request seriously. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:01, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, then here's my suggestion. Shorten the block so that I am blocked for the number of weeks as I have sockpuppets.--Mr. SvMvP (talk) 16:09, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This isn't a negotiation, it's just me giving you some advice. Sockpuppeteers don't get unblocked very often; since they've acted dishonestly, people tend not to believe anything they say.  You can choose not to take my advice if you like; you could continue making accounts and being angry when they're blocked, if you prefer, or you could stop editing entirely, if that's more to your liking. But, no, I'm not willing to negotiate a shorter block, and I doubt that any other admin would, either. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:12, 24 October 2008 (UTC)