User talk:Thedefender35/Archive 1

I see that you're discouraged
Editing Wikipedia is not always easy, but getting involved in admin-type processes without a strong understanding of the nuances involved can trip editors up even if they have the best intentions. If you feel overwhelmed and need a break, then it's important that you take some time away. There are so many areas of this encyclopedia that could use help, maybe you could spend some time making small changes and get a better feel for article improvement as opposed to vandalism fighting and administrative areas.-- Ponyo bons mots 19:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ponyo is right. Fighting vandals and trolls is useful activity but it can be depressing. Follow your interests and work on an article about a subject that really interests you or, on the other hand, on a subject you know absolutely nothing about! Consider joining a WikiProject, it can fun to collaborate with other editors who share your hobbies and interests. There is so much on Wikipedia to explore than has nothing to do with reverting vandalism. And you don't need to be an excellent writer to start! And you can always help out at the Teahouse and Help Desk. Share the knowledge you've gained from your experience here. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 00:56, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * It's unfortunate that you've chosen not to listen to the advice provided here. Edits like this do absolutely nothing to improve the encyclopedia, which is why we're here, and providing advice at the Teahouse when you, yourself, are having such a difficult time interpreting policies and guidelines is not helpful. I see that, despite your good intentions, nearly every post you've responded to there has provided incorrect or misleading information to new users. Please re-read the two messages above and reconsider what is the best use of your time on Wikipedia.-- Ponyo bons mots 19:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ponyo In the three questions I have answered all three were resulted via a link I had sent that related t the subject. I was concerned an nearly dormant account randomly found the admin noticeboard so I asked if it was possible sockpuppetry. I seriously don't understand what I did that was wrong in the teahouse? The user asked how to upload pictures and I linked Preparing images for upload twice on two separate questions pertaining to very close related issues. Please explain what I should have done different. Tdshe /her 20:02, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This reply was incorrect as noted by another admin in the thread. Admins don't run the site, and linking to the policies and guidelines page is not helpful as it doesn't address the crux of the concerns raised in the thread.
 * This reply was incorrect, which another editor pointed out to you.
 * This reply was also incorrect, as pointed out by the administrator who responded.
 * I haven't even looked at your full participation at the Teahouse, these are just three I checked at random.
 * With regard to edit at the Arbitration Noticeboard, MZMcBride outright asked if Parabolist edited under other accounts. You asking "is it possible parablolist is a sock" as a reply adds nothing to the an already extremely heated discussion.
 * I'm not going to continue providing advice and voicing concerns regarding your edits because I don't think it will make a difference. Good luck with your editing.-- Ponyo bons mots 20:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * ok I apologize Tdshe /her 20:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:Teahouse
In this thread, you gave incorrect information. Using the move function, autoconfirmed editors can change the title of their sandbox pages. I have personally created over 100 articles by moving various of my sandbox pages to encyclopedia main space.

Please do not provide answers at the Teahouse unless you are reasonably certain that your answer is correct. Do not speculate. Cullen328 (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2022 (UTC)


 * understood i will let others respond and I'll try to learn from my mistakes. Tdshe /her 22:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

teahouse
@Ponyo and @Cullen328 after looking through the rules and reading what i posted I now understand what I did wrong. After talking on another users page i have made the decision to watch the page and not edit until I know more about how to properly respond and make decisions. Thank you both for your insight on the issue. Tdshe /her 17:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

ANI
TD, you're making multiple replies in a space that is really not a good place for newer users. And the conversation you're commenting in is of the most contentious. Consider just watching and learning. Valereee (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Understood Tdshe /her 19:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

You are continuing to give extremely poor advice at the teahouse.
Despite multiple requests on this page you do not seem to have gotten the message and are continuing to give out extremely poor, confusing and incorrect advice at the teahouse.

Here you tell a random IP editor asking how to edit to read New users and user pages, an essay about inappropriate user pages. How does that essay answer their question? IP editors don't even get userpages!

Here You write the incorrect response. Notability does not apply to the content of articles and has nothing to do with updates, see WP:NNC. Verifiability determines what content could be included in an update to an article, along with other content policies like WP:NPOV, WP:Due weight, WP:BLP, WP:NOR etc. You then follow this up with another comment that doesn't make sense. The IP editor correctly identified the COI issues and stated that they should use edit requests, so you respond with advice on how they can prevent their edits being reverted? The edits the other editor just told them not to make?

Here you appear to be making completely random guesses at how something might work? What you said there is completely wrong.

This is now the fourth thread on your talk page about inappropriate involvement in behind the scenes areas, and even more concerningly this appears to be a near exact repeat of the behaviour that got you blocked a year ago. Your commitment not to edit the teahouse until you know what you are doing lasted for 3 days, during which time you didn't edit at all. If you continue to edit like this you are going to end up blocked again, and next time it might not be one of our nice admins giving you a time limited block to give you some time to grow up, it will almost certainly be indefinite.

I am going to be extremely blunt with you here, in the hope that you listen and course correct before you end up blocked.

You are a newbie. You do not have any real experience here. You do not understand policy. You do not understand guidelines. You don't understand the behind the scenes working of this site.

That, by itself, isn't a problem, everyone here starts out clueless and with no idea how things are done. The problem is that you aren't editing how we would expect a newbie to edit. You aren't editing content and learning policy. You are trying to behave like an admin and tell other people what to do, when you don't know what to do yourself. This results in a lot of people having to waste their time cleaning up after you, whether it be correcting incorrect advice you've given, or declining incorrect administrative reports.

You need to step away from administration and work on content until you have a much better understanding of how things work, because at the moment you are being disruptive. 192.76.8.77 (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Don't give up
Please don't give up just yet. Give me some time and I'll make a proposal to help you. You can choose to accept or not. I think you deserve that opportunity and I'm willing to help you. -- A Rose Wolf  17:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Please help me. I really like using Wikipedia and I would hate to get blocked. Tdshe /her 17:26, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going to to try since you are willing. Let me put something together and I'll let you know. Then you can either accept or deny. Stay away from the Teahouse or Help Desk though, okay? -- A Rose Wolf  17:28, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * so far I've made a request for a tban from the help desk and teahouse on Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsTdshe /her 17:29, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was hoping to avoid that as a blemish but we can work within the ban. -- A Rose Wolf  18:20, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * what we did was ban me answering question but allows me to ask questions Tdshe <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 18:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Editing restrictions/Voluntary Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 18:23, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine. With your permission I would like to claim you as a mentee. If you have any questions about what it means you can check out WP: Growth Team features. You can always remove me or aske to be removed and I will comply. After I have claimed you then you can go to your Preferences and activate your Homepage under the Newcomer editor features. -- A Rose Wolf  18:38, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll start with looking over that page and getting familiar with each function. -- A Rose Wolf  18:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am ok with being your mentee thank you for giving me this chance.Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 18:39, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course. I'd rather give you the chance. I believe you will be such a positive for the encyclopedia and an amazing editor. We'll just get you started and growing in the right direction. -- A Rose Wolf  18:50, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've claimed you as a mentee so now when you go to the homepage you should see me as your mentor. You can ask me questions directly from your homepage. -- A Rose Wolf  18:53, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * got it, Thanks for the help.Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 18:55, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

There is a box labeled "Suggested edits" on your homepage. This will be the primary way you will make small but meaningful edits for a while. There are three options. Easy - Recommended for when you are first learning to edit. These are primarily copy edits such as fixing grammar, spelling and tone within an article. Medium - After you have completed some easy edits. These will be edits such as finding and adding sources for existing articles or bringing the information in an article up-to-date. Hard - When you have learned about Wikipedia best practices. Expanding short articles and creating articles. -- A Rose Wolf  19:16, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good morning (early morning for me), please make sure that your setting is for easy edits. We'll move on to medium and hard edits later on. You will be given suggested articles to review for these specific issues. Pick the first one and look over the article to see if there are any grammatical, spelling or tone issues. If there are obvious edits needing to be made then make them yourself and make sure to leave an edit summary to notify everyone you have made copyedits. If you need help or have any questions about an edit please let me know and I'll assist you. You may go several suggestions without finding any issues. It's okay, keep looking. -- A Rose Wolf  14:58, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You are most definitely not useless. You are beautiful. You are a Song. You are a Rainbow of colors and you are going to get through this. You can learn and you will be successful. Keep trying! -- A Rose Wolf  18:43, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @ARoseWolf, just a note that I've suggested @Thedefender35 come to you for some assistance as I think they mean well but are out of their depth at ANI. Star   Mississippi  20:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . @Thedefender35, AN/I is an administrative noticeboard. While it is true that any editor can leave a comment and in most cases it is even encouraged that experienced editors and the community give their opinion, it is just as important that comments remain policy based there as it is on the Teahouse and the Help Desk. I am trying to work with you and we will get into policy and guidelines but I need you to prove to me that this won't be a waste of time and efforts. You can be the most well intentioned editor and be 100% against policy. You can be acting in the best of faith and still be disruptive. Please consider this and stay away from those discussions for now. Focus on making small edits. Show me you can do this and we'll move to studying some policies and guidelines. I need your commitment to this effort. -- A Rose Wolf  13:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @ARoseWolf I was told by User:Star Mississippi that statements like "Possible copyvio..." with no reason for setting up an afd were Good faith despite several other editors calling User:The Banner out for not attempting to give any viable reason. I also find it weird that User:Star Mississippi was also involved in those votes that went 1-0 and they have also refused to give a reason for why they didn't notice this despite being directly involved. I seriously don't understand what I'm missing in this situation as they deleted on of the top 5 football teams and got a user banned because they were in distress. Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her  16:48, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Thedefender35 I never said one way or the other whether the nominations were in good faith, I think you have me mixed up with another editor. I was not involved with the votes beyond my closing of the AfDs, which is at Deletion_review/Log/2022_October_19, the proper venue to review closures about which there is concern. If you believe I should be blocked, make a case for it here and I'm sure an uninvolved editor would bring it to AN. I don't think you'll find support for it, just as you didn't in the thread. I will note that I did not got a user banned. The user in question decided to call our actions racist and when advised to stop, they were blocked. I did not block them, although I did suggest TP be removed and suggested a partial block from DRV. I would not have blocked myself as you're correct, I am involved. As I said, you're editing in good faith but I don't think you understand the way this project works, which is why you're in over your head. Star   Mississippi  17:10, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * sorry I got you mixed with User:Sergecross73 who said "You want to block an AFD participant for a good faith AFD !vote with no past pattern of disruptive AFD participation? That's insane. This is an awful approach." Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 17:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * the "block" he is talking about was a 24hr block from afds so that banner could look over what he did wrong. Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 17:14, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * that was supported by several editors. "Agreed with Jayron and Ravenswing, repeated untenable nominations are bad enough, but AfDing so many that are obviously notable is beyond disruptive." as per User:JoelleJay. "Actually, you have quite a mediocre record at AfD. AfD tools report that in the last thousand nominations you've filed, the eventual result matches yours just 57% of the time, which is not much better than random chance.
 * But we are not talking about AfDs you filed five years ago -- although given your recent behavior, a closer examination of your record is appropriate. We're talking the AfDs you filed against articles on highly notable subjects that HugoAcosta created, where you demonstrably did not perform WP:BEFORE, where you levied unsupported and likely unfounded accusations of copyright violations at him. Do you have an explanation for those?" as per User:Ravenswing. "Another vote for temporarily banning User:The Banner from AFDs and further punishment if he continues, the AFDs he's just put up are are at best ridiculous, and at worst incendiary." as per User:Ortizesp Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 17:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * i would fully understand concern if I was the only user implying he broke protocol but I am most definitely not. If this is out of line for me to state my support for something I didn't even come up with then what that constitute for the user who made the suggestion? Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 17:18, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Star Mississippi if you need more quotes for the proposed out of line afds let me know. Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 17:19, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * right or wrong, often there's a point where it's best to walk away from a situation. On AN/I, doubly so. — TheresNoTime (talk • they/them) 17:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. A discussion is moving forward as to whether The Banner should be sanctioned. There isn't anything you need to do. Star   Mississippi  17:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * To answer your initial concerns: "Possible copyvio" can definitely be Good Faith, as can setting up an AfD, as can answering questions at the Teahouse and commenting at AN/I. Lot's of things can be good faith but what makes them relevant to Wikipedia is whether they are policy based or not. After reading the AN/I case I do believe The Banner made some critical errors. There does appear to be AfD's where notable subjects were proposed for deletion and some may have even been deleted. As terrible as that may be, articles can be rewritten or their deletion reversed though proper discussion at the proper venue. Wikipedia has a process for those things and experienced editors and admins will review. That being said, though your position may be "in the right" that doesn't mean that your comments weren't disruptive. @HugoAcosta9 was not blocked because of his race. He was not blocked because of his opposition to those articles being nominated for AfD with some being deleted. He wasn't blocked because he was frustrated. He was blocked, not banned, because of his repeated personal attacks against others and that alone. He was disruptive. @TheBanner's behavior will be and is being reviewed and commented on. We have very experienced editors and admins there discussing it. Let them handle it. You need to be focused on learning how to edit and learning policy/guidelines by reading. Less focus on others and more focus on what you can do to improve the encyclopedia. That's the only way this is going to work and the only way to avoid being banned or blocked yourself. Once you gain a good understanding of policy/guidelines then you can go back to these discussion pages if you wish to. Please heed my words. I am cautioning you to stay away from these discussion boards. -- A Rose Wolf  17:26, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @ARoseWolf all of my comments were made a day or so after Hugo got blocked and I am in no way saying he was in the right. What Hugo did was extremely out of line. I watched the situation unfold and looked at the links provided several times. Only after another user stated that banner was out of line did I comment on the situation(saying that I supported a short block) I was more then happy to leave it at that. but User:Sergecross73 decided to say I was implying that a full block was fair as seen above.Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 17:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm more the happy to step away as long as it doesn't go down saying i was trying to be harsh on banner for a mistake. I even said he is human and we make mistakes and only asked for an apology/reason. Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 17:32, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Sergecross was not commenting about your proposal for @TheBanner. They were commenting about your proposed ban for "all involved admins". Granted, you thought @TheBanner was an admin, a separate issue altogether but one newer editors make often, but to block anyone that !votes or comments on an AfD because they make a mistake is not the way this encyclopedia works. Nor should we be blocking closers for 24 hours because their close was challenged. That's not a path we want to go down. Expressing your position is not the issue here. No one is saying you shouldn't be able to. What we are saying is that you aren't ready from a policy/guideline position to propose sanctions on anyone. I'm imploring you to stay away from the noticeboards because that is a very tricky place for new editors. It can be a quagmire similar to answering questions on the Teahouse or involving yourself in highly contentious article discussions. My goal is to have you focused on making edits to articles first and then slowly transitioning you to reading and discussing policies with me here so myself and other experienced editors can answer your questions here on your talk page so that we can make sure you have a good understanding of policy and guidelines. If you decide that's not what you want then I won't waste mine or your time further and my part in this will end here. I am giving you the opportunity to learn and grow in a relatively protected environment before with me here but that means you need to avoid the areas I mentioned at all costs, unless you are the subject of the discussion. I leave that up to you but I need to know if you are committed to this with me or not. -- A Rose Wolf  18:01, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * you're completely right I'm sorry @Star Mississippi I'll stay away until I understand the policy's more effectively. Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 18:35, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Now, if you would like, we can go back to what we were doing. I think it would be good for you to make some simple edits to an article or articles. -- A Rose Wolf  13:47, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm releasing you from my mentorship. You seem adamant to involve yourself in controversial discussions even reporting the wrong editor for 3RR. I have told you that you aren't ready to make such determinations, yet you wish to follow your own path and won't adhere to strict guidance. I know my path requires patience and seems methodical, even boring, but, as a courtesy to you, I wanted to make an attempt at it. I am sure you will point to some edits you have made recently that appear constructive (rescuing sources) and even some speedy deletion requests that passed as a sign you don't need guidance, however, the misguided report, the AN/I discussions, the Teahouse answers and an unwillingness to slow down and learn the policies behind the actions are concerning. Nevertheless, you do not seem willing to refrain from editing in these areas so I will leave you to it. I wish you good fortunes. -- A Rose Wolf  17:57, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion contested: Valve Records
Hello Thedefender35. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Valve Records, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. BangJan1999 15:54, 24 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @BangJan1999 understood thanks for the feedback!Td<sup style="color:DeepSkyBlue">she <sup style="color:Magenta">/her 16:30, 24 October 2022 (UTC)