User talk:Tomtomn00/Archives/15

Confirmed
Just for prototype.wikimedia.org/flaggedrevs ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 20:29, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Happy Easter!
Happy Easter, Tomtomn00! Hope your day is great! :) Like my singing? Ha-la-la-la-la-la-LA-LAAA!!! (talk) 10:58, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 11:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Sarah Elizabeth Wardroper
Hi. I've declined your A7 as I feel that significance is shown. It's had a fair bit of work since you tagged it, and I've added another link (which could well be tidied up - I still have trouble with doing that...). Peridon (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Rollback
These things happen, and unless you were planning on running for Admin sometime in the next six months, it really won't affect anything. Coincidentally, when I mentioned that I don't Huggle very often, this is why. The urge to be... shall we say... overzealous, is there.

My advice is as follows:


 * 1) Don't quit the project in a huff.
 * 2) Don't go to another admin and ask for it back. Removing the discussion from your talk page won't change the user rights log, which only a developer can touch, afaik. Doing this would make you look bad, and accomplish nothing.
 * 3) Take a month or so off from vandalism fighting. After that, use Twinkle or Popups for a bit. They're slower, yes, but vandalism reversion isn't a race, and slowing down might help.
 * 4) If you still want rollback after three or four months, go back to Fluffernutter and ask her. That's always the best way to do it. Ask her to look over your reverts and if she likes what she sees she'll probably give the user right back.

Cheers,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  16:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I had to archive the page, as I was going to mess around with the top section. It's here: /Archives/14. I feel like using the basic undo button, next to the Rollback one, which is what I was used to before I had Rollback. I'm thinking about requesting Administrator around November, if all goes well. Rollback? Probably around June. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Who needs rollback anyway? If someone took away my rollback rights, I would not object at all. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Twinkle's good enough for me... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Twinkle and Undo are slightly too slow for me. :/ ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 18:05, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? Speed isn't the goal FFS. It's not a fucking game, it's not click-the-button-and-move-on, it's NOT ABOUT GOING FAST. Why don't you understand that? Oh right, because when everything else has already been gamified for kids, Wikipedia must be also. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  14:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I am NOT saying that speed is the goal. I am saying that they are too slow for me, and I cannot see if a change on Recent Changes has already been reverted. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:38, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is to say that you want something faster. Which means speed is what you desire. You know, if you can't "keep up" with the Hugglers, you should try to write articles instead. There's no race there ... right? / ƒETCH COMMS  /  19:05, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've made around 35 artices on the simple wikipedia, and about 40 here.~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 19:11, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tom, I recommend you drop this conversation. Fetchcomms is right - speed is not the goal with anti-vandalism. If you understand this, then that's great - I'm sure we'll see some positive anti-vandalism and article creation from you. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 21:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Quality over quantity. Anyway, I don't really care what you're doing&mdash;I learned my lesson dealing with immature kids a long time ago&mdash;so good luck to you and your article writing pursuits as well. I sincerely hope that you will not end up like the rest of them; you have some clue in you. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  21:19, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Your email
In response to the email you sent me: I have already explained to you that I don't believe you possess the competence to use rollback correctly at this time, and I will not be re-granting it unless and until you have amassed in the coming weeks/months/years/whatever a pile of evidence showing you getting vandalism reversion right. Your email to me continues to display that, along with the issue of vandalism/not vandalism, you also have serious problems understanding what constitutes "removal of content", whether that removal is vandalism or not. I would strongly - strongly - suggest that you stop asking administrators for rollback for the time being (it appears you've already asked at least one admin besides me for it back since I removed it). You're not ready. Focus on, as other editors have told you a few sections up on this page, improving articles, manually reverting vandalism, and generally getting a better sense for how things work around here. I know you think doing things manually is slow, but that's the point - when someone is first learning how to do something, they need to do it slowly, so that they can watch what they're doing. Once everyone is sure they know what they're doing, then then can start worrying about whether they can do it quickly or not. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

AN
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Tom Morris (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback
Hey. Why were you hiding article feedback posts? It quite clearly says at the top not to play around with it unless you've been asked to :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At the time it did not. Also they were mostly bad content, and needed Oversight. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 23:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Tomtom, those actions were taken 10 days ago. Now, I know that it included the big red warning, because I'd stuck the warning in quite a few days before ;p. Unless it cached? Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm... Not sure. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 10:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked
I have blocked you for the persistent pattern of poor behavior you have demonstrated, as documented at Administrators%27_noticeboard, and in threads linked from that discussion. I will unblock you if you promise me that you will not request any userrights or tool access, on any Wikimedia project, for any reason, from anyone, for a year. Otherwise, you may appeal this block in the normal manner, please see WP:GAB.  MBisanz  talk 19:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a promise, I will not request any rights until April 9, 2013. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 22:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for cooperating. You are now unblocked.  MBisanz  talk 22:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If I may, let me just add one more clarification to MBisanz's phrasing of the restriction: you are restricted from requesting rights regarding any project both by posting on that project or by emailing any user. In the past, you seem to have used private communications to get some of your rights, but we need to make clear that this is no more ok under your new restriction than it is to request them on-wiki. That said, I'm happy to see you've agreed to slow down a bit, and I hope to see you getting a better sense of things around here now that you'll have a bit more focus on your hands. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To occupy lots of my time, I have recently installed my own wiki to my server. It will mean I spend lots more time developing my skills, as I can give myself all the rights I want on a private wiki. Also, was the case meant to be on AN/I because it was on AN I think. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 23:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tom! Here's an interesting question for you (I'm not an administrator, by the way) ... are there some skills that one can develop on a wiki like Wikipedia (or Simple Wikipedia) that one cannot develop on a private Wiki that is on one's own server, or that one owns and controls?

If yes, what are those skills? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe that one cannot develop specific things here without doing the basics first. However, on my own wiki, I have a choice of what I do and when I do it. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 23:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you, that's a good honest answer. Sometime in the next year, you might think of other answers to my question - feel free to email me if you do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I sure will if I do. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 23:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Good reading
Hey, have you seen this? It's pretty good.  Rcsprinter  (whisper)  19:47, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Rcsprinter, can I ask you not to mock Tomtom, please? He has a good heart, even if he has made some mistakes. Those attributes may sound familiar ;). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah well I just read the ANI thread, discovered he'd already seen it and was going to remove it anyway. Mocking? Dead familiar.  Rcsprinter  (natter)  20:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Saw that thing... ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 23:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Reports to WP:AIV
Hi there, just wanted to let you know about this report. There is certainly problematic activity there with all the blanking of material. But there is no final warning recently (I have added one). IP addresses change regularly and it's entirely possible that this is a different person to those who have been warned/blocked before. An IP address is not an 'account', and we can't really view edits going back to 2007 as all being by the same person.

If a similar case comes up again, leave a final warning yourself and report to AIV after a final warning has been given. Best wishes, Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  15:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was triple-vandalism, exceeding the warning so I thought it would need an AIV. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 15:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it sems another admin agrees with you as they have blocked it. Nevertheless there was no final warning (until I added one); only two bot-generated general warnings. It's a moot point now anyway. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  15:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * To add to that, the final warning must have been recent - if a user had a final warning a month ago, it's not really relevant to today's vandalism. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

What shall we do?
Hi there, Tomtomn00. Following this discussion and discussions other editors have had with you, I think it is worth deciding what we are going to do from here on. A number of editors have found your actions disruptive - that includes your repeated requests for permissions, previous problems regarding anti-vandalism, and NAC AfD closures, to name a few. I really want to avoid any more of these difficult situations and would really regret it if you were blocked; therefore, we need to decide what you are going to do. I am very pleased to see that you have agreed not to request any more user rights for a year - that is a big step forwards.

Having a look at your recent contributions, your CSD log looks pretty good - that might be something you can work on improving. In addition, since slowing down, you anti-vandalism work has improved. Perhaps you can focus on these two areas - they are areas you have some experience in and are have had successes with. I'll continue to watch your work in these areas and help you out when necessary. In addition, as you've agreed to wait a year until requesting any more rights, it will mean that ou are actually doing it because it needs to be done, not because it will earn you any respect or privileges. Does that sound ok? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Is your RfA meant to be over yet? ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 15:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * My RfA has run its course; a bureaucrat still needs to close it - that will take as long as it takes for a bureaucrat to notice. Anyway, I am glad that your willing to work on those two more specific areas. I will continue to watch your contributions an dlet you know how I think you're doing. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure! ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 15:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Am on a tablet, so can't use twinkle...you've got messages though.  Nolelover   Talk · Contribs  16:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Replied. I look at my Watch List. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 16:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Andrea Mizzi
Hi Tom. I declined your CSD tag on Andrea Mizzi. Remember, A7 requires that no assertion of significance is made at all - the fact that the article asserts that the person is a football player is enough to assert significance (even if there are no sources, and even if the article is later deleted at AfD). In addition, A1 should only be used when you cannot determine who or what the subject of the article is. When you tagged it, quite a lot could be determined - crucially, we know that he is a professional footballer. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As I use twinkle, it says that it does not have enough importance, on the Twinkle criteria. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You should be using the WP:CSD criteria, not the Twinkle criteria. The Twinkle criteria is there to help you remember which rationales fit with which code; they require that you understand the CSD criteria. WP:A7 defines importance or significance as the relevant factor, not notability. This includes "any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines". If you plan to continue CSD tagging (which might be a good use of your time), do make sure that you fully read and understand everything at WP:CSD. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 17:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that's what Twinkle says, Tom? I just checked what A7 says when I open the CSD popup in Twinkle on my account, and it says (main text) "Unremarkable person" and (hover text) "...does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". Unless Twinkle text is different for admins and non-admins - and I don't think it is - that should be the text you're seeing, too. In any case, ItsZippy is correct that any credible assertion of importance is enough to save an article from A7, no matter what Twinkle says. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just read WP:CSD. Thanks for the link. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great! ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you delete my CSD log. I want to try something, as I'm getting a small Twinkle bug. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 20:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I can, but could you tell me what you're planning to do, please? ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Update some Twinkle preferences, then put the logs back on. I've saved them anyway. I've been getting errors sometimes, where it saves the CSD to another page. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 20:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 20:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Restored. It now saves to the log. :D. ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 20:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Tag removed
I have reverted your addition of the original research tag here. I have no idea what could be construed as original research here. It's a stub article consisting of three sentences, each of which is sourced. And this is one sentence and is sourced to orchidspecies.com! There is no original research, it's simply a statement "Bulbophyllum leytense is a species of orchid in the genus Bulbophyllum.". Perhaps you could be persuaded to desist from tagging articles as original research until you have a better grasp of what it means? --Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 22:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes
Yes I do. =) Res Mar 01:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, but you have to give me some time, I'm not terribly active atm. Res Mar 15:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Administrative divisions of Bangladesh (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Thana


 * Sprowston Community High School (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to SCOPE

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

NAC
Tom, I am going to ask you not to do any non-administrative closures of AfDs for a while, at least until you get the terminology straight. Articles for deletion/Sarah's Choice (2nd nomination) and Articles for deletion/Ana Kasparian were not "speedy keeps"--they do not meet the requirements in WP:SK. That in one of them one of the participants said "speedy keep" doesn't mean it's correct. In Articles for deletion/Eliza (magazine), there was no 80% in favor of keep--the one delete vote was by the nominator, and it's not a count of votes or percentages anyway. Articles for deletion/Anthony Christmas, you closed and it was reopened. These are from the list on your user page; I don't know if you closed any others. You just got blocked and unblocked, and there are more than a few editors who have questioned you and your edits--it would be good for you to be careful. Drmies (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The "speedy keeps" can be considered "snow keeps". B  music  ian  08:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * But "speed" and "snow" are different words for a reason. What they "can be considered as" is not relevant, certainly not when it comes to deletion: people care about deletions. Drmies (talk) 18:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant to say that they were different; sorry for not being clear. B  music  ian  06:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Requests for permissions
Hi! I notice that you are getting involved in replying to permission requests, which is great. You may want to think about making it clear that you are not an administrator by placing [Non administrator observation] or something similar before you reply. This makes it clear that you have provided a helpful opinion but an administrator still needs to review the request and take action if necessary. Thanks!  Puffin  Let's talk! 17:07, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought I added to it. ~  &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 17:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * nao will work too, though that template may be deleted soon. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe I contributed to that discussion. A random thing: Which signature here is the best? ~ &#8658;TomTom  N00  @ 18:35, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Any of them would be fine. I prefer simplicity so would pick 4 or 5, but go with your favourite. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:41, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Using yours, but changed. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Andrei Sannikov
I removed your GA nomination of Andrei Sannikov. You have made no contributions to the article and there are at least four citation needed tags present. It is a good idea to at least sort those out before nominating. I left a message here (archived now) suggesting you remove it and also one at WT:GAN saying it should be removed. There were no objections there so I evoked WP:Silence. It is a little out of process, but due to the backlog at Good articles I feel this is a WP:IAR case. The other option is a quick fail, but I didn't think that would be fair to the major contributors. AIR corn (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Ministry links
hi Tomtom00... the links used as the sole reference for your 'Ministry of... " articles today are not working at all. Is it my browser? or the links?  You created a number of articles that have only one source ( https://www.kpwkm.gov.my).  Is it my problem, or the link's problem?   Wikipelli  Talk   23:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Articles under construction, links worked earlier. I will look in the morning.--Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 23:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Assume Good Faith
Hi Tomtom... Be careful leaving warnings for vandalism and make sure you understand the characteristics of vandalism. I don't see this as a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Yes, it's uncited, but a quick search turns up sources for the information (for example: ). :) Just sayin'    Wikipelli  Talk   13:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It was automatic with the article by Twinkle, however I was also referring to other edits. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 13:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the trouble with automated tools, and they get me into trouble sometimes. :) It's worth our while, though, to be careful with them so we don't chase off editors that are trying to make good edits. I checked the IPs contributions (there were 5 at the time) and all appeared to be good faith. It's a judgement call, but none seemed to be deliberately trying to harm the encyclopedia (the benchmark for vandalism). It's good to stop on edits like that and leave a message specifically letting the editor know what the problem is and how they can correct it. Even with IPs! :)  Have a great day!   Wikipelli  Talk   14:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

About your post at UAA
Hey, Tomtomn, I happened to come across your post at UAA. I've not heard of "dill" being offensive slang for anything, so there's really no reason to report him at UAA, which is only for things in the username alone that are offensive/disruptive/etc. I looked at his contributions; a better place to report him would be WP:AIV, which is for the garden-variety vandals. Based on his contribs, you could report him as a vandalism-only account, although even then, it's probably better to give him escalating warnings first. Thanks, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I reported to UAA due to the fact that the user was posting a part of their username on random pages. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:22, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, but that's not what UAA is for. UAA is generally for usernames which, completely on their own, are obviously problematic. A name like that one wasn't problematic at all on its own.  Sometimes you do have to take the editing into account, but that's really only with promotional usernames (since it may not be obvious that a username is promotional until the user has tried to promote it).  Disruptive or offensive usernames are generally either immediately apparent without referring to the edit history or not worth reporting to UAA.
 * Also, I've been reading the snit between the two editors in the thread above this one. Dickery aside, I think Fetchcomm is giving you good advice: you need to really slow down on the things you're trying to do here.  It's pretty clear that you have an interest in doing "admin"-type things, which isn't a bad thing.  But doing these things requires quite a bit of familiarity with the varieties of policies and guidelines, which I'm not sure you have yet.  I'd recommend that you try to stay away from these admin-y areas for the time being.
 * If you like, a good way to contribute is by using the random article link and trying to fix typos and the like in the articles you come across. That's actually the kind of stuff I started with.  While you're doing that, try just browsing through the various policy pages and reading them, even if it's only the nutshell version of it.  I lurked on those pages for quite a long time before I started doing the "admin-y" type things that I do now.  You'll get a better grasp of what to do soon enough, but I'd definitely recommend holding off for probably a few weeks at minimum.  Wikipedia can be a pretty complicated place, so it takes time to learn the ropes, and it can't be rushed.  Thanks, Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mark Olf
Hello! Your submission of Mark Olf at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Goodvac (talk) 16:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Quick note
Hi there, Tomtomn00. Just to let you know, comments like this are not always incredibly helpful. Although Jmolf didn't quite format his comment correctly, using bold capitals is just like shouting at him, which no one really likes. If you can try to be polite, even when letting people know they're wrong, you'll do much better here. Hope that's all ok. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 16:18, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay! I just did that because the entire DYK nomination was messed up by them. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * GET OFF THIS SITE BEFORE YOU SCREW UP ANYTHING ELSE!


 * Sorry, I just did that because Jmolf's confidence was messed up by you!


 * Now, really ... do you not get the fucking point? Have you not even bothered to apologize to him for shouting? Do you not know how to work with new users rather than belittle them? Oh wait, the entire DYK nomination&mdash;a whole fucking nomination!&mdash;was malformatted temporarily by a new user. OMG CALL THE WIKIPEDIA POLICE SO THEY CAN ARREST THIS MORON!!! I have long crusaded, fruitlessly, sometimes alone and sometimes with others, to improve the quality of experience offered to our new users. Remind me again why it's fruitless. You could be part of the solution, if you chose to ...


 * I come back here after a week, hoping to give you some compliments on how you've (hopefully) improved because I really did think you had more hope than other users that acted as you initially did. But now I'm just disgusted. It's time to face the reality, because you've displayed every single characteristic of the archetypal unclueful kid playing mash-the-buttons on Wikipedia: act mature and clueful, or stop. Because you're going to be blocked again if this continues. You're not the first person to have these issues; you're lucky that you got a second chance, unlike a few of the others.


 * So can you do this? Because it's not a game&mdash;it's dealing with real people and real consequences&mdash;and sometimes people just aren't ready to work in this environment. If you know your clue level isn't going to increase anytime soon, it would be wise to quit for a while, perhaps a year or two. If you think you can clue up in another week, then ... prove it. Look, I don't beat around the bush and I'm not afraid to be frank with others. If you're insulted, the worst thing you can do is ignore me. I'm nicer when I'm not frustrated, so talking truthfully and politely to me is a good thing. Or if you want to be frank with me, feel free to shout expletives and throw a tantrum via email (the civility police really frown upon it when people do that in public, but I like hearing one's true feelings, even if they're "uncivil"). I won't tattle. Any dialogue is good dialogue, I think.


 * For this week, you goal ought to be a week free of complaints or warnings (templated or not) on your talk page. That sounds more than reasonable to me. Perhaps you agree.


 * / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fetchcomms, I've warned you before about repeatedly demanding that underage users email you. "the worst thing you can do is ignore me" is not an acceptable thing to be firing off at a possibly underage user from a position of power, especially when accompanied by suggestions of imminent blocks and suggestions that emailing you is one way out of it. I understand you have strong feelings on this topic, and I know from extensive experience that it's far from easy to deal with, but please stop doing this.


 * Tomtomn00, there was a lot of sense in some of what Fetchcomms said (I didn't do a partial redaction because I didn't want to misrepresent the sense of it). You can read it in the page history if you like. Your reply to ItsZippy's comment was far from ideal, and one other person already contacted me privately about it. Please approach things very carefully - how you talk to other users in particular. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What the hell are you talking about? Position of power my ass&mdash;do you think some random douchebag on the Internet like me is really that powerful? Grow up, pleaee. If you want to accuse me of being a pedophile, do it outright. But as I'm not, I think you ought to retract your assertions and restore my non-personal-attack-half-satirical-comment (actually, I'll do that myself). As you clearly failed to understand its point.


 * I suggested that he email me if he wants to rant at me. Would you rather he rant in public and be blocked by the civility police? If so, I would be free to entertain this option and defend him if anyone tries to block him. If he raises legitimate concerns about my actions, he is free to cuss me out over them. I grant that permission, in public and private. But nonetheless, I wasn't really being serious there. I don't really like it when people email me, because it makes my phone vibrate needlessly, and I haven't a clue how to stop it from checking for emails every three hours. The point being, stop acting like the noble and valiant defender of all helpless children on Wikipedia. It's not working; you make yourself look foolish.


 * Should you fail to find any more humor in my attempts to bring light to a dark situation, I may just well have to block you, too. Good day, sir.


 * / ƒETCH COMMS  /  02:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The worry is not that I may "fail to understand" these "wasn't really being serious" comments that you make, but that the (possible) children at whom you direct them may do so. If you don't want them to email you, then don't go around making suggestions that it's in their urgent interests to do so (this is what, the third time now?) and that "the worst thing you can do is ignore me". That's beyond the pale and you should know it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Third time's a charm, right? Maybe this time, someone will listen to me and clue up. No, seriously, it was never in anyone's urgent interest to do anything (I didn't request him to email expletives at me, I sarcastically left that as a possible route). I hardly think it's unacceptable to tell someone that ignoring advice usually ends them up in trouble. Do you disagree with that statement? Maybe Tomtomn00 does, in which case he is free to ignore me and go blithely on until the inevitable banhammer drops. I've never liked blocking people myself, anyway.


 * The fact that this is the third time I am encouraging discourse with so-called "problematic users" is independent of their perceived ages. If an immature college student was acting this manner (which I have seen once or twice), I would ask them to have a talk as well. I think it is better that users work out these issues in whatever manner is effective. If someone is embarrassed by admitting mistakes in public, email exists for a reason. They can always choose not to email me, of course. Again, in this case, I would be rather pissed to receive an email cussing me out, which (by the law of common sense) totally helps alleviate an "urgent" situation. Riiiiiiight.


 * I'm tired of this nonsense. I took time to give a user the bottom line before an unsympathetic admin jumped at them. And I get chewed out for having good intentions? Puh-lease. Assuming bad faith isn't my concern, it's yours, Demiurge1000. Just because you disagree with my delivery doesn't mean you should imply that I am engaging in inappropriate behavior. I note that no retraction of the implications to which you alluded above has occurred. If you genuinely think I am trying to take advantage of children or engage in any other misconduct, you should report it to the proper channels. I do not see anything wrong with trying to encourage communication over blocking, however. And I will vehemently defend myself against any allegations that I am trying to take advantage of other users, as they are patently false and entirely baseless. Again, playing the role of probably-child-defender isn't helping you here.


 * I expect your allegations supported or removed by your next edit, before some other moron admin pounces on this disagreement.


 * / ƒETCH COMMS  /  03:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have made no allegations, and no implications. What I have done is to ask you not to behave like this. Three times now, probably. You are free to continue asserting that there has been absolutely nothing wrong with how you have behaved.


 * P.S. - for Tomtomn00; I have no opinion on whether emailing Fetchcomms (or anyone else) is a good idea or a bad idea. Although, he does now seem to indicate that he doesn't want to be emailed. However that may be, one thing I do recommend is to keep your parents informed, if possible, of events on Wikipedia and about anyone who may encourage you to contact them off-Wikipedia. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * By asking me not to engage in what is hardly inappropriate behavior, you are implying that there must be some special circumstance that justifies your request. Is there a reason why you're asking me not to tell other users to email me? A reason that is more pressing, perhaps, than the need for communication about a user's problematic actions?


 * Your words above are: Fetchcomms, I've warned you before about repeatedly demanding that underage users email you. "the worst thing you can do is ignore me" is not an acceptable thing to be firing off at a possibly underage user from a position of power, especially when accompanied by suggestions of imminent blocks and suggestions that emailing you is one way out of it.


 * Any other implications there other than the fact that you feel there is some sort of risk of me trying to take advantage of possibly younger users? And how do you justify your statement that you are neutral on him emailing me if you are clearly advocating against asking users to email me? If I'm being inappropriate there, why would not not oppose him from emailing me? Oh wait, because I've done nothing inappropriate by making a satirical comment about emailing me.


 * And I see now you're going on the "tell your parents about possible cyberstalkers" path. Oh for heaven's sake, if he hasn't the clue to figure out what is safe on the Internet, he should get off Wikipedia now. Tomtomn00, I don't think it would hurt to have your parents informed about the sort of troubles you have run into on Wikipedia. As Demiurge1000 will yell at me if I ask to email them, I suggest that they create an account here so we can have a frank discussion about the problems you've been having. That might be embarrassing, but you know, better safe than sorry, as they say. Perhaps your parents could assist in the clue-gaining process. Or maybe they'll just say that this is a whole waste of time. I don't know. But if you feel it prudent to involve them, as Demiurge1000 clearly does, I would be happy to have a conversation with them here as well as it would be bad for everybody if you were blocked. I have, mind you, seen users exhibiting poor behavior turn around and become good content contributors and other strong editors.


 * I would say something like, "I am always open to give advice or have a discussion to help you become one of these users," but I think Demiurge1000 would be inclined to call the Internet-creeper-police at that point! (I have also taken to clearly indicating my attempts at humor as concerns were expressed that you may misconstrue some of my intentions.)


 * / ƒETCH COMMS  /  04:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not ignoring anyone, I was at school. I will not be emailing Fetchmomms, as I am not the type of person who will start a rant. I noticed that a long discussion had occured while I was away, with no input from me. I replied on this page to ItsZippy, then had to leave the computer. As I have just got back on, I have only just managed to remove my shouting, and add a sorry message. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 15:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Fetchcomms, I have received an (unsolicited) e-mail from Tomtomn00 complaining about your attack above and I have to say I agree with him. I know I can be blunt sometimes but your outburst beats anything I have written. It is quite simply conduct unbecoming an admin and a gentleman. I know Tom can be frustrating and still has much to learn but that is no excuse for your language. Please be more moderate in future. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 19:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * He'll have to complain to me directly before I understand what he perceived as an attack. I hardly care if I am a gentleman, but I honestly don't see why admins (or any other users) should avoid giving users the full truth without babying it down. This isn't the first time I've tried to point him in the direction towards clue; I've been moderate in similar situations in the past and I have to say that those users ended up either circumventing the system (and causing someone else to quit), or getting blocked. I suppose we must disagree on the language issue (though I'm guessing at what you're referring to) as I don't think there was anything terribly bad in there. I would be happy to consider redacting and properly apologize (i.e., not simply "Sorry" *cough cough* ) if you want to point out what you consider going overboard, so long as my points are still coherent.
 * I'm generally not so brash, but I've simply no patience for this nonsense because warnings have been given and cluebats have failed. Tomtomn00, as you haven't bothered to satisfactorily respond to any of my concerns (most of which are also shared by others), I consider my hands washed of this situation. I am no longer interested in your plight; whether others leave you nudging or point-blank advice, your actions belie any notion that you are giving thought to these warnings. This is the point at which I conclude that my time is better spent on helping people promote knowledge elsewhere. Probably a serious place that caters to those who are serious about free educational content and where my efforts will have more success.
 * I apologize if my message above has undermined any other user's or users' attempts to help Tomtomn00 adapt to the Wikipedia environment. I admit that I considered the possibility of this occurring but dismissed it because of a selfish hope that "my way" of offering the bottom line would work. As I have observed time and time again, this hope is better spent on lottery tickets.
 * I despise long comments but as I'm already this far along, I will finish with a personal anecdote:
 * When I was an ambitious new user here, full of unclueful immaturity and armed with scripts and zeal, I made many poorly-judged actions. Many users do. One of these actions had the unfortunate effect of driving away a long-time contributor, an article writer and administrator who had been with the project since only several months after its launch. I did not know about this at the time. In fact, I did not know about it until last year. Since then, I have been "haunted" to some degree by my actions, partially by the fact that I did not even bother to check the outcome of my action until many months after it occurred, and partially by the fact that I was unable to ever apologize to this user or have a discussion about the very legitimate meta-issues he later raised about my action. Instead, I, out of an immature mindset, caused someone who had been a Wikipedian since 2001 to leave, and continued to stumble around blindly wreaking more havoc until the cluebats rained down.
 * One place where they dropped was on IRC, around the same time as the aforementioned incident. I'm neglecting to go over the differences between IRC and Wikipedia, but for the purposes of this story, the circumstances are enough to call them the same environment. I was attempting to further my involvement in Wikipedia by "helping" other users in the IRC help channel. As a still rather new user myself, I ended up being a dumbass, being generally unhelpful, and was told several times to stop trying or leave. The point at which I finally understood was when an admin who is no longer active, but whom I continue to admire and respect, opened a PM and delivered a very, very frank lecture to me about my behavior and utter idiocy. I thought he was a meanie butthead at first but did not ignore his warning. I stopped participating in the channel and just watched for a while, just learned by observation. I don't think I ever had the chance to thank him for the advice he gave that day, because it was the time when suddenly everything made sense to me and I stopped treating this site as a game. It was also when I first became interested in article writing. I had gone to his user talk page looking to dish up dirt on him, but instead I found a rational, helpful, and likable individual who was passionate for the subjects about which he wrote. He left IRC shortly after our discussion and I never really interacted with him again, as we worked in different spheres onwiki.
 * I don't think I've ever mentioned these incidents with anyone before now. Consider yourself privileged. If you feel enlightened, I won't try to stop you. It's all fairly moot now, but look at the consequences: one writer and admin driven away, one IRC helper lost. In return, one writer and admin gained, as well as an (ex-)IRC helper. Is the trade-off worth it? I don't think so, but it's arguable. Yes, for me, personally; though the project as a whole, perhaps or perhaps not. But the cycle has continued, as far as I'm concerned, and this is the inevitable and repeating outcome. Every action has a consequence, which has its own consequences. Newton's third, though here the reaction may not be immediately equal, the other consequences balance it out in the long run.
 * Right, I'm off. / ƒETCH COMMS  /  01:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense
I've declined part of your speedy request at Allan Peter someone or other. I agree that he's probably not notable, but the article doesn't qualify as nonsense. For that, something has to be incomprehensible one of two ways. One, stuff like "iucui ukyvyfgrg ggffdssdfsfdkljlkjljlk" is definite nonsense. Not even in the Caucasus could that be pronounced. If there are more vowels, try it in Google in quotes. If it comes up, it's a copyvio in Foreign. If it doesn't, remove the quotes and try again. If the 'words' do seem to be words, try Google Translate. If that doesn't work, do some detecting involving domains etc. The second sort of nonsense is like "stew coypu princess formaldehyde parachute". All the words are clear, but put together they make a fog. Both types are fairly rare. I decline far more than I delete. Sorry about the rumpus on your page - I'd have had a word with them if I'd come in sooner. That should have been on THEIR talkpages, not here. Doesn't often happen, and I'm surprised at who it was. Peridon (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: American Energy Development Corp
Hello Tomtomn00. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of American Energy Development Corp, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Author has not requested deletion, or other users have added substantial content. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:24, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Your sign
Though it does not affect your working abilities, just wanted to tell that your previous sign was much better.  Yash  t  101   08:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm going simple for a little while. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 08:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to tell you that your simple signature is much better.


 * I've been simple for quite some time :) See >>>> --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It used to be 19:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC) - which I think is too full-of-colour for the time being. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 19:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jacobus Deketh
It is still possible to get a DYK. I have corrected the hook, expanded the article, changed it to make sense and added some references. You can still try to improve it. Can you read Dutch along with your Latvian and German skills? You should take a read of the newspaper references, particularly the estate disposal sale and see if there is anything extra worth adding! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Tags
Hi Tomtomn00. Could you explain your thinking about this new article tagging? Thanks, The Interior  (Talk) 16:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Justin Bieber himself is a Twitter addict. He uses hashtags when tweeting and discusses a wider variety of topics." - POV, as some people would not call him a twitter addict, unless he says he is. Article has references of COI I believe. Feel free to remove the COI. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If that one sentence is the only thing that's POV, you shouldn't tag the article with a POV tag; you should just fix the sentence. (It's not POV, though; there's a sourced statement below it where he calls himself a Twitter addict.)  And...do you know what the COI tag says?  It's tantamount to accusing User:LauraHale of being in violation of COI, which is not cool without evidence.  Do you have any? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 16:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I will have to say that is my error. I should keep to CSD'ing things (my log) and creating articles. I have left an apology on LauraHale's talk page. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 16:46, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring course - lesson 1
... is now at your mentoring page.

I'm glad you've chosen to attempt this course, it could be very useful. It also shows that you really are prepared to further improve your editing, and put some thought and effort into it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2012 (UTC)