User talk:A F K When Needed: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:09, 19 March 2011

Hi there! If I leave a message on your Talk Page, please respond there. Unless you indicate you'd prefer otherwise, I will respond to messages on my talk page here. Cheers!

Signature

Hi all, just trying out a very basic signature :-) --> A F K When Needed 10:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings...

Hello, A F K When Needed, and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the green welcome.

I hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! Random Time 18:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, welcome to WP, as nobody has said that to you yet, it seems. Hope you have fun Random Time 18:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, I'm not rejected anymore! :D A F K When Needed 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnancy.org

Please reverse the edits you made on Pregnancy.org. Thank you. Molleeb (talk) 22:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't do that.

I shall ask others to attend to the issue. A F K When Needed 22:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do, it isn't right that you edited what was correct factual information. I complied with the changes that had to be made. Please reverse your actions. There are real sites that are in huge violation of wiki policies. This one is not. The corrected information, not what is there, complies. Thank you. I have sent you an emai. It won't be fair to judge the page with the information you removed. Molleeb (talk) 22:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People are capable of accessing previous revisions and viewing them, which will be done by at least one Administrator.

The article is blatant advertising and you are the only one trying to keep it. A F K When Needed 22:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would strongly disagree with your assessment. If I am not in compliance than neither is Babycenter, ivillage or the other 100's of websites here on WIKI. It isn't fair to remove my edits which made the entry comply with the wiki rules when other companies grossly get away with major advertising, like Johnson & Johnson. Molleeb (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish to suggest deletions then by all means do so.

It's not singling out that article; it merely happens to be the one I am aware of. A F K When Needed 22:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look all I am saying is I didn't create the page in the first place. I am just trying to edit it so it complies with rules. Please go back to the edits I made because that follows wiki policy. Molleeb (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had 2 admins approve the page last night. Due to your inexperience, the page was deleted without warning sometime before morning. This is greatly disappointing and frustrating. It complied with the notability and verification, it was re-written to be more encyclopedic and comply with the rules at wiki. I have every right to remove, edit and change my words as I wish just like you thought you had every right to delete an entry. You also spelled pregnancy wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moleeb (talk • contribs)

Please stop attempting to remove comments from my talk page - thank you.

For one thing, I am not the one who restored the delete tag. I never put a delete tag on that article, so I would request you avoid attributing it being deleted to "me and my inexperience". Perhaps if you were more experienced yourself you'd know to check before the page got deleted.

It was considered to be blatant advertising in the view of a contributor on-wiki I've never spoken to, a neutral Administrator, at least one user on the IRC channel and (almost certainly) a great deal of others. You're clearly the owner of the website, so please accept your bias appears to be influencing you. A F K When Needed 12:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and yes, I did accidentally typo that word, thank you for that. A F K When Needed 12:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I formally insist you delete the conversation here since you won't allow me to. It doesn't really appear to be relevant at this point any more. I did everything the 2 admins asked me to. They removed the delete tag. It wasn't put back. The entry was encyclopedic as of 10:30 pm EST last night, there were verifiable links added and notebilty. I did everything that was requested. Your note to NawlinWiki however, had him just go in and delete the page with no warning to me or the creator of the page. I did NOT create the original page. I did however make the entry comply with the rules. Your deletions of the edits I made didn't allow for the other admins to see the content. Molleeb (talk) 12:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Request denied.

If you stop avoiding reality and read it again you will see where someone else tells NawlinWiki they intend to tag the article for deletion. The tag was reapplied, and then deleted. My only communcation with NawlinWiki was a brief "thank you" message for stepping in and making a judgement call on this issue.

As we are not going to agree, I hereby request that you stop editing my talk page and e-mailing me.

Thank you. A F K When Needed 12:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then I request the same. You obviously are sophmoric and rude. Molleeb (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually blatantly lying after reading the talk page of an Administrator, as well as interfering with the talk pages of several users after being requested not to, is extremely rude and arrogant.

I have tried to drop this but you would appear to insist on arguing over it. A F K When Needed 12:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Message.

Sorry, don't quite understand your post on my talk page...? · AndonicO ^Contact. 17:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm

Hi AFK. Welcome back to WP after your long break. I have read your comment on my talk page - thank you for your thoughts.

I'm a little puzzled though. I've not greatly changed my thoughts on the matter you raised, but I don't recall our having discussed the subject before? I'm wondering why you raised it with me, and especially at this juncture, given large time lags. I note that you seem to be a teenager, and wish to be people's internet friend - nothing wrong with that, of course.

Perhaps you'd care to answer my thoughts - here, preferably? Regards, Trafford09 (talk) 22:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

I'm not entirely sure how the userboxen are relevant; they're part of a rather vague and half-hearted goal to seem "approachable". This is because I've often heard of new users being rather intimidated, so I appreciate the 'human element' I attribute to them. There's something about the combination of easily read information and potential of showing you've a shared interest with another, that I hope would make a new user more likely to approach me with any questions they may have. More than likely they will never make a difference, but I don't lose anything from their presence, either.

Thanks for the welcome back, apologies for the delayed response. I'm more of a lurker on wikipedia than I intend to be; the size is to the point where the project feels unwieldly to me, and I'm unsure of how best to be of assistance. As long as that remains the case [I don't see it changing] then I'll be unlikely to change; I don't have time to spare for unproductive wandering around the wiki. I've flirted with Twinkle before, and may make use of it again in the future.

From what I could see of you, you're a well meaning contributor of great value to Wikipedia, but I fear that you have that one habit which is potentially capable of causing damage. Unless I'm very much mistaken it is - while maybe preferred - not mandatory to make use of edit summaries. I found at least one contribution of yours which seemed to be misleading in that regard. I do consider it important that people are tolerant; and while informing others of the tool is useful, I for one consider any further messages to be bordering on harassment. Edit summaries are not obligatory, to hound others for not using them - kindly refer to the quotes in my previous message - is well out of line.

I'll be honest to say that I'm slightly saddened that your focus deviated from the topic at hand to discussing my userboxen; this strengthens some of my fears. There is nothing wrong with discussion, of course, but deviating from contribution to contributor can be frowned upon for good reason, depending on circumstance. A F K When Needed 02:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 Perhaps you'd care to answer my thoughts - here, preferably?
 Regards, [[User:Trafford09|Trafford09]] ([[User talk:Trafford09|talk]]) 22:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
+:Hi!
+:I'm not entirely sure how the userboxen are relevant; they're part of a rather vague and half-hearted goal to seem "approachable". This is because I've often heard of new users being rather intimidated, so I appreciate the 'human element' I attribute to them. There's something about the combination of easily read information and potential of showing you've a shared interest with another, that I hope would make a new user more likely to approach me with any questions they may have. More than likely they will never make a difference, but I don't lose anything from their presence, either.
+:Thanks for the welcome back, apologies for the delayed response. I'm more of a lurker on wikipedia than I intend to be; the size is to the point where the project feels unwieldly to me, and I'm unsure of how best to be of assistance. As long as that remains the case [I don't see it changing] then I'll be unlikely to change; I don't have time to spare for unproductive wandering around the wiki. I've flirted with [[Wikipedia:Twinkle|Twinkle]] before, and may make use of it again in the future.
+:From what I could see of you, you're a well meaning contributor of great value to Wikipedia, but I fear that you have that one habit which is potentially capable of causing damage. Unless I'm very much mistaken it is - while maybe preferred - not mandatory to make use of edit summaries. I found at least one contribution of yours which seemed to be misleading in that regard. I ''do'' consider it important that people are tolerant; and while informing others of the tool is useful, I for one consider any further messages to be bordering on harassment. Edit summaries are not obligatory, to hound others for not using them - kindly refer to the quotes in my previous message - is well out of line.
+:I'll be honest to say that I'm slightly saddened that your focus deviated from the topic at hand to discussing my userboxen; this strengthens some of my fears. There is nothing wrong with discussion, of course, but deviating from contribution to contributor can be frowned upon for good reason, depending on circumstance. [[User:A_F_K_When_Needed|A F K]] [[User_talk:A_F_K_When_Needed|When]] [[Special:Contributions/A_F_K_When_Needed|Needed]] 02:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)