User talk:Tomtomn00/Archives/18

---

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—a whole fucking nomination!—was malformatted temporarily by a new user. OMG CALL THE WIKIPEDIA POLICE SO THEY CAN ARREST THIS MORON!!! </sarcasm> 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—it's dealing with real people and real consequences—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.

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 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—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.

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 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.

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 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! </humor> (I have also taken to clearly indicating my attempts at humor as concerns were expressed that you may misconstrue some of my intentions.)

/ƒETCHCOMMS/ 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. — 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* </joke>) 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. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 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. Yasht101 08:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm going simple for a little while. Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 08:57, 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)

Non-free rationale for File:American Energy Development Corporation Logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:American Energy Development Corporation Logo.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:American Energy Development Corporation Logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:American Energy Development Corporation Logo.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:American Energy Development Corporation Logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:American Energy Development Corporation Logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

AEDC

references 1 3 and 6 don't lead anywhere with a link. (3 is a wikipedia article, but it looks like you need to be more specific as there could be any number of "reports". For your wikilinks like Oil don't capitalise the o just have oil. Size and newness OK, but you have too many proposed hooks. Just pick one good one. Also the hooks are not that exciting, Isn't there a juicy scandal or something unexpected? Also you might get knocked back for plagiarism of http://www.aed-corp.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Pdf/Factsheet.pdf Try to rewrite it more, I see too much is similar. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you suggest one? I'm 'bad with hooks'. --Tomtomn00 (talk • contributions) 12:26, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Be more careful with what you revert

When you reverted the edit I made to Chuck-a-luck yesterday, did you make the slightest effort to determine why this content was removed, or are you one of the all-too-many Wikipedians who jump to the conclusion that any edit by an anonymous IP editor "must be" a vandal edit? (Why has it never occurred to such that if there were any truth to this, anonymous editing would have been disabled long since?)

If you had bothered to read the talk page, you would have seen for yourself the reason why I deleted this content; because these variants are (as far as can be determined from a Google search I conducted) the non-notable inventions of the WP editor who added them to the page, and their existance outside WP is confined to his own website. This is in flagrant breach of at least two WP rules, Wikipedia is not a soapbox and Wikipedia is not for things made up one day, and I suspect that these aren't the only rules broken. If you can find reliable references for the notability of this content, by all means add it back to the article along with the references proving it to be notable; until then, leave it alone.

In any event, don't just blindly "revert" without heeding exactly what you're doing to the article by doing so; your revert yesterday, along with restoring probably-undesirable content, also deleted a large section which I'd restored precisely because it is relevant (it was deleted on the grounds of being "poorly written", which is a reason to rewrite it, not to delete it). Hence it's your edit which looks like a vandal edit. — 188.29.7.229 (talk) 17:54, 21 April 2012 (UTC)