User talk:Floquenbeam

Nataliekelapire

No doubt you have User talk:Orangemike watched, but I thought I'd let you know anyway that I have posted a message there. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Let's review:

• 17 Sept: Nataliekelapire removes content from an article about a client, but can't be expected to know why it's wrong, because she's new.
• 20 Sept: Is reverted with no explanation whatsoever.
• 20 Sept: Removes it again. Not difficult to understand, as no one has left any messages for her explaining why she can't do this. The edit is reverted, again with no explanation. Removes it again. Is reverted.
• 20 Sept: She gets two templates saying to stop blanking sections, but the reason (lack of an edit summary) is incorrect, she was using edit aummaries. Still no way for her to know why what she's doing is wrong, but makes no more edits to the article.
• 17 Oct: She asks the editor who was reverting her on his talk page why her edits are getting reverted. Never gets a response of any kind.
• 6 Nov: Tries to create an article on a different client, using AFC, which is the process we tell new users to use if they want to create an article. When it's rejected, she never tries to put in it the main space.
• 6 Dec: Removes unsourced information about yet another client. Is reverted, with a "take it to talk page" note. Still no one has mentioned the COI policy to her.
• 12 Dec: Takes it to talk page, as instructed. Does not repeat the edit. Still no one has said anything about COI to her.
• 12 Dec: Asks someone to explain what is going on at WP:HELPDESK.
• 12 Dec: an admin notices that the information should be removed, since it is unsourced, and removes it. She also gets several replies on the help desk, which for the first time point her to the COI policy.
• 12 Dec: She does not make another edit, but OrangeMike blocks her indefinitely.

I am so fucking sick of the way admins treat people (particularly newbies) editing incorrectly, but in good faith. Believe it or not, there are more tools in the admin toolkit besides a block button. See that keyboard in front of you? It has letters on it, and when you type them in sequence, they make words, and sentences, and we can use them to explain ourselves somewhat better than pushing a button in Twinkle. Believe it or not, Nataliekelapire is as deserving of respect as OrangeMike. To be upset that I've somehow insulted him, and not be upset about the way he treated her? To think that it's somehow OK to block without respecting the others who were already talking to her, but wrong to unblock without getting OrangeMike's blessing? Words fail me. Well, actually they don't, but I'd get in trouble using them.

Now that she's actually had the COI policy pointed out to her, if she continues to violate it, we may eventually have to block her. I've blocked plenty of spammers myself. But to assume she won't follow policy when she's made zero edits after having it shown to her for the first time is a "violation of policy" itself. Don't lecture me about how to unblock or how to talk to OrangeMike; a good admin would be more worried how we treated the human being behind the screen name Nataliekelapire. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:20, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the very full explanation you have given now. I certainly did not intend to "lecture" you. I simply indicated that the block seemed to me to be reasonable, and that some explanation should have been given. You have given such an explanation very thoroughly, more so, in fact, than I would have required. You may like to consider, however, the manner in which you have expressed yourself in your helpful response, and whether you could have given the same information in a way that might have been more friendly to me. Yes, I agree that Nataliekelapire is as deserving of respect as OrangeMike: indeed I would suggest that we are all equally deserving of respect, except those who are not acting in good faith, which does not seem to apply to any of us in this case, Nataliekelapire, OrangeMike, me, or you. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Spoken like a true Wikipedian (that is not necessarily a compliment). I assume we're done here; you can confirm this by not posting any more passive aggressive advice about being more friendly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page

Thanks for confirming; I needed the reassurance. I'm now smoking a cigarette with a slightly glazed look on my face.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Re 1st sentence: No problem. Re 2nd sentence: :) --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

God football

What is it about a username like "God football" that makes me think "perhaps this editor may need more guidance than most"? Cheers Tonywalton ^Talk 01:19, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Unless he really is, in which case, he'll need very little... --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Really is what? A god or a football? I have my suspicions as to which. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You're confused because you didn't properly capitalize his name. He may be a God, named "Football". Like "God Zeus" or "God Jehovah 1". --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Hang on - a ginger cat is a cat which is ginger. So a God football must be a football which is a God. Or possibly merely a god which happens to begin a sentence. Fetch Richard Dawkins and Wayne Rooney immediately and they can slug it out. Tonywalton ^Talk 02:04, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	At least one editor in the Wikipedia Education Program identified you specifically as being a helpful editor! Thanks for being so welcoming to a newbie! JMathewson (WMF) (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure what I did to deserve this, but I'm very glad to have helped. Newbies with a surplus of desire to help out, a deficit of knowledge about our 10,000 policies and rules, and a willingness to listen and be helped, are among the very few types of people here that don't annoy me these days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

AS

Your message on his talk page was unnecessarily conflictual. He expressed a desire not to come back in an email message to me. I suggest you do the right thing, realize that the posts in that section will do no good, and allow the discussion to die. Ryan Vesey 22:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, no, since he has asked me a couple of specific questions, I will give him specific answers. And I suggest you do the right thing, not tell me what to do, or think you have the authority to delete my posts because they're "conflictual" [sic]. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas to you too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

This is for your patient and helpful-looking reply to blocked user Wstreiff, which will look a lot more understandable to a non-regular wikipedian. We certainly need more admins like you, who deal with new editors with patience! TheOriginalSoni (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, TheOriginalSoni, I appreciate the support. Don't spend too much time arguing with people at the help desk. I've had this argument many times before, and those who believe insta-bans are the answer to everything don't seem willing to consider other points of view. All it's going to do is get your blood pressure up. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

unblock

Can you unblock my French Wikipedia please ? Fête (talk) 21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, but I am an admin only on English Wikipedia. I'm sure they have some kind of appeals system of some kind; I'd use that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for assisting with that block. I was contemplating whether or not I was too WP:INVOLVED to do it myself, (I'm both the article creator, and had removed some of his troublesome edits from the page.) so you made things easier. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 15:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I wouldn't have considered you involved myself, but the path of least resistance is certainly to leave it to someone else. Cheers. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:08, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing what looked like an accidental overwrite, but I actually did mean to remove that comment. I'm fed up with Andreas and have disinvited him from further participation on my talk page.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)