Jump to content

User talk:Androzaniamy/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome

Hello, Androzaniamy! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Nat Gertler (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Why did you send me this again? I will remove it and consider it vandalism unless you give me a good reason why. Androzaniamy (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I posted it because there are links here to information on how to make useful edits and create articles that will survive. Perhaps you might find your way easier if you listened a bit to experienced editors who seek to help you, rather than accusing them of stalking and vandalism and whatever else. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:07, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The thing is, I have read and tried to understand all the information you and other users gave me but I still don't understand them! Androzaniamy (talk) 21:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Then you have plenty of editors here to ask questions of. I suspect that just about any one of the editors that you now seem to view as your enemies would be glad to answer questions and make suggestions if you asked them about what you might do. For the articles you've created, you've been going headlong into notability problems - we don't cover everything, we mainly cover things that have been covered in reasonable depth by significant sources. That means that not every actor gets a page, but we have guidelines toward who does -- see WP:NACTOR for those guidelines. And for various reasons, we don't permit articles about living people unless they have at least some reference on them. Now, is there some aspect of that which I could clear up for you? --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

First of all I have not viewed any other user as an enemy because that would be bad-faith and I have a strict policy for myself that nothing I do on any site, especially one as informative as Wilipedia should be done just to be hateful or mean. And second of all why is IMDb considered not reliable? The reason I make new articles is because all the red links I see make me feel as though Wikipedia is incomplete and removing the links make it seem as though Wikipedians are hiding the fact that it is incomplete. I made a Wikipedia account because I fell this site could benefit from my knowledge and enthusiasm to make this site even better than it already is but now I realise that it only contains articles that other users feel is notable enough for an artcle. Androzaniamy (talk) 12:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

IMDb is not considered reliable for the same reason that Wikipedia itself is not considered reliable - it's easy for a user to insert new information without confirmation, there is no central authority reviewing everything for accuracy. Perhaps more important to what you've faced, being listed on IMDb does not signify notability, because they are a database trying to list everything in their categories; if a major newspaper or magazine does an article on you, that means that they think you're worth talking about, but if you have an IMDb entry, that just means that they think you exist.
This is a learning process. It's quite common for people's first articles to get deleted; I don't have the stats, but I bet it happens to most editors' first articles; heck, it happened to me. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay I'll put every single source I can find of each topic on the talk pages. and then tell me if it is notable. If Wikipedia wasn't reliable then why is it so sucessful? Androzaniamy (talk) 15:52, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited The Well (TV series), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Games and 3D (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Adoption

I would like it if you "adopted" me on wikipedia. But, you aren't on the list of adopters. Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's_Area/Adopters 19maxx (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I was but then I forgot to add my name on again when I restarted my talkpage. I'll add myself on again. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:30, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My BIG ideas for Wikipedia

These following wonderful things are a list of my very, very BIG ideas to improve Wikipedia (not that it needs much improvement-only joking, it does).

1. For there to be a kids' version of Wikipedia because I think that a Simple English bit is not enough for kids (maybe it could be called Kidipedia?).

2. For there to be a vadal stopping team of elite users who care a lot about removing vandalism from Wikipedia with their own userbox and leader (me perhaps?) without having to be an Administrator but having some of the same privilages. Go VandalBusters!

3. For more topics to be allowed to have articles instead of thinks that are considered "notable" enough, so Wikipedia can become bigger than ever.


If anyone manages to make any of these ideas turn into a reality, I'll eat a Stetson and call myself the King of Okay. I got that from Doctor Who. Androzaniamy (talk) 23:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

Hey, I'm looking at your page and I don't see any vandalism. Can you specify the vandalism?

Abigail was here :D Talk to Me. Email Me. 01:50, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 

Oh sorry, my bad! I meant my userpage. I wanted to know how I could lock it so that only auto-confirmed users could edit it. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:14, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Conker Media

I've reverted your recreation of the page back to a redirect, as it clearly does not pass WP:GNG. If you recreate it again, I'll be taking it to AfD. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

But I added extra information and even made a link to http://www.conkermedia.com/. I was just looking up more information to add onto it. So am I allowed to make it again? Androzaniamy (talk) 19:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Userpage protection

Did you see the responses you were given at WP:HD about protecting your userpage? I've semiprotected it indefinitely, so only autoconfirmed users will be able to edit it, because the relevant section of our protection policy says that a user's request is a sufficient reason to protect a userpage. Please note two things — (1) Because it's indefinite, it will never be unprotected unless an administrator unprotects it; if you change your mind, simply ask me at my talk page or go to WP:RFPP and add a statement saying that you want unprotection. RFPP is the best place to go whenever you believe that a page should be protected or unprotected, unless you ask an administrator on his/her talk page. (2) Please note that the procedures for userpages and user talk pages are very different: while we readily protect userpages upon request, we virtually never protect user talk pages, since they're by far the best way for people to contact you. For this reason, if your talk page is vandalised repeatedly, you'll unfortunately have no way to fight it except for reverting the vandals and reporting them at WP:AIV. Nyttend (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and don't worry, my talkpage will not need protecting. Androzaniamy (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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.

Hacker the Dog (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Scoop and Chris Johnson
Iain Stirling (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Series

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

spelling

Thanks for the barnstar! I enjoy correcting spelling as much as some enjoy writing an article. I know it can be hard to copyedit your own works, so I read as many as I can done by other people to check for these things! Keep writing!

Thanks again! --RichardMills65 (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

No, thank you. May your quest on correcting spelling be easy and enjoyable! Androzaniamy (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Hacker Time for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Hacker Time is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hacker Time until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

You have not explained why. Androzaniamy (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hacker Time I have. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, please provide the link next time. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

The link is in the second paragraph of my first message. Please read the message next time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, I mean next time you want to delete another one of my articles (again). I would not have said thank you if you did not provide it! Please at least try to understand what I mean next time and if you did please tell me if you do not understand it next time. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Androzaniamy. You have new messages at Eagles247's talk page.
Message added 22:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you willing to be 'adopted'?

For whatever reason, I have been watching your edits and some of the conflicts in which you have been involved in the past couple of days. I absolutely refuse to get into back-and-forth arguments but I'm willing to mentor you if you are interested. You might have an interest in becoming a good Wikipedia editor and, if you do, you really need to settle down and work with someone. If you are interested in doing that, I'll be happy to be that person. If you want to be a good editor, and not have conflicts and arguments, I'll help you. But if you're going to stubbornly refuse guidance, I don't have time for it. I think in some ways you've been treated poorly and that's why I'm extending this offer. Let me know what your feeling is about this. If you want to do it, that's great, but I would expect a change in behavior. I know that sounds domineering, but in my opinion, you don't yet have a good sense of how the project works. I'm happy to teach you and share whatever I know, but you have to be willing to listen and practice some of the things that I tell you. I don't know everything - and there are those who would say that I don't know much - but I'd like to help you if you're willing. Let me know... it's ok with me either way... Wikipelli Talk 23:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear, there is no easy way of me saying this without sounding extremely rude and ungrateful but I will try to be as polite as I can. Before I start, sorry for any offence caused in what I am about to say and none of it was intended. Okay so here it goes. I would just like to thank you for the offer and I appreciate that you are taking an interest in how I edit Wikipedia and wanting to help me but am afraid that I am going to have to decline the offer. Here is the reason and and do not worry it is nothing against you. I really want to adopt another user myself and I would not be able to adopt if I am already being adopted myself. Also the way that you see me (I think) seems like you think about me as a disruptive editor who you want nothing to with and if I say something which you might see as how you put it "defensive" and "antagonistic" and I try to persuade you to see the truth that I am not it leads to a misunderstanding. The only thing that I have ever said purposely to be debated about is at the discussion for Hacker Time which I think is supposed to be a debate (pardon me and apologies if I am wrong). I absolutely , most definitely by all the moons of Raxacoricofallapatorius hate getting into arguments and will try to avoid them at all costs unless it is absolutely have to as in saving an article that needs to be saved such as Hacker Time. I do not think being adopted by you is a good choice for me right now and I would prefer it if we had nothing to do with each other right now to avoid any more trouble but I will have to intervene if I see any vandalism from you and will report you to an administrator and am perfectly happy to do that. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok. Wikipelli Talk 19:30, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your co-operation on this matter, again please accept my apologies. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Move of Hacker dog article

I have moved Hacker the Dog to Hacker T. Dog, as this seems to be the usual name. Let me know if you think I was wrong to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

It's fine! I wanted to put with that title myself but for some reason the page wouldn't let me. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Listen up!

I would like to make some new articles but I am worried if people think that they are not "notable" enough for an an article. Here is a list for all of the new articles I'd like to make.

We'll Take Manhattan (BBC film)
Hacker the Dog
Caitlin Blackwood
Teselecta

Please tell me on this page if I'm allowed to make them. Thanks! Androzaniamy (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The question is not whether you'd be allowed to make them, but whether other people will be able to delete them. Looking at one of them, Caitlin Blackwood, I suspect it would be easily deleted; having just one acting credit, it would be hard to claim she meets WP:NACTOR. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, what about the others, are they alright? Androzaniamy (talk) 18:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I do not have the time this afternoon to figure out what they refer to and whether they're notable. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

That's absolutely fine. I'll just wait for someone else to help me. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You could try creating your own personal sandbox at User:Androzaniamy/sandbox, adding a section for references, start writing your articles and then see if you can find enough reliable sources that would prove that your subjects are notable. If not you can delete them yourself; if they prove to have enough sources you could ask people to look at them to see if they seem reliable. As far as your suggestions for articles are concerned: We'll Take Manhattan has had mixed reviews so far so probably will not be that notable in the long run, Hacker T. Dog looks a good bet and Teselecta has a section at List of Doctor Who universe creatures and aliens#Teselecta. It's always a good idea to put your title words in the Wikipedia search box and follow the links to articles containing the words.--Harkey (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Changed Sandbox title to lower case.--Harkey (talk) 12:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! This is really helpful information. I can't wait to get started. Just another question (yes I know, I am being such a pain), will I really need a lot of citations fot Hacker the Dog becasue if you watch CBBC you can clearly see all the information about him. Androzaniamy (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is used by people all over the world. BBC programmes may not be available in their countries, but the merchandise associated with the characters could well be on sale. Our readers want a way to find out about a topic as quickly and as concisely as possible, but reliably. It takes a while to find out by using Google searches so we are working to help them access the information they need quickly and for free. Putting citations in seems tedious sometimes, but it really is the key part of being a trustworthy source of information. There are a lot of bad guys out there who try to fool folks into believing all sorts of things for their own profit so we have to fight that sort of trickery by proving that what we say is true.--Harkey (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
PS You can make your own private page for experiments User:Androzaniamy/Experiments. Just click on the red link and experiment with edits on the new page that you make. It will help you to get to know how things work a bit better before going public with them.--Harkey (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Will they get lost or can I save the page? Androzaniamy (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

You can save the page and make a link to it from your talk page and add it to your watch list, if you want. I find it useful to copy and paste any neat little bits and pieces that I see other editors use, that might come in useful for my work later.--Harkey (talk) 00:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
I turn into a pumpkin at midnight, so if you have any questions I'll be glad to answer them in the morning.--Harkey (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hahaha good one! I don't have any more questions because you have informed me really well. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, disappointing. Looks as though Hacker T. Dog is not notable enough in the rest of the world!! He is really famous in the UK with a whole generation of kids, as well as a cult comedy figure with a lot of adults. I'll keep an eye out for news about him and collect the information in one of my sandboxes. He was a mascot for Wimbledon one year as well as being nominated for a BAFTA TV Award.--Harkey (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Not any more (yay)! Could you please help me with Hacker Time. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:18, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Which one? Androzaniamy (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It got archived, but I brought up concerns about your incompetence and unwillingness to accept advice from others. A couple other editors agreed with my views, but no administrative action was taken in the 24 hours the thread was up. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:11, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

What incompetence? Androzaniamy (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

You can review the discussion here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Eagle247, you are being rather rude. Someone disagrees with you, so you complain they are unwilling to accept advice from others, meaning you and others who think like you do. Most of those articles will probably be kept, so nothing wrong with creating them. Dream Focus 22:32, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What does Androzaniamy disagree with me about? That she apparently believes that policies should not restrict which articles can be created per this? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Of course we follow policies. Just the suggested guidelines you can ignore, as I pointed out in the AFD for Hacker Time. We'll see how many of the articles they created remain once the AFDs you started end. Dream Focus 00:04, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Like these two? Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure why Isaac Ssebandeke was deleted. Click Google news archive search at the top of that AFD and you see coverage of them straight away.
REVIEW: There's Only One Wayne Matthews, Crucible Studio -... ‎
Sheffield Telegraph - Apr 1, 2010
In Dawn Walton's winning production, Isaac Ssebandeke and Troy Glasgow ingeniously play a multiplicity of roles, male/female, young/old, black/white as well ...
There's Only One Wayne Matthews | Stage | The Guardian
The Guardian - Apr 5, 2010
Isaac Ssebandeke gives a great, energetic performance as Wayne, while Troy Glasgow's adaptability in multiple roles suggests that, while there's only one ...
Anyway, I don't know how many articles this person created, and which ones were kept and which ones were deleted, nor how many of those deleted were done so for legitimate reason and not because people didn't bother checking for sources themselves, so I can't comment on any pattern. Doesn't really seem like a problem to me. Dream Focus 01:28, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Those two news articles (if you click on them) do not serve as significant coverage of the subject. The two lines you mention are actually the only ones that reference Ssebandeke. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:35, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
The Guardian praises his performance, and that counts towards notability. Where there is one there is usually more. I have time to look into this now. I see the person being interviewed about. Not sure if The Wonderful World of Carminelitta [www.carminelitta.com/] is a reliable source or not. Seems like it might just be an active blog. They interviewed him. [1] It seems like if they had done a simple search, they would've found and commented on the Guardian's mention of him. Too often people just say, hey, I don't see any references in the article, forget about WP:BEFORE, I'll just say delete without even looking for any. Dream Focus 09:53, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Good luck. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

So shall I make it again or Dreamfocus since you found the links. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

No. You have to find two places which cover the guy. The Guardian bit counts as one. The other thing is just a personal blog it seems so it won't count. If anything else turns up though, then you can tell it to the closing administrator that deleted the article, and have them restore it. And if they don't, you go to "deletion review" and have it remade there. Dream Focus 18:54, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

This? http://www.curtisbrown.co.uk/isaac-ssebandeke//works/ Androzaniamy (talk) 18:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Is this the same one or another one? Androzaniamy (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Basically a follow-up of the first one. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:16, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Just a precaution has it got a swear word like the other? If it doesn't please send me a link. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

The link is above. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

But all I see is a very long contents page. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Your section is here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Androzaniamy. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wikipedia Awards.
Message added 20:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

– GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Hacker Time, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Spoof and Daniel Anthony (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

What browser are you using? Some browsers aren't compatible with Dab Solver - I'm thinking the problem is with some versions of Internet Explorer. --JaGatalk 16:30, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

IE8 Androzaniamy (talk) 18:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Took me a while, but I found what I was looking for; there is indeed a bug in the Wiki code that causes errors in tools like Dab solver in IE 8 and 9. The problem needs to be fixed in the Wikimedia software; there's nothing we can do on our side (unless you have access to a different browser). The bug was reported late last October, so maybe it will get fixed in the near future. I'm sorry I can't be of more help, but at least we know what's going on, and that the problem has been reported. --JaGatalk 18:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Androzaniamy (talk) 10:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A few changes

To all users who think I'm trouble,

I have been thinking carefully and have come to a final conclusion as to why some other users seem to absolutely hate me and everything I do. These are a list of things I will try to do when I edit Wikipedia. From now on I will:

Not trust Wikipedia when I use it for my own purposes.

Continue editing it for as long as I shall live!

Ignore rude messages to me and report them.

Ignore users that call me names.

Continue fighting vandalism.

Accept all help whether I need it or not.

Ask for help from users that are helpful and polite.

Give help to users who ask for it.

Spend more time on editing Wikipedia instead of trying to persuade others that I don't mean to be mean.

Not give thank you messages to users who do not recieve them well.

Never edit another user's user page.

Continue being polite and competent.


I will send a copy to users who I think might need to read it. Androzaniamy (talk) 12:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Greetings, I'm merely a busybody who has been following the report on the administrator's noticeboard. First of all, you're under the misunderstanding that there are users who hate you. This is absolutely not the case. However, there is a general consensus that the way you're approaching editing on Wikipedia is not the way that is accepted by the community. I am not an administrator so I have absolutely no authority to enforce anything that I suggest. I am merely passing on some things I have observed and learned in my time here. I gather that you are most likely quite young and that some language here may offend you. This is something that will happen from time to time. One of the policies of Wikipedia is WP:NOT and one of the clauses in this policy is that Wiki is not censored. I highly recommend you read this policy. Policies on Wikipedia are enforceable rules and repeated violations of them can be dealt with by the administrators here. This leads me to another link that I suggest you read as well, which is the guidelines on talk pages. It is considered very rude by the community to edit someone else's posts, such as what you did when someone linked you to WP:OCE. I've used a different link that sends you to the same page. If someone posts something on your talk page that you consider offensive, it is expected that you go to that user's talk page and politely ask them to edit their post to be non offensive to you. By common courtesy, the other editor should do so. At this point I should explain what the definition of a guideline is. A guideline is something that is not policy and thus not, strictly speaking, enforceable by administrators. However, many of the guidelines are treated as if they were policies and as such are sometimes enforced like policies. The next point I want to make is with regards to competence. I do not wish to belabour this point, nor offend you, so I will merely point you to to this link. One of the points that was raised in the ANI report was that you wished not to be adopted but to adopt another user. As an admin had said, you are not required to be adopted to edit on Wikipedia. Adoption is offered to new users who are finding it hard to work within the policies and guidelines of the encyclopedia. This is by no means because new users such as yourself are stupid but a reflection of the growing complexity of this site. Adoption is one way for new users to work with experienced users to learn the ropes here and to gain a greater understanding on how to edit here and enjoy what they do. I emphasise that adoption is not required. If you comb through my edits, you will find that I do have a large number of them. I do not edit frequently as I am generally a copy editor who corrects articles for grammar and phrasing and I'm also quite picky about the sort of articles I edit. By that notion, I am often considered a " new user" by some of those who have edited continuously for many years, however, I spend more time reading here than I do editing and thus have a reasonable understanding of how things are done here. I'll wind this up as I'm rambling a lot and this is getting rather long. Your wish to adopt another user is admirable, but it has raised the eyebrows of many veteran editors as it is something that only extremely experienced editors do. I highly recommend that you do not seek to adopt a user until you have spent at least a year editing continuously and have spent some time in all aspects of wikilife outside of the article editing.

Again, I stress that I can only make suggestions to you on how to become another valued editor here without raising the hackles of others. I can by no means demand that you follow my suggestions and advice but sincerely wish that you can at least read the various blue links that I have sprinkled through my ramble above to gain a broadened understanding on what is expected of you in deciding to edit here. The welcome message at the top of your talk page contains links to very important policies that is expected reading by all editors and the understanding and following of them is mandatory. I hope I have been able to help you in some way and that you will not take the berating, which the veteran editors gave you, to heart. They too want you to understand what is required of you to edit here. Should you find that you want me to clarify anything, please reply here as I will have linked your talk page to my watch list and will see if you reply. Blackmane (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Well that was very um... long. What I don't get is that the link saying Wikipedia is not censored only talks about pictures or religious content and none of the link was religious or a picture. Oh, and the other link still had a swear word in it so I did not read it. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Its not about censorship, its about being civil and not referring to someone's article by that term. I nominated it for deletion at [[2]] suggesting people just say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS instead. I think linking someone to WP:OCE is rather rude and insulting. A few simple mistakes were made by a new user. Everything is being blown out of proportion and dragged out. Androzaniamy, please try to ignore all the negative people. The Wikipedia isn't what it use to be. In the golden age, you could make articles on anything at all, but alas, that time is now passed. If something isn't listed at http://news.google.com (type it in and then click ARCHIVE to search further back for something) being reviewed by at least two different places, they'll probably try to delete it. Dream Focus 18:03, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for being so supportive and understanding. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll sum up what WP:OCE states. Basically it says that the existence of an article which is similarly poor or short of references is not justification for the inclusion of an article that you are arguing to keep. Oh, I should also let you know that you should use the colon to indent your responses to people. This is part of the Wiki coding. It makes things easier to follow that way. Blackmane (talk) 23:09, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I find indents a bit annoying but I will use them if I have to. What I was trying to say with my point is that Hacker Time doesn't need to sell its own merchandise or be controversial to be "notable".
Androzaniamy (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
As you may note, I've added another indent to your response to me, as I have as my response to you. This is the general style of posting here. Although indenting isn't the ideal way to format a talk page, not indenting leads to chaos. I've seen a previous editor who refused to use indents and it was virtually impossible to follow who they were replying to.
As for Hacker Time, notability is covered under WP:GNG. From this entry, you will find links to other policies and guidelines that will help you decide how to approach creating this article. Also, if you want to ask for help, you can always post a question on the Notability noticeboard where you can ask for opinions about the notability of what you wish to write. Blackmane (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought you're not allowed to edit other people's comments.
Androzaniamy (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Adding indents for clarity is allowed. See Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments where under "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:" it includes: "fixing indentation levels". I have added indents to your remark above.
Please abide by the norms of the Wikipedia community which you have joined. Looking at your "A few changes" I see with disappointment that there's nothing about trying to learn how Wikipedia works and following its rules and guidelines. You say "Accept all help whether I need it or not", but you do not seem to be accepting the help given to you by Blackmane, above, who has told you about the need to indent comments on talk pages. PamD 10:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I AM accepting their advice, I just wanted to know whether or not you are allowed to edit other people's comments. Androzaniamy (talk) 14:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
We're not allowed to edit the 'text' of another editor's comments, but like Pam said, we can shift the indenting of an editor's comments to make the thread more clear. Sometimes you'll find the indenting gets a bit confusing when an editor wants to reply to a comment which is not directly above. As an example, this is what we have been doing

Comment1

Comment2 replying to comment1
Comment3 replying to comment2
Comment4 replying to comment3
Comment5 replying to comment4


However, if I actually wanted to reply to comment 1 but I'm posting after comment 4 it would look like this


Comment1

Comment2 replying to comment1
Comment3 replying to comment2
Comment4 replying to comment3
Comment5 replying to comment1

If a lot of people are posting very rapidly, such as can happen on talk pages or the noticeboards, the indenting becomes very important as then people can follow who is replying to who. Hopefully, this will help make things a bit clearer. To see what I'm doing to create these indents, just edit the page and you'll see the way I'm using colons. To make a deeper indent, just add more colons. The wiki markup, or coding, can be a little confusing when you first start using it so don't be afraid to ask for advice on what to do.

Oh sorry I thought it was like this:

cmnt1

cmnt2

cmnt3

cmnt4

cmnt5

and then if someone wanted to reply to cmnt1 they write underneath it. It just looks a bit less lopsided to me. Androzaniamy (talk) 11:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hacker Time

I know user boxes are fun but there are a lot of people talking about and working on the article Hacker Time which is one that you started. Maybe it would be good to check in and help with the article and state your case on the deletion discussion. 98.249.20.157 (talk) 01:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

She already stated her case and discussed it on the AFD discussion. Dream Focus 08:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Until that swear word is removed I am afraid I will not be able to see the discussion. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed maintenance templates from Hacker Time. When removing maintenance templates, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ClaretAsh 23:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

But there are other links on it which have nothing to do with the BBC. Androzaniamy (talk)

Please read the template closer, it says the article relies (almost solely) on primary sources. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Appendix

I have reverted this edit of yours per MOS:APPENDIX, which lists the order in which sections should be listed at the bottom of pages. References should always go before external links in articles. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Ore Oduba

Hi, in this edit you linked CBBC twice in one small section where it was already linked. Nothing should be linked more than once in a section, so I've removed the extra links. (Wikipedia looks better if we keep the amount of blue links down, so duplicated linking is discouraged - read all about it at WP:OVERLINK, in particular: "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, links may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." That's actually more restrictive than my favoured "once per section"). And while linking Newsnight you could helpfully have made it into Newsnight, because programme titles are italicised (I've gone through that article now and italicised them). There's a lot to learn about WP editing, but it's an interesting learning curve. Good luck. PamD 16:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Androzaniamy, I wanted to leave you a note on your talk page here since you have appeared at our incidents for administrators noticeboard a couple of times and I've commented there on your behavior. First of all, I wanted to say that I do appreciate your efforts at Wikipedia. From the information you've placed on your user page, you've declared that you want to take a strong stance against vandalism, and that's a good thing. Vandalism is a constant, inevitable problem at Wikipedia and editors who are willing to help with the problem are always welcome. I also see that you've created new articles, and that's also appreciated. You're very active here in your first month, with over 500 edits, which shows an enthusiasm toward the project. Overall I see a sincere effort on your part to help expand and improve Wikipedia.

I know that you've made mistakes, but so has everyone. I certainly have, I made many mistakes when I started here, and I still make mistakes even today. Nobody is perfect. What's important is the ability to learn from your mistakes and to take the time to become familiar with our policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is a community with its own identity, its own traditions and culture, and even its own language in the jargon that gets tossed around. So it can take some time to become comfortable here. I know that some people (including myself) have expressed concern with your reluctance to accept advice from people, but I do see above that you've accepted the suggestion that you indent your comments to make conversations clearer, and I think that's a good sign on your part that you're willing to adjust, and I thank you for that.

The one major concern I still have, though, is in your eagerness to adopt other editors. Again, I do appreciate your enthusiasm, I wish that I had the time and inclination myself to be as active at Wikipedia as you are. But per your own acknowledgement, you're still fairly new to Wikipedia. I don't think that offering to adopt another editor is a good idea until you've become more familiar with Wikipedia. It does seem a contradiction that you had one notice on your user page that said you were a "novice editor" and another declaring that you were an "experienced editor is seeking to adopt new users". I see that the adoption tag has been removed, and although I wasn't the one who removed it, I suggest that you leave it gone for now. I'm happy to see that you're willing to help out other editors who are new, but please just give it some time before you attempt to fully adopt someone. They will have questions that I'm certain you won't be able to assist with this soon, and they would be better served if they sought advice from a more experienced editor. I hope you give this some consideration. Again, thank you for your efforts and I hope you continue to work to improve Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 19:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I only added to novice editor thingy becouse I like medal and never got one before. I will remove it because you don't like it - I think.

Androzaniamy (talk) 15:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

@Atama: Sorry to disappoint you, but this editor appears not yet to have "accepted the suggestion that [she] indent [her] comments to make conversations clearer", so your optimism and thanks are misplaced. Some of her edits were indented by Blackmane, who pointed out that this is how it should be done, but she [ignored this advice]. I then indented more remarks, to show how it should be done. PamD 20:07, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, well, rats. :( I assumed by the comment, "I find indents a bit annoying but I will use them if I have to", she had taken to doing them herself. -- Atama頭 20:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I just forgot that's all. Androzaniamy (talk) 14:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
This stemmed from some misunderstanding about how indentation was achieved. In the section above, I explained how to indent and what Androzaniamy thought was the way it was done. Given a bit of time and practice, I believe she will get the hang of it. Blackmane (talk) 16:38, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Adoption

I just want to know, if I pass all of the necessary requirements for being an adopter, why do people (well only Eagles24/7(c)) find/s it impossible to let me keep it and keep disruptively removing them. Androzaniamy (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any requirements listed anywhere. You simply wish it, and anyone can do it. No one has the right to insult someone and say they aren't "experienced" enough, since that isn't their decision to make. Dream Focus 15:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adopter's Area That's where the criteria is. I just don't get why he keeps removing the box. Androzaniamy (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
In general, an adopter is someone who has substantial experience in Wikipedia. They would know a great deal about all aspects of article creation, editing and the requirements of a good article. Unfortunately, because you are so new there is almost no way you would have the understanding required for you to adopt a user and guide them through becoming an experienced editor. One thing you should understand is that no editor in Wikipedia can forbid you to do anything unless what you are doing risks harming Wikipedia. In such a case, an administrator can stop you by blocking your account temporarily. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is WP:CONSENSUS. This is the driving principle of Wikipedia and as you can see in the section below, there is a growing consensus that you should not adopt a user until you are substantially more familiar with Wiki. Consensus is not being used to bully and force you to do what we want you to do, but when a lot of people advise you that something is not a good idea, it is wise to think that maybe, just maybe there is something to what they are saying. Blackmane (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Who!

For being the best Whovian!

3RR Warning on my talk page

Please do not issue warnings such as the one you left on my talk page until you learn more about Wikipedia. Your message suggests that I am "almost in breach of the 3 Revert Rule on Woodford Wells". If you take the time to look at the page history [3] you'll see that I reverted only 1 time.Wikipelli Talk 16:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But you reverted two things. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I rolled back 2 edits that the user made with 1 revert. Neither of the edits were productive and both hurt the article. Please read the 3 revert rule page before warning any other users. Wikipelli Talk 17:08, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
I have read that actually and still can't find anything justifying your case and next time you reply to something I sent to you on your talk page please reply to it there and only provide a talkback template here. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:11, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Your inability to understand guidelines like WP:3RR is an example of the reasons why people are discouraging you from adopting other users. You don't know your way around here, don't understand the policies, and thus you cannot impart understanding on your adoptees. In that guideline, you'll see that not only is a single editing session counted as one edit, but even if he did several reverting edits in a row, it only counts as one revert unless someone else edited in the midst of his edits. And even if he had done two reverts, that would not put him close to the three revert rule, as even a third revert would not have violated it. Doing some reverts is a normal part of editing. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Discouraging is very different from not allowing. Discouraging means saying something is not a good idea and not allowing is refusing to let someone do something. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
WP:3RR states, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." So yes, if you were familiar with our policies you'd know that Wikipelli had only made one revert. These misunderstandings on your part are why so many editors are concerned about your eagerness to adopt another editor. -- Atama頭 18:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Discouraging is different than not allowing, but who has said they want to be adopted by you and who has not allowed that to happen? GB fan 18:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
What I meant was that Eagles24/7(c) is not letting me keep the adoption tag and keeps on removing it. Nat Gertler said that he was discouraging me but he was not, he was stopping me. That is what aI was trying to say. Androzaniamy (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I did not say Eagles was discouraging you, I said people are, and a number of editors besides Eagles have said that you should not adopt, both here and elsewhere. Count myself among such people. Were I to see that you had adopted a new editor at this stage in your development as an editor, I would advise that editor to find another adopter. I do hope that you continue to learn and grow as an editor, so that you'd be an appropriate adopter some day. --Nat Gertler (talk) 14:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Removing that userbox from your user page is not stopping you from adopting anyone. I also would encourage anyone who came to you asking for adoption to find someone else. The way this thread started out is a great example of why I would do that, you warned someone about the three revert rule that had made one revert, no where near to breaking that rule. If you don't know the rules how can you help others learn them? I would encourage you to remove that box yourself until you have more experience. GB fan 15:24, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
In general, an adopter is someone who has substantial experience in Wikipedia. They would know a great deal about all aspects of article creation, editing and the requirements of a good article. Unfortunately, because you are so new there is almost no way you would have the understanding required for you to adopt a user and guide them through becoming an experienced editor. One thing you should understand is that no editor in Wikipedia can forbid you to do anything unless what you are doing risks harming Wikipedia. In such a case, an administrator can stop you by blocking your account temporarily. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is WP:CONSENSUS. This is the driving principle of Wikipedia and as you can see in the section below, there is a growing consensus that you should not adopt a user until you are substantially more familiar with Wiki. Consensus is not being used to bully and force you to do what we want you to do, but when a lot of people advise you that something is not a good idea, it is wise to think that maybe, just maybe there is something to what they are saying. Blackmane (talk) 16:50, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
The adoption infobox you have added to your userpage says "This experienced editor is seeking to adopt new users.". Do you honestly think that you are "experienced", after 6 weeks here? And although you have over 500 edits, only just over a quarter are edits to articles, the core of Wikipedia. Please stay around and edit and learn for a while more before trying to help even less experienced editors. PamD 18:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I have to agree with the above editors. So far you have had a lot of very positive support, both from other editors offering advice and in helping you to maintain articles and edits you have made. Please, be wise enough to get more editing experience and knowledge of how the Wikipedia community works before trying to adopt another user.--Harkey (talk) 19:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Creation of redirects

I have deleted several redirects you created as implausible. When creating redirects, you need to ask yourself, "If I am a Wikipedia reader, am I going to search this phrase to get to this article?" If not, it's probably best not to create the redirect. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:52, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how 1st dr isn't good enough for a link to First Doctor. Please explain. Androzaniamy (talk) 11:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Read my message, I couldn't have been any clearer. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:20, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
But 1st is short for First and dr is short is short for Doctor. You're still not making any sense.--Androzaniamy (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Eagles was pointing out that very few readers would search "1st dr" looking for the First Doctor. I could see 1st Doctor, but Dr, not so much. WormTT · (talk) 13:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Why not?--Androzaniamy (talk) 13:31, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
A number of reasons.
  • "Dr." is a shortening of the title of "Doctor", a person who has received a degree. However, the Doctor chose that as his name, rather than title.
  • The capitalisation and missing full stop means that "dr" isn't clearly a contraction.
  • If you didn't already know that "1st dr" referred to the First Doctor, you wouldn't be likely to type it in.
  • It doesn't meet any of the purposes of redirects agreed by the community.
As a rule of thumb, if you're likely to write it in an article, then it should be a redirect. You're unlikely to write "1st dr" in an article. Does that help? WormTT · (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the help but just another question, doesn't that mean that Dr Who can't redirect to Doctor Who. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Glad I could. I'd say Dr Who is alright because it refers to his name as a title (the in-joke that people don't get that "Doctor" is his name). Another way of checking if a redirect is right is to try something like a google search with quotes. If you search "1st dr", you get 800k results (not many by google standards) and none of the first page relate to First Doctor. However! If you type "Dr Who" you get 15.8m results, including many about Doctor Who. That sounds like a "Common Misnomer" in our "purposes of redirects". WormTT · (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I just typed 1st dr into Google the whole first page was about the First Doctor. Androzaniamy (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
That's because Google is too clever for it's own good. If you use the quotes, then you see what people are actually searching for, rather than what Google cleverly works out what you're searching for. Redirects aren't meant for every possible mis-spelling or mis-nomer, just the likely ones. WormTT · (talk) 11:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
So can you put it in redirects for discussion? Androzaniamy (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Cleaning up your talk page

I saw that at the top that you've written that you may periodically delete threads from your talk page to keep it tidy. There is a rather useful tool called Miszabot which helps you archive away older threads into a subpage automatically after a certain period or when your page reaches a certain size. It is often helpful to be able to refer to old threads sometimes and deleting a thread means you have to dig back through your page history to find it, which can be tedious after a year or two here. At the very top of your talk page now, you will see I've helped you add Miszabot's template which will automatically start an archive and move threads from your talk page which are 31 days old. This template is only visible when you edit the talk page. When the first archive is created it will create a small bar at the top which will have links to your archive. When the archive reaches a certain size, 70 kilobytes at the current setting, it will create a new archive. You can change the archive size limit if you want to. If you go to my talk page, you will see what I mean. I hope you will find this useful, but if you don't wish it to be there I won't be offended if you remove it. Blackmane (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Androzaniamy (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Encouragement

Many editors have come by here and expressed that they do not believe you are ready to adopt a new user but please don't get discouraged. You need to take this advice and move forward. The editing you are doing is good and you are learning how Wikipedia works. At this point in your Wikipedia career that is what you need to be doing, learning. I do believe that in the future you will be ready to adopt another user after you get more experience and understand the policies and guidelines better. If you ever need anything ask any of the editors that have come here and we will try to help. GB fan 19:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It's good to ask!!!--Harkey (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Okay , I have a question can a user be adopted by more than one person.
Androzaniamy (talk) 21:31, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't know any reason why a user can no be adopted by more than one person. GB fan 21:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Good, because why I really want to adopt is because I want to provide a unique adoption experience (sorry, I kow I sound like a bad adverisement) by showing to user what NOT to do while editing Wikipedia and using my experiences to explain different aspects and policies rather than just providing lots of links with a lot of gobbledegook, sorry, WikiSpeak in them. Androzaniamy (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, at the risk of upsetting you, and I'm sorry if I do, this convinces me more than ever that you should NOT adopt anyone. Please read and take to heart what GB, and others, have said. You have a lot to learn before you can advise another. All of that WikiSpeak actually means something. Wikipedia has been around 11 years and the rules and policies have been tuned over the years to make the project work. Take, for example, the 3RR rule which you say you have read but you exhibit no understanding. It is very clear and easy to understand but you don't. What you have written above tells me that you're opinion is, "if I don't understand it, I don't have to follow the rule". Will you tell your adoptees that they should warn editors that they are close to violating the 3RR rule if they make only 1 edit? Is that the kind of advice you will give? I would be very happy if you would, just once, say, "hey, I was wrong with that edit. I'm sorry and I'll do better next time".
The links provide you with very useful information. Hearing you dismiss them tells me that you really should not adopt. Please don't. Wikipelli Talk 22:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
I've not dismissed anything Androzaniamy (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The first thing that I would advise now is to practice what you intend to preach. At the moment, you should be telling yourself "What I shouldn't be doing is going against the consenus that I am not experienced enough to adopt another user". Adopting a user is not a light task to undertake. You would be responsible for a great deal of flak if your adoptee does the wong thing at your advice. I suggest you go talk with an adopter to understand what is involved with taking this on. It's great that you want to help others but it'd be like trying to dive from a 10 metre high board but not knowing how to swim. --Blackmane (talk) 08:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
I researched what preach means and found it to be a religious thing. I haven't done anything religious on here. Androzaniamy (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Preach is not just used in a religious context. If you look up the proverb "Practice what you preach" you'll see what I mean. Blackmane (talk) 08:42, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't intending to preach anything.--Androzaniamy (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Trout

If I've stuffed up, then by all means trout me. But, at least explain what for. ClaretAsh 10:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing the {{Adopting}} thing after I specifically asked for people to not remove it. That reminds me of WP:BEANS! Androzaniamy (talk) 10:49, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You removed it yourself here. This is totally unacceptable trolling--Harkey (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
It is neither "trolling" nor "totally unacceptable"; to the degree that trouting is acceptable at all, it is a reasonable response to someone inappropriately editing a user page clearly against that user's will... even if it was a change that said user might choose to make at some other time. I believe ClaretAsh will survive this fish slap just fine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 15:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I haven't done any trolling! Androzaniamy (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Claret removed it via consensus [4]... then Nat put it back [5], then Andro took it off [6]... it's off, it's done, end of story... there are articles to edit! Wikipelli Talk 11:50, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
The fish slap was delivered to ClaretAsh after Androzaniamy had removed the adopting template herself. I was unaware of the previous removal incident. I apologise. However, this silliness is all wasting Wikipedia editing time and resources. --Harkey (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Like! (the comment on wasting time and resources) Wikipelli Talk 22:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
If you have even looked at the article for trouting you would have clearly seen that it is used for fun and NOT to do "Trolling" at all! And by the way if you want to shorten my name at least call me Androzani or Amy and also, this isn't Facebook (thank goodness).--Androzaniamy (talk) 13:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Editing

Before wanting to adopt other users, please learn to take more care in editing the encyclopedia. Your most recent edit to an article included:

  • a link to a disambiguation page doctor
  • a title of a novel set out 'with single quotes', instead of being italicised
  • a phrase that didn't make sense: "frequently mentions the happening of this episode" (might have made more sense if it said "happenings" or "events": is that what you meant?)
  • a typo: "explais"
  • a group of bare URL references.
  • (But congratulations on getting the apostrophe right in "werewolves' "!)

The whole edit was then reverted by someone else as being inappropriate for that section of the article.

Please concentrate on learning how to edit Wikipedia constructively, while building up the appropriate level of experience to be a useful adopter. PamD 12:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Anyone (even you) can make some of those mistakes especially with a sticky keyboard like mine. Although I don't get your point on the URL references. I thought the title of the book needed single quotation marks rather than being italicised like TV shows. Androzaniamy (talk) 13:24, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Try proof-reading your edits before you post them. I doubt a sticky keyboard can cause bad grammar like "frequently mentions the happening of this episode". Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 14:58, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
This is what we have been trying to tell you, you don't have the experience to adopt soeone ahd help them become a better editor. You thought a book title needed single quotes but our manual of style says books should be italicized. A bare URL reference is one that looks like this: <ref>http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/Empire_of_the_Wolf</ref> There is a URL surrounded by <ref></ref> tags with no plain text explaining what the URL will take someone to. Reference styles should be consistent throughout the article. If you look just above the text that you inserted into the article you would see a reference that looks like <ref> {{Cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = Torchwood House | work = | publisher = BBC | date = | url = http://www.visittorchwood.co.uk/ | format = | doi = | accessdate = 11 July 2011}} </ref> That is how you should have formatted your references. If you would be more open to listen to experienced editors you could learn quite a bit.
You seem to have the attitude that your opinion is right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. We are not nagging you we are trying to explain the way to edit here and to help you become a better editor. If you don't want help let me know. GB fan 15:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
What I was trying to write is "frequently mentions the happenings of this episode" but because of my keyboard the spelling went a bit wrong. I have tried using your way of making references and found it to be very confusing. I never said that my opinion is right and anyone who disagrees is wrong. That is a very false accusatio with absolutely no proof.--Androzaniamy (talk) 13:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
You might find this tool useful. Just select the type of source, fill in the necessary boxes, press the button and Presto! Instant wiki reference. Almost as good as a sonic screwdriver. ClaretAsh 13:26, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
That's what I find hard, every time I use it it always goes a bit wrong. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I did not say that you said your opinion is right and anyone who disagrees with you is wrong. I said that it seems that is your attitude. In other words, I have taken what you have written and that is the impression I get from you. I haven't seen anywhere that you have ever acknowledged that you have made a mistake, I am not saying you haven't acknowledged that just that I haven't seen it and this leads to that impression. Also you appear to misinterpret what people say frequently. This is an example of that, I never accused you of saying anything but you told me that I made a false accusation with no proof. Once again I am not saying that you said any of these things or even that they are true, this is just my impression of your attitude based on what I have read that you have written. good luck in the future. GB fan 13:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
At the risk of being insulting, I think Androzaniamy's main language is not English. Would I be wrong to think that you might be of Eastern European background? If I'm incorrect, then I apologise. Androzaniamy, one of the difficulties of text based communication is that the tone and meaning of what we are saying is sometimes misunderstood. For those of us that speak English as our main language, we can pick the subtleties quite easily. This obviously not the case for those who don't use English everyday. Please understand that none of us are trying to be rude but this mode of communication can lead to such a conclusion sometimes. This is why we are required to assume good faith at all times. If we write something that can be read as being insulting and helpful at the same time, it is usually more pleasant to assume that we are trying to be helpful. If you are unsure as to what we mean, please ask. Learning can only be achieved by asking questions. Blackmane (talk) 14:23, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
Haha, no I'm not from anywhere other then Gallifrey (I wish, I'm actually boring, plain old English). Maybe it's the fact I still haven't reached the scary age of adulthood or even adolecence which is why people might think I'm impolite but I do try to be as polite as possible. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
=) With that cleared up, I'm going to cross out my assumption. For some reason, reading your username as one sounds like a Polish name. Oh, one of the things that is acceptable to do, is top use html tags to cross out comments that you wish to retract. It makes it clearer to everyon that you intend to take back what you said. Blackmane (talk) 15:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Here's how I made my name up. Androzani from The Caves of Androzani and Amy from Amy Pond. I don't understand how to do the crossing out. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
To strike something out you add <s> infront of what you want to strike out and </s> after it. So this, <s>This has been struck out.</s> will look like this, This has been struck out. GB fan 18:09, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Good show

Its too long to digest it all, but your talk page looks like a fun place. Keep up the good editing, and you can adopt me if you want. cheers.--Milowent • hasspoken 15:11, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Trust me, it is no where near fun. I wish I could adopt but from the significant amount of people saying it's a bad idea, I soon got driven to take the {{adopting}} tag off. I am ready to answer any questions you may have though. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I understand the concerns some editors have had with a few of your actions (especially in regards to your adoption intentions) but as I've been watching your user talk page, it almost looks like people are piling onto you. I just wanted you to know that if you ever have questions or worries, Androzaniamy, just let me know on my talk page. In case you get the feeling that people are hounding you, just know that despite some of my past comments I'm here to help you if I can. And I'm still watching your page here too. -- Atama頭 19:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
That's nice to know. I wish everyone here was like that. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion elsewhere

I have started a discussion (I hope) at Wikipedia_talk:Adopt-a-user#Criteria_for_adopters, to which readers of this page might like to contribute. The figure of 25% I mentioned comes from here. I mention no names in that discussion as I am raising an issue of general applicability. PamD 10:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

If only people didn't send me stuff all the time it might be a bit different. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Adoption by WTT

Hi Androzaniamy. You've probably not heard of me, but I'm an editor here on wikipedia who is heavily involved in adoption. Have a look at my adoption HQ to find out more. I think (that is to say, I've not been disproved as yet) that I'm the most prolific adopter on wikipedia, having adopted around 20 editors so far. So, I thought I might come and have a chat.

Adoption is a great process, and you don't need to be extremely experienced in wikipedia to do it. Indeed, the adopter can often learn as much as the adoptee. Having said that, I've looked through your edits, and I would suggest that you currently fit more on the "to be adopted" side of the line, rather than the "adopter" side. I see Wikipelli offered adoption above, which you declined. Perhaps you might consider me as an adopter instead? A few of my adoptees have gone on to adopt other editors themselves, so don't worry about it hampering your ability to do that, and I think that you will learn an awful lot by running through my adoption "school".

If you are interested, let me know. I'm a touch busy for the rest of the day, but I'll try and get you set up with your own personal adoption page as soon as I can if you are. Cheers! WormTT · (talk) 12:05, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but it's not because Wikipelli was the one that was offering that I declined (as politely as I could). However if you really want to adopt me then maybe I will think about it. Sorry:(. Androzaniamy (talk) 21:00, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
It's quite alright, the offer is there if you want it. I expect if you agreed to be adopted, there would be less constant scrutiny of your work (except by me!), and I could always ask those who want to make suggestions to come through me so as not to overwhelm you too. Might make editing a little more pleasant for you. Anyhoo, I'll leave you be - feel free to wander over to my talk page if you've got any questions about, well, anything! WormTT · (talk) 08:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry, I'll still bamboozle you with questions if I need to. Androzaniamy (talk) 10:45, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Give it your best shot. I've not been bamboozled yet! WormTT · (talk) 10:55, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
There's a first time for everything. Androzaniamy (talk) 11:02, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Is there? I mean, there has to be a first time for everything that happens, but what about stuff that doesn't happen. The first time that Queen Victoria turned into a flesh eating monster didn't happen... and now won't happen. So there's not a first time for that. Nor a first time for a diet coke can holding liquid gold for more than 20 minutes. Nor um... meh, you get my point. Still, I'm sure I'll be bamboozled one day - and I'll find someone to help me then. :D WormTT · (talk) 11:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I mean there's a first time for everything that's already happened. Like Queen Victoria being a werewolf. Androzaniamy (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thought you might get that :D Of course, she never actually became a werewolf, just caught haemophilia... which only manifests in men - her children :) WormTT · (talk) 11:29, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
So our next king will reign during the Empire of the Wolf!Androzaniamy (talk) 11:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I just hope it's not a Bad Wolf. :( -- Atama頭 02:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
If it is, I'm going to make thme bite Rose (joke). I'll steal a potion from ¬_¬Snape. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

You're looking to be adopted? You've got two offers on this very page, I'd recommend you take one of them ;) WormTT · (talk) 08:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2012

Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates, as you did to User talk:TBRFan. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Please make new sections for new topics. If you looked carefully you would have seen that it was vandaism that I was reporting. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
This edit was vandalism? No, it wasn't, and you have now bitten that new user by assuming they have vandalized many times previously. If you further abuse warning templates without thinking, you will be blocked. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry, it was a mistake and I am sorry. But that edit and the ones before by Uglybugy are definitely vandalism. The message was supposed to be for Uglybugly. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Leaving a level 4 vandalism notice as the first warning on a new editor's page, and the wrong editor at that, seems out of step with your announced plan to "Continue being polite and competent"! If you see vandalism, you should revert it, check the editor's talk page, and if they haven't previously been warned about vandalism then give them a level 1 warning. If they continue to vandalise after you've left that warning, then give them a level 2 warning, etc up to level 4. Then, if need be, report them at WP:AIV, where the admins will expect to see that they've been warned sufficiently. Try and keep edit summaries calm, too: "removing disturbingly sickening vandalism" sounds like a shower of vile obscenities and/or explicit images, rather than some silly suggestions about future plot lines.
Did you decide whether to accept Worm's kind offer of adoption? He seems to be a wise and helpful chap and it might help you to learn your way through the complexities of editing the encyclopedia. PamD 00:34, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Here at Wikipedia we have a very specific definition of Vandalism and that is:
If the edits do not meet that narrow definition of vandalism you should not be calling it vandalism. The edits by Uglybugly do not appear to meet that definition. To me Uglybugly appears to be trying to improve the article. Whether they are improving the article or not is a matter to discuss but that is not a reason to call their edits vandalism. I see two things here you need to work on, one idenifying vandalism according to our definition. Two slowing down and ensuring you are making the right warning against the right editor. GB fan 16:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
To be fair to Androzaniamy, it would be stretching good faith a long way to believe the editor was attempting to improve the article. Tracy Beaker is a children's program, aimed at young teenagers. At best, Uglybugly is inserting inappropriate and highly unlikely gossip into the article, at worst actual intent on harming the encyclopedia. I wouldn't use the word vandalism here because it is highly charged and I reserve it for blatent misuse, but I don't fault Androzaniamy for slipping up in this situation. Having said that, she did template too hard too quickly, and could do with some learning there. WormTT · (talk) 16:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

This is to anyone who cares, I thought that the harshest warning was for someone who has vandaised plenty of times and I ahve checked and saw other vandalism done by this user and saw a lot of others mainly on this page. I am sure that any kid my age would feel sick at the sight of such horrid and wrong language posted on there. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

You refer to "horrid and wrong language", but I can see nothing objectionable on that page. If you think the word "***" "bad laguage removed by Androzaniamy (talk)" is "horrid and wrong", then you are not going to be happy working in Wikipedia. This is not a children's encyclopedia, and it will contain normal adult language, not a version specially tailored for pre-adolescents. And vandals should be warned step by step, except in the most extreme cases - and, believe me, this "vandalism" is nothing compared to what happens to some pages. Please let Worm adopt you and help you, because there is a lot to learn about editing Wikipedia. PamD 18:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Look! There's no need for anymore talking. I removed the vandalism and also made a mistake. I have learnt from that mistake and it has been removed. End of! Androzaniamy (talk) 19:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
There apparently is a need for more because you're still calling an edit vandalism when it wasn't vandalism. Doing so persistently can lead to a block. You need to drop your preconceived notion about what is and isn't appropriate and adapt to the way that we do things; it's not fair for you to expect the rest of WP to adapt to the way you want things - remember, you joined our community, we didn't join yours. See also WP:TPO, it is almost never acceptable to refactor another users comments. Please work harder at adopting our standards. Noformation Talk 19:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Just drop it! I am pretty sure that putting in rude nonsense on an article about a CHIDREN'S show (keyword being CHILDREN'S) with absolutely no proof of it being true IS vandalism. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
No, I will not drop it because what you're "pretty sure" about is wrong. The definition of vandalism was quoted for you above and the defining feature is a deliberate attempt to disrupt WP - if it's not deliberate then it's not vandalism. WP:AGF is a cornerstone of WP and when you assume that edits you don't like are vandalism you are violating this very important principle. I don't understand why, as a new editor, you are so combative against editors who have clearly been around long enough to know policy better than you and who are trying to help you acclimate to our environment. Please accept Worm as a mentor when your block expires, he is an amazing editor and it would be really beneficial for you. Noformation Talk 20:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for this after you have already been warned at ANI not to refactor other people's comments. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. T. Canens (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Just an observation, this block seems to be punitive and excessive. Although Androzaniamy did make a mistake with TBRfan, I see she has acknowledged that, and I don't agree that Uglybugly's edits are definitely not vandalism. I can't find any information about the show that proves Uglybugly's edits false, but considering this edit, I'm inclined to agree with Androzaniamy's position. Regarding the refactoring, I agree that she shouldn't have done that, but also I note this is Androzaniamy's talk page, and she signed the change. It clearly wasn't an attempt to deceive people about PamD's statements, which I consider the reason we have such a strong stance against refactoring.
My point is, yes, Androzaniamy is making some mistakes, but I think they're the mistakes of a person trying to do the right thing. As such, I hope the we can have some understanding with this editor, who I think can become a great contributor, assuming we don't drive her away for not learning the ropes quickly enough to suit us. Also, Androzaniamy, if you do stay with us, I hope you will take WTT up on that mentorship offer; he's a great editor and can help you with the learning curve of editing at Wikipedia. --JaGatalk 20:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Comment: I think this editor has received more 'understanding' than I've ever seen for a new editor. Rather than warnings, this editor gets excruciatingly long discussions about practices. Sorry, but I think this editor has shown no interest in learning about the community's practices. Between the erroneous 3RR warning I got, the mistakes in warning the wrong editor for vandalism, the refactoring of comments.... The only thing wrong with the block is that this editor didn't get warnings when they should have. Just discussion that seems to have fallen on deaf ears. Wikipelli Talk 22:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:TPO there are few situations in which it is acceptable to refactor another editor's comments. If this were the first time it would be one thing but she has been taken to AN/I and warned about this behavior in the past. It's not just about deception, though that is one reason we frown upon refactoring. Also agree with the comment above by Wikipelli - we have been far too lenient thus far and I'm guessing this is why the user thinks she can get away with breaking the rules repeatedly. Noformation Talk 22:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
I think that with all the guidance being suggested here as well as what was provided in the sections above, it may be necessary to impose a competence block with an unblock condition of mentorship under Worm or some other experienced editor. In all fairness, Androzaniamy is obviously still very young and what we may find commonplace and off the cuff is offensive to her. Androzaniamy, it's obvious you are trying to do the right thing, but it's no use blundering around. If you're going to continue editing here, I think it is high time that you either read the policies and guidelines that are linked all over your talk page or find yourself blocked for an undefined length of time until you agree to be adopted. By all means do the right thing, but make sure you do it within the rules of Wikipedia. Blackmane (talk) 23:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Androzaniamy (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have not had any warnings for that edit. I also have read somewhere that it is normally not considered bad to remove anything on your own talk page. PamD aldo helped with the removal of the word by making my writing smaller and adding this:* on it. I have also noticed other users who are administrators removing messages that they thought were offensive. Please unblock me and I will promise to be adopted. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's OK to remove messages completely. It's never OK to edit other users' comments, especially for such frivolous reasons. If lexics like that offend you, you'll have hard time here on Wikipedia. Max Semenik (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Note that, contrary to what Max said, it is sometimes okay to edit others' comments, but only within the rules laid out at the talk page policy. This does not include removing words that you find offensive. --Chris (talk) 19:26, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Like I said before PamD (the one who wrote the message) also helped with removing the word properly. I also haven't had any warnings for it. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
It's a bit misleading to say that you've never been warned, as this issue has been discussed on ANI before. --Chris (talk) 19:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
This edit was made after ANI was closed. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to read this. Are you implying that after the ANI incident was closed, Wikipedia policy stopped applying to you? You should have learned from that ANI thread that censoring others' comments is not allowed. --Chris (talk) 19:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
No, that's definitely not what I meant. I have seen administrators removing parts of messages they thought was offensive so I thought it is allowed as it is my talk page. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:TPO, vandalism, libel, personal attacks, and trolling can be removed. If someone makes a personal attack in a comment it's usually acceptable to replace it with {{rpa}}. That's usually what I see happening. You do have a certain degree of control over your talk page, namely the right to remove entire comments (with some restrictions). --Chris (talk) 20:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
  • That's a horrible reason to ban someone. Absolutely ridiculous. And it she clearly stated where she removed it from and why, nothing done in secret. The fact she previously made a mistake in an AFD, has absolutely nothing to do with this case here. This time, she was clearly within her rights. Dream Focus 13:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
    Androzaniamy was blocked for 48 hours, not banned, please do get the terminology right, there is a difference. Her block is nearly over, and whilst I disagreed with it, I did not disagree strongly enough to overturn it or even talk to the admin who imposed it. The fact is that Androzaniamy did repeat behaviour which she was warned for - refactoring (not removing) other users comments. There are very few situations where that is appropriate and it takes much experience to spot when it is appropriate. If you wish to continue complaining about the block, perhaps you should talk to the blocking admin? WormTT · (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It's just that I have seen other (VERY respected) users remove content they find offensive but not whole messages and since it was my talk page and not theirs I thought it might be allowed. A simple good-faith warning would have worked much better than this block. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:33, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
In those cases, they would have removed the entire statement, which is perfectly fine. On our talk pages, we are permitted to removed anyone's entire comment. By doing this, it is assumed that you have read the message. It's a big no no to edit out words within someone else's post because it would look like that editor was saying something else entirely. Only if we go to the page history would we find out that their comment has been edited and that what they were originally saying was something else. That's why you were blocked. Please don't do this again. If someone has said something you found offensive, remove the whole thing not just part of it. Don't forget to write an edit summary though. Blackmane (talk) 12:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Actually I'd have been quite happy, and I suggest most other people would have been, if Amy had competently censored the my 3-letter word on her talk page by replacing it with "***", as long as she had added an inline note to say what she had done. In fact she left a muddle which I then cleaned up. But leaving someone else's comment in a mangled form is not good: the Preview button is there so that you can see what the effect of your edits is, and should be used until you can see that the result is clear and sensible. Remember the plan to "Continue being polite and competent": this was neither. PamD 12:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't think it was a mess. Androzaniamy (talk) 10:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, sorry Amy, but I did think it was a mess: you left a sentence in my comment as reading:
"If you think the word "bad laguage removed by Androzaniamy (talk)" is "horrid and wrong", ...."
in which you had struck through your own comment, which would normally mean that you had retracted it, so the result was a shambles. PamD 13:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Am I allowed to add another indent to your message without risk of being unfairly blocked again? Androzaniamy (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Why do you want to? It's indented one level from your comment to which it is a reply, and it has an internal quote indented a couple of levels for clarity. What's the problem? (That's if you're referring to my message immediately above. Perhaps you aren't?) PamD 14:06, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The problem with Wikipedia

Hi Androzaniamy. Wikipedia has millions of editors (we have 48,319,836 users registered and countless more who are unregistered) - none of whom have the same opinions for what is offensive and what isn't. The problem with an environment like that is that we all have to get along with each other so that we can build this fantastic encyclopedia. One obvious solution is that nothing that is offensive should be said by anyone at all.

It doesn't necessarily work though. Let's take a scenario... in your world imagine the word, "flibble". Flibble is the most digusting word you can call someone, referring to them as a something that comes out the wrong end of Raxacoricofallapatorian cow. However, in Ethiopia, the word "flibble" means "Good Morning". What would you suggest here? Ban all Ethiopians? Explain that on your talk page the word flibble must not be said? Sorry for saying flibble so much. Oh! I said it again!

The point I'm trying to make is that, whilst editors should make every effort not to offend other editors, they should not be forced to walk on eggshells See? I've just offended every chicken editing wikipedia... and second guess every word that they say. We can't ask 48,319,836 people to make sure they don't say words that bother you, it would take all day. Actually, even with a bot which can message 1 person every second, it would take about 6 months... A wise person once said "You can't give offence, it can only be taken" - which unfortunately means the issue lies with you.

So, I'm afraid you're going to have to ask yourself - can you ignore the offensive language, the offensive ideas and the offensive people you will find on Wikipedia? If you can't ignore it, then Wikipedia is not the right place for you. You cannot control the editors here - so I'll leave you with the choice, control yourself or walk away. WormTT · (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to control anyone. I just don't like rude words on my talk page, I'm really sorry if I offended anyone by removed the word which I thought was offensive. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
If you are asking people to not say certain words in certain places, you are trying to control them. It's not about offending the other people - it's about you accepting that Wikipedia may not be the best place to be if you are likely to be offended. WormTT · (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


Did you not read what Worm told you above? You can not offend anyone, you can only take offense. So can you control yourself and not take offense at the words that are used here on Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.145.244 (talk) 18:27, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I know, I just meant taht I prefer not to have rude words on my talk page. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

How is that word rude? It is just a word, it can be used in rude ways or in perfectly fine ways but without any context it is just a word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.145.244 (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That's your opinion, this is mine. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Then you are going to be subjected to rude words all over wikipedia if you continue to editing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.145.244 (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

There shouldn't be any on articles about children stuff. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

That is your opinion that is not everyone elses opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.145.244 (talk) 19:09, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it is! Androzaniamy (talk) 19:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

no it is not. i do not see an problem with the word you removed from this page being on an article about children's stuff. that is how children are made and every child is one of two different varieties of that word, male or female. also children do have that word with other children. i guess not all children are not as prim and proper as you are. there is nothing wrong with using that word on articles about children stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.145.244 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I was just agreeing with you and you contradicted yourself. It's not my fault I have been brought up like that. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
She has the right to remove conversations but not to refactor comments. In this situation she had 3 options that I can think of, there may be more:
1. Ignore the word.
2. Remove the whole conversation.
3. Talk to the other editor and ask them if they would change it or if they would allow her to change it.
I am certain PamD would have changed it if she had just asked. I am also sure that PamD did not know that Amy would find that offensive. In fact I believe PamD thought the way she had added it, would be acceptable to Amy. GB fan 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Worth reading

Hi Amy, I've just seen a mention on someone else's page of the rather splendid Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers. I'd forgotten about it's existence, though I chipped in a bit towards editing it a while back. You might find it good reading as a clear and helpful introduction to editing, perhaps a bit more digestible than the full rules and guidelines to which you've been pointed already. PamD 13:14, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

And the navbox in that primer, headed "Tutorials", has links to some other good stuff, like this tutorial on dealing with vandalism. PamD 13:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Am I still a newcomer? Androzaniamy (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes you are still a newcomer and have much to learn. GB fan 18:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
How long will it be until I'm not a newcomer? Androzaniamy (talk) 19:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There is no set timeframe. You have been here less than 2 months. Others might disagree that you are a newcomer but that is my opinion. GB fan 19:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
How long do you think it will take until I'm not a newcomer? Androzaniamy (talk) 19:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I have been here three and a half years and still often consider myself a newcomer. Wikipedia is over 10 years old, and as long as there are people who've been around longer, you'll always be newer. That doesn't mean you can't do well - if you work hard, read the policies, ensure you take on board what people say, you can be a very productive member of the community. Look at me, have you seen the positive comments about my work here on this page? I've hardly interacted with most of the editors here, I'm sure I don't deserve the comments, but it is possible to earn a bit of respect here. WormTT · (talk) 09:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I've been on Wikipedia for over 5 years, and that's just as a registered editor, I used to hang around anonymously before that. I've been an administrator for more than 2 years. And I'm still learning things. Partially it's because there is so much to learn, but it's also because so much on Wikipedia changes. What might be policy or standard practice today might be completely different a year from now. It never becomes easy, but it does get easier. -- Atama頭 04:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

List of Tracy Beaker Returns episodes

Could someone please take a look at the bottom section of it as it seems to be vandalised. Thanks! Androzaniamy (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the formatting just got messed up. I've fixed it. Thanks for pointing it out. --Chris (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I've cleared down the unbroadcast episodes, and added one back with a source. I'll keep an eye on it and if editors keep adding unsubstantiated rumours to the list, I will protect it. However, Androzaniamy, you must understand this is not necessarily vandalism. If the editor who adds the information can reasonably believe that they are adding useful and correct information to the article, then we must assume they are trying to help. There's a lot of rumours floating around that Tracy will be pregnant in the last episode. Dani Harmer is 23 in real life - she's not a kid, and pregnancy is natural, so the storyline is plausible. Please stop using the word "Vandalism", unless you are absolutely certain that the editor cannot believe what they write and it is intentionally trying to harm the encyclopedia. WormTT · (talk) 09:15, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! I just thought that since this is a show watched by seven year olds, it would hardly be unlikely that this will happen. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
What on earth makes you think it's only (or even) watched by seven year olds? Tracy Beaker was around 13 when it started, it was on prime time CBBC, at 5pm, which is when young teenagers are getting home from school and watching it (see similar programs such as Grange Hill or Biker Grove). Much more likely that the viewing audience would be from 11-15. There is more than a little school vandalism on WP, and this sort of article would be a very big target for it. WormTT · (talk) 08:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say it is only watched by 7 year olds, I said it is also watched by 7 year olds. The target audience is 7-14 as with the rest of CBBC. I really do think that the person who wrote that seriously did not believe that this would happen in the show. Androzaniamy (talk) 10:39, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

Are you allowed to remove other people's edits on another person's talk page? Androzaniamy (talk) 21:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Generally no, see: Wikipedia:User_pages#Editing_of_other_editors.27_user_and_user_talk_pages. Sparthorse (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Who's edits are you thinking of removing, and why? WormTT · (talk) 08:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not tring to remove anything, it's just that I saw another administrator do it and I wasn't sure if it was allowed. Androzaniamy (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, administrators are well versed in policy, so I expect so - but if you send me a link I can give you some more information on why. WormTT · (talk) 08:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Check Timotheus Canens' talk page history. You will see a whale sent by me as a bit of light-hearted humour as I noticed that he was open to trout slapping (since he seemed an experienced user I thought that a trout might offend him as it was for fairly experienced editors) which was removed by Eagles24/7(c) with no reason whatsoever. I was curious to know if it was allowed, not to get him into trouble but so that I can learn something from it. Androzaniamy (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I had noticed that. I can certainly see why he did it, I know you were hoping to come off as "light hearted humour", but it was confrontational, even antagonistic. I think the reason it happened was partially due to the antagonistic nature of your contribution and partially due to your history of humourous templates not being very well received (another trout and a negative barnstar).
Having said that, I think he's relatively impressed by how you've handled his removal, asking questions and especially to learn from the experience. If you carry on doing things like this, then I think you could be a great editor. WormTT · (talk) 08:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
For the record, I was not trying to be antagonistic or confronational. I was trying to promote good-faith even when the situation is grim. I remember the trout I sent to someone but no barnstar. Which one do you mean? Androzaniamy (talk) 16:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
This one. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I told you and other users pleanty of times that this certificate was not bad-faith but the complete opposite, like this one I was trying to be positive and thoughtful. I ahve learnt my lesson from that one to not send certificates -OR sorry messages to Calabe (and others). Androzaniamy (talk) 19:36, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, Amy: It might be safer if you just avoid leaving any light-hearted messages, images, templates etc on other editors' talk pages unless they are people with whom you have already established a regular friendly relationship, your mates. Treat the Wikipedia community a bit like a foreign country where you may know the language formally from studying it but it's quite difficult to pick up the vibes so that it's better not to risk making jokes with strangers. Or maybe ask the wise and helpful Worm before doing anything which might upset other editors, either those it's directly aimed at or those who are keeping an eye on your progress as an editor. Good luck. (And personally I think the {{whale}} template and similar ought either to be deleted or fixed so that they come up with an nice red message saying something like "Are you sure? This template is best only used among friends, and may give offence. Click here to confirm that you really want to risk upsetting this user." I'm sure it could be done, technically, and might be a helpful reminder!) PamD 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think Wikipedia is a place where you can develop friendships. The person I sent it to (being an administrator) is probably used to being on the recieving end of mean messages and I really think he wounldn't mind this message at all. If Eagles247 found it offensive then he's lucky I did not send it to him. I think you should let the reciever of the message decide if it was worthy of keeping up on there. He's the one who's open to trout slapping, not Eagles247Androzaniamy (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

"wise"? The closest I get to wisdom is some painful teeth :P But yes, if you ever want to ask, then be my guest. As for that barnstar, I've looked at it from every angle I can think of and there is no way that it was designed to be a positive and thoughtful message. I can believe you didn't understand what a talk page stalker was, and you thought he was insulting you when he used the phrase, I can think of at least 10 other mitigating reasons for the barnstar, but when you post "I asked Wikipelli, not you. Who are you calling a talkpage stalker?" followed 3 minutes later by I award you ... (NOT!), there is no way that can be seen as friendly or positive in any way.

You'll notice that I've never left a trout, a minnow or a whale for any editor, partially because I don't find them amusing, but mostly because I don't think they are an effective way of communicating with people. To the best of my knowledge, I've never actually seen someone hit someone in the street with a wet fish. I've never seen a boss do it to a worker, nor a back bencher do it to the prime minister. I don't get why it's suddenly acceptable to do it virtually.

On the other hand, this happened well over a month ago and I have seen significant improvements over the past few days. I'd suggest we just move on, try to treat each other like humans and leave the fish to swim. WormTT · (talk) 08:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, I guess that you do not find some things that I find funny as a joke. I find virtual fish slapping funny and you don't. You think I thought another editor was calling me a talk page stalker, I know for a fact I wasn't. We have our differences. End of.Androzaniamy (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Amy, to see I'm sorry that reaction from you, I'll keep out of your way in future unless you come to me for help, which you're still welcome to. I'm still open to adopt you too, if are interested in running through my course. I do suggest you spend a little time thinking about how you communicate with other editors, this is supposed to be a constructive environment and I've seen many editors with your attitude come and go, sometimes forcibly. Good luck for the future. WormTT · (talk) 08:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, you're not going to keep on offering to help me anymore. Am I right? Androzaniamy (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Your edit summary of "Please please let me be right" is pretty offensive: why don't you want help? How does this square with "Accept all help whether I need it or not. Ask for help from users that are helpful and polite."? Has the Worm ever been anything but helpful and polite? PamD 15:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
How can you find it offensive???!!! Well I really honestly do want to accept all help but from users who aren't judgmental and don't call me names. And well WormTT hasn't been exactly very nice to me recently especially when Eagles247 showed him my certificate from Calable. I get scared when people like you and WormTT and Eagles247 seem to keep on commenting on loads of my edits and are constantly checking my contributions to tell me off every time I do something wrong. Sorry, but that's what I think. Androzaniamy (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
You don't seem to want help unless it is what you want to hear, the way you want to hear it. Let me get this straight, you don't understand how telling someone; please, please please I don't want your help anymore; is offensive? Especially after you have said you will "Accept all help whether I need it or not". The best way to help someone is to analyze their edits and suggest better ways of doing those same things. You seem very competent in certain areas but completely clueless in others, (don't really care if this offends you). Your attitude is going to get you into trouble here and block notices will probably be on this page again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.145.244 (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
How can you call me clueless when you are the one who doesn't even sign your posts? Androzaniamy (talk) 17:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
LOL! An IP address too cowardly to log in with their normal account. Most of their edits are to this talk page. [7] Anyway, you might want to stop responding to the rude people who keep talking down to you, and instead just delete any post they make on your talk page. Tell them not to post anymore of their nonsense. Dream Focus 18:15, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Is that allowed? Androzaniamy (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Of course it is! Go for it. The best way to stop people from arguing nonstop and harassing/bothering you is to just erase any new post they make. You can also delete or archive any sections on your talk page you want to be over and done with. Dream Focus 00:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I mean deliberately signing out and bugging me. Androzaniamy (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Dream Focus, kindly stop corrupting our young editors with your nonsense. This will only lead to a quick block for Androzaniamy if she actually listens to you. Androzaniamy, take a look at Dream Focus' block log before you decide to be just like this editor. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
That is not very nice or fair :'(. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought Dream Focus was a good editor and I thought that you are allowed to remove whole messages. You did that as well to an edit of mine that wasn't intended to you. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Dream Focus is a good editor, but not necessarily a good role model for you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I was blocked do a simple mistake in reverting vandalism, then for a miscommunications problem back in 2009, and then for political reasons which many saw as ridiculous not that long ago on the day they managed to kill the Article Rescue Squadron template. And no one needs role models, they need to just think for themselves. Stop trying to scare people with baseless block threats. Dream Focus 16:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Amy. I'm intending to leave you alone, let you branch out and do what you like. I'm afraid that I don't see a long future for you doing that, but I'm not going to force my opinions on you. I'm sorry if you feel I haven't been very nice, I do try my hardest to be friendly and helpful. However, I also make sure that I am fair and I speak my mind. If I see problems, I bring them up in a constructive manner, so that they can be addressed.
I should point out that since we started interacting, I've answered your questions, actively disagreed with your block, defended you on another users page, worked hard to ensure List of Tracy Beaker Returns episodes was not subject to vandalism while you were blocked. I work with many new editors, I keep foul language to a minimum and the vast majority of editors I work with are grateful. I have a backlog of requests to adopt, yet I'm willing to put you to the front of the queue because I saw your potential. Anyway, that's always open for you in the future, if you need it. WormTT · (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, I really appreciate it. By the way, it wasn't against you if thats what you think, it's just some editors (namely you PamD and Eagles247)are always commenting on every single edit of mine even if it deleted. I know you try to mean well but it's slightly unnerving. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Troutings and whalings are given to people when they've done something obviously silly. Giving it to people out of the blue is not like a comedy show where getting hit in the face with a fish is funny. Trouting someone is offensive if they've not done anything obviously silly. At the moment, you're in need of a substantial serving of minnows as you are still inexperienced here but you are quite rapidly heading for your own servings of trouts and whales. Your responses are giving everyone, who has posted to your talk page, the impression that you know best and don't need to worry about anyone else's opinion. You say you want help from people who aren't judgemental but the way you're behaving is leaving others little option but to be judgemental. As an example, saying "end of" is obviously your way of saying "this is what I'm saying, it's right and I don't want to hear anymore of your criticism", which is something a spoilt child would do. Worm has been incredibly patient and you don't even know how fortunate you are to have an editor as experienced as him offer to teach you the ropes here. I'd go further but I'd probably violate a number of policies, but you need to have a good long look at how you approach talking with others before you find yourself in a great deal of hot water and ejectd by the community. Blackmane (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

If you are not going to assume good faith I'd rather you left me alone. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that's a grand idea, Androzaniamy... I think we all should just leave you alone to do your edits. We can revert when they're wrong, warn when necessary, but otherwise, just stop interacting. A lot of wonderful editors have spent (in my opinion) far too much time trying to help. Wikipelli Talk 22:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Blackmane, what community are you referring to? A small number of people are against her, while 99.99% of people don't know she exist. The Wikipedia is a big place. And why would anyone listen to people who keep talking down to them as you are doing now? Dream Focus 16:31, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it's fair to say that anyone is "against her". I think that there might be a number of people that are against things that she does and says, but that doesn't mean they're against her. But you're right... the majority of editors on Wikipedia are blissfully unaware of this little tempest and are actually improving articles and getting work done rather than quibbling over trouting or whaling or minnowing... Good for them! Let's leave this editor be... and, as I've said elsewhere, revert when needed, warn if necessary, but generally, get on with our work. Wikipelli Talk 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Bit rich coming from you. This little tempest? The weather seems fine here if that's what you mean. By the way, what happened to our mutual agreement of us not having anything to do with each other anymore? Androzaniamy (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Comment: I really do believe it is in your best interest that you take up on User:Worm That Turned's offer for mentor ship. This user is very experienced, kind, and can help you to become a better editor on Wikipedia. As you will avoid these kinds resistance and comments about your Wikibehavior. The discussion going on at AN keeps on swaying back and forth between you being immediately blocked indefinitely or you finding a mentor or be blocked if you fail to. Please take this to your heart and think about it and consider voluntarily letting yourself get adopted by this user or any other user willing to adopt before discussions come to a close. Being blocked indefinitely is not a good feeling, believe me, I would know.—cyberpower (Chat)(WP Edits: 521,285,158) 01:05, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

    • I'd like to reinforce cyberpower's comment. There is no doubt that you are working well towards becoming a good editor here in terms of content submitted but it's your interaction with others that is under discussion. There have been many editors over the years that have been excellent contributors of content with tens of thousands of edits under and many Good and Featured Articles under their belt but whose unwillingness to listen to consensus and disruptive nature has caused them to be removed from Wikipedia permanently. I've said this before and I'll say it again. I highly, and sincerely, recommend you undertake Worm's adoption program not just to become a better editor, but also to understand what is expected of you in how you behave here. Blackmane (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Stardoll, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Yves Saint Laurent and Couture (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Remote Control Star

Hi, you have added multiple bare URL (<ref>URL</ref>)references to this article. Please format your references like this, <ref>{{Cite web | last = | first = | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = | work = | publisher = | date = | url = | format = | doi = | accessdate = }} </ref>. This is the accepted form to cite URL references. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 21:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried on another article and it went wrong (~_~)(o~o). Androzaniamy (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Well it does work, try using the show preview button. You can also ask your mentor for help with the formatting. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I just find it hard uding it, I never said it didn't work. What mentor? Androzaniamy (talk) 21:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I assumed you were being mentored by WormTT. Even though it may be hard to use, its Wikipedia standards to use it. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 21:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you teach me? Androzaniamy (talk) 21:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Take a look at my sandbox for an example. Karl 334 ☞TALK to ME ☜ 21:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
If you go to "My Preferences" then to the "Gadgets" tab there is a checkbox for "Proveit," which is a really simple to use citation program that is built into the Wikipedia edit page after you enable it. You just type in the source info and it automatically formats it for you. Noformation Talk 22:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Answer of the day

You say: "Question of the day: Can someone please teach me how to move articles into that of a different name?"

Have a look at WP:MOVE, which should help. There's also Help:How to move a page.

If the move is non-controversial and the name you want to move to is not already occupied, or is used only for a redirect to the page you're wanting to move which has not been edited since it was created, then you can move a page using the "MOVE" button at the top of the page. For anything else, you need to use {{db-move}} or {{RM}} - but read about them first.

A key thing to remember is that if you move a page from TitleA to TitleB, a redirect is automatically created from TitleA to TitleB, so any incoming links will not be broken. BUT, if you then put something else at TitleA (such as a disambiguation page), then the links which previously led to TitleA are now leading to a wrong page - and it is your responsibility as the page mover to fix those broken links.

Hope that helps. PamD 23:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

And before moving a page for the first time, unless you're very, very sure that it's not a controversial move, ask somebody. Bad moves can get really nasty to clean up... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! It's just that I saw quite a few articles linked by my big red button that had a some errors on the name. Next time could you please answer on my user page instead of my talk page as it is a bit more easier then. Androzaniamy (talk)
So you want other users to edit your user page after you posted "Never edit another user's user page"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.40.145.244 (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you're right, for a change. Androzaniamy (talk) 18:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Redirect

Hello, I saw that recently you requested a redirect at WP:Articles for creation/Redirects. I want to notify you that this was not strictly needed, because as a confirmed user you can create pages, including redirects. All you need to do is add "#REDIRECT [[Target page name]]", save and it will redirect there. Have a good day! Rcsprinter (whisper) 20:30, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, it's just that I wanted a second opinion for it. You will still review though, won't you? Androzaniamy (talk) 20:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I have been notified of #Creation of redirects and shouldn't have made it. Rcsprinter (lecture) 20:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Made what? Androzaniamy (talk) 20:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Kellogg of Battle Creek

A tag has been placed on Kellogg of Battle Creek, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you believe that there is a reason to keep the redirect, you can request that administrators wait a while before deleting it. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I've deleted your recreation of the page, which only had "{{hangon}}" on it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I've re-created the redirect from Kellogg of Battle Creek and made another from Kelloggs of Battle Creek. They're at the margins of plausibility but could just about possibly help some reader or prevent someone from re-creating the article. And redirects are cheap. PamD 00:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Harriet Jones, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What have I done wrong on Harriet Jones? Androzaniamy (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Your edit may have been a little weak grammatically, but it does not justify the tag which Eagle 247 placed here. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
It would've been valid information to put in there, if it wasn't already listed. which the series's characters and even alien races such as the Daleks and Sycorax are always forced to respond: "Yes, [I/we] know who you are."[3][4] And there weren't a lot of errors, it just something minor, Eagle247 having a rather harsh warning for something so trivial. Dream Focus 17:24, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
It was a level-1 warning specifically developed to WP:AGF.--v/r - TP 17:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Please refrain from making test edits in Wikipedia pages, such as those you made to Hannah Miley, even if you intend to fix them later. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

That may have been an imperfectly-formatted edit; it was clearly not a test edit, as it added referenced information and a reference to an article where it was within reasonable bounds of appropriateness. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Interaction ban between you and Eagles247

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WormTT · (talk) 10:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I've also asked PamD to leave you alone for the time being, which she's agreed to. For the record, I've found her edits to be helpful and reasonable in all cases and I hope you might look through her interactions on this page to see if you agree. If you do, please let her know and I'm sure she'd be willing to come back and help out.
There will be an onus on you, should this interaction ban go through, to focus on improving your communication skills. You're not blameless here - I'd suggest for a start, no more troutings or jokes for a while. You've specifically highlighted two editors as problematic, I'm asking that you listen to the other ones on this page - Dream Focus, SarekOfVulcan, Wikipelli, Atama and Nat Gertler are all very experienced and I would consider myself lucky to have them watching my talk page.
Finally, you know where I am if you need me - and especially if you want to take up my offer of adoption. WormTT · (talk) 11:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Apart from us two not being able to contact each other any more, will it affect me in any other way? Androzaniamy (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. An interaction ban stops two editors who are having difficulties working together from talking about each other or to each other at all. That means you are not to mention Eagles, post on his talk page, post on any noticeboard about him, post to anyone else's talk page about him. You are not to talk about his edits either. The same applies for him. I've probably left a couple of things out, but if you think anything you write could be related to him, don't do it. For more information about these bans, go here Blackmane (talk) 23:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Notification

Hello. You may not be aware that there is currently a new discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard involving you which you might like to contribute to. Apologies for no-one advising you earlier. Moriori (talk) 23:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Apology accepted. It wasn't your fault anyway. Androzaniamy (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Your recent edit

The point you added to disruptive editing is a valid one, but it's already present in another section of the policy. Nobody Ent 00:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oops, I didn't see it. Sorry! Androzaniamy (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Androzaniamy/Archive_1&oldid=1142450730"