User:TeleComNasSprVen/The Piggy Bank/2¢

1¢

2¢

3¢

June 2010

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! While we appreciate that you enjoy using Wikipedia, please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a social network. Wikipedia is not a place to socialize or do things that are not directly related to improving the encyclopedia. Off-topic material may be deleted at any time. This message is not meant to discourage you from editing Wikipedia but rather to remind you that the ultimate goal of this website is to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. mono 17:47, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by using Wikipedia as a social network? So far I've been using your user page to engage in maintenance tasks, such as deciding what to do with other people's userpages to save server space, like you wanted to, as well as removing various content from other people's userpages and mine. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I've just seen a lot of userpage formatting questions. Pick a look, change it, change it again, change it again, change it again, change it again, and be done with it.--mooooono 04:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please explain userpage formatting questions? What are those? I'm afraid I'm feeling a bit sleepy, so could you please clarify for me? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, look, if you click on my sig, this is the userpage I have had so far. I'm currently working on Mandelbrot set, of which I have made the most contributions to article mainspace, it seems, and am trying to create the Grabesmond article, which is on the to-do list on my userpage. Do you have any problems with all that "formatting" so to speak? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I think what mono's trying to say is that you've spent a lot more time working the userspace and on user talk pages than working on articles. If you look at the graph here it confirms mono's concerns. While I don't actually agree that you've been myspacing, you could spend more time working on articles. Oh, and this? If that was on purpose (and I'm not sure how it couldn't be), there's no point in vandalizing, even if you revert it. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 13:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The United States article? See this discussion. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and my userpage displays a userbox that says I am clueless about everything. That means I have not read all of the Wikipedia guidelines (and I suspect no one has either). And the reason that the userpage looks like a sophomore's handwriting is because it is a sophomore's editing. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Telecommunications of Nasal Sprays from Venus (do not edit this page)

Hello. Why do you have the above page linked in your sig? It'll never be created… (wrong title). Airplaneman ✈ 18:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, it explains where I got the idea for my username. It is more convenient to simply mouse over the sig. Not that it matters a whole lot, so you do not have to view it. If you want I could substitute it for Special:Contributions. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just wondering; I'm not telling you what to do with your sig :). Airplaneman ✈ 14:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK

Tx for your work on this one. As some editors raised questions, I sought to address them with two alts I've listed, in lieu of the original, here. Tx for your help.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:18, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Response To Query

I've responded to your query at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aspies_For_Freedom_(4th_nomination) TheZachDOTnet (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:07, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

		The Entrepreneur's Barnstar
		Wow! You're already at 1,000 edits. (Wait till you get to 10,000 and feel like you haven't accomplished anything!) I look forward to great things from you! —mono(how's my driving?) 21:21, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor edits

Thank you for your contributions. Please remember to mark your edits as "minor" only if they truly are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes, or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 09:22, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

You've marked nearly all your edits as minor since you joined, that's not okay. Also, what's with the edit notice? "Do not touch this"? We're not allowed to edit your talk page? ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 09:24, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

 Fixed Editnotice, that is. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:09, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Replying on talkpages is not a minor edit either, unless you want it to be ignored. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 10:11, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

*Sigh* you're probably right... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:12, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm definitely right. :D You may be trying to be humble when you mark your (articlespace) edits as minor, but what it really says is that you think that you're definitely right and no one could question your edits. And as for talkpages, yeah, use the minor edits checkbox only when fixing your typos or such. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 10:18, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

There.  Fixed Changed my prefs. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:21, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you please discuss WP:IAR while you're here? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 10:26, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) IAR is only to be used for the good of the encyclopedia and only very sparingly. If this makes any sense, it should be used in the spirit of the rules, while ignoring the letter of them. BrightBlackHeaven may be able to give you a better explanation, but I thought I'd try. PrincessofLlyr ^{royal court} 13:54, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Headsup

In case you're not watching that page, you may want to read the discussion here: Template_talk:Unreferenced#Redirects ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 18:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:MYSPACE

I wasn't going to comment at first since you're probably watching that page and saw my edit; but then I noticed WP:MYSPACE is linked to a lot from this page that you've linked a bunch of people to recently. Is there a connection? Why did you change the redirect anyway? ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 19:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I thought that since WP:FACEBOOK had been redirected to a different page that I might do the same for WP:MYSPACE for Consistency. As well, it is better to keep WP:NOTMYSPACE and like wise for NOT'FACEBOOK for the same reasons. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:FACEBOOK hasn't been changed recently. I said it in the edit summary but you should see all the pages that link to WP:MYSPACE, it's had the same meaning since 2007 so you can't suddenly change it now. ×××BrightBlackHeaven^(talk)××× 08:13, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I had the initial impression that WP:(FACEBOOK/MYSPACE) had the same meaning in their redirects, while WP:NOT(FACEBOOK/MYSPACE) had similar meanings in their respective redirects. Sorry for being rather illiterate in Wikipedia history. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 08:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

06:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No more {{busyweekdays}} ; SuMmEr is fast approaching! :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Nocat parameter

{{helpme}} I don't know how to set the {{{nocat}}} parameter that they suggested on Template:Statustop. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:44, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

• • Note: I'll not be here until Saturday, maybe later. Until then, feel free to block me. Really! :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 06:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 3 - copied back in for context)

Looks like, if you add the parameter |nocat=yes (or, actually, nocat=anything) then it will not put the user page into the category. So, {{Statustop|nocat=yes}}.

Blocks are used to prevent damage to Wikipedia, not just for temporary holidays. Why would the account need to be blocked?

Also - please change your edit notice on this page - it is not appropriate to make threats, even as a joke. See Wikipedia:Do not insult the vandals (policy: WP:VANDAL), thanks.  Chzz  ►  06:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

How does the editnotice look now? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. Chzz  ►  07:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Could you delete the talk page for my Status while you're at it? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 07:16, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologies Again

Again, my humblest apologies for not notifying you of the speedy delete on Nether Regions. I've removed the tag and left my thoughts on that article's talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:00, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, TeleComNasSprVen. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor_review/Mono_(4).
Message added 21:35, 21 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I'll archive this later. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 21:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

58.96.94.12

Hello, TeleComNasSprVen. You have new messages at 58.96.94.12's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Re: 74.4.222.208, lol, no. I'm static and 58.96 will be my only ip address for the foreseeable future. I'm pretty sure that 74.4.222.208 is one of the many sock-puppets used by Jamiemichelle, certainly it's a dynamic ip user on the same isp (embarqhsd.net) as several other ips that I *know* are JamieMichelle/<name redacted> (he has said so in the past including on [[1]]. He's a nutter who edit wars over religion and pseudoscience, currently his focus seems to be on Omega Point (Tipler). FYI, a traceroute will show you that I'm on a different isp in a different country to 74.4.222.208. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.94.12 (talk) 01:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

<name redacted>? I haven't heard of him. Could you give me the diff? Plus, though your comments are welcome, I'd advise you to deliver your concerns to this page. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:47, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

<content redacted> I'm not sure what I can really add to the SPI, you seem to have been quite thorough but I'll take a closer look a little later in the day. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 02:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I see. This <name redacted> character seems to be hanging on the deep end (not that I'm slandering Jamiemichelle, mind you, I'm only talking about the other guy) but their use of argumentation (i.e. "therein") appear similar indeed. I agree that the SPI takes a lot of time to cover, but I haven't even had time to go over Jamiemichelle's latest reply yet. Cheers, :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Ha ha, he didn't sign his comments on your talkpage. See here. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 03:11, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that was a bit confusing there. BTW, the "other user" (no hard feelings here) makes it explicit on another website, that Jamie Michelle is an alias he uses, along with several others. This is useful background to the issue because he has a quite extensive history of similar disruption elsewhere and his comments elsewhere are revealing of his agenda relating to the topic. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 13:04, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to dig up more details (about Jamiemichelle), but be careful. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 18:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I have redacted content from this page in compliance with RD4. Please be sure not to use any off-wiki names, etc., unless those names have been explicitly released by their user, per WP:OUTING. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I was not aware of this particular policy (that is, of mentioning personal information of people outside Wikipedia). In keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, may I ask you to redact the names on the talk page of the ip address above? Moreover, I want to know why you listed RD4 above but mention RD3 in the edit summary. And please, 58.96.94.12, don't take the redactions personally. Thank you for listening. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 04:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, just letting you know :) As for my seemingly conflicting statements, the reason is somewhat confusing. The short answer is "RD4 should never be used as the reason for a deletion" because it attracts attention. I'd rather not confuse you with the boring details, but RD4 is the correct reason. RD3 is just the summary I use whenever I do an RD4 deletion. There's a little more information here about why we do that if you're really curious. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nether Regions (band)

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on Nether Regions (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. De728631 (talk) 20:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Nether Regions (blog)

A tag has been placed on Nether Regions (blog) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. TrulyBlue (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Per your comment on my talk page, I wasn't aware of any previous history of CSDs of your contributions. All I saw was an article that describes a weblog but contains no claim to notability. It therefore meets the criteria for speedy deletion. Please take a look at the links in the above message to see what we need in order for a new article to stay in Wikipedia. Thanks TrulyBlue (talk) 20:31, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Nether Regions (band)

As I stated on the article's talk page, articles about bands must go along with WP:Notability (music). A band that only exists on Myspace without any further publications is not notable enough for inclusion. E.g. if they have published two or more albums, had a single in any national charts or have received other non-trivial coverage, then a band is notable enough to warrant an article, otherwise it is not significant enough for inclusion. De728631 (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

File talk:Trigonometric functions.svg

Hi the page for this is actually on commons at commons:File:Trigonometric functions.svg. so you can use commons:File talk:Trigonometric functions.svg if you want to talk about it. Normally I would leave project taggings on the en.wikipedia file talk page though.

This is what it said:

"The legend is wrong, the green graph is for sine and the blue one is for cosine.

Actually, never mind... I didn't realize the X axis starts at -4 not 0. :P 62.63.166.34 (talk) 16:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)"

by 62.63.166.34 as it looks. So there seemed to be no good reason to keep this as the comment was retracted. At the same time I deleted File:Trigonometric functions.svg which only contained [[Category:Trigonometry]] This cat belongs on the commons version, not the en.wikipedia page. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I'll bring my suggestions to the commons page then. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:00, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Your recent WP:AIV reports

Hi. Thank you for looking out for vandalism. However, just to let you know I declined several of your recent reports to WP:AIV because they were for IP addresses who stopped editing several days ago. WP:AIV is only for reports of recent vandalism after sufficient warnings, especially in the case of IP users. Please see Wikipedia:Guide to administrator intervention against vandalism, and let me know if you have any more questions. Cheers, Peter 20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll try to remember next time. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How recent does it have to be? I just found more regarding Special:Contributions/Linkin_Park_and_Green_Day_rock. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 20:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

It does depend on the situation. First of there is a difference between editors using an IP address, and editors logged into an account. In the case of accounts, you can know for sure it's the same person doing the editing and therefore you can look at the whole history. IP addresses are often shared and/or temporary, so there might be lots of different people editing. For normal, routine vandalism IPs should have been active within the last few hours, probably less unless its the same style of vandalism being done to similar articles over a period of day (as that shows it the same person, so I would block even if they had recently stopped, as they would likely continue again later).

The example you give above, I wouldn't call vandalism at all. Yes some of the edits are disruptive, but not all of them. So I don't think this is a case for AIV at all. Maybe the edit warring board if they continue repeatedly doing the same thing, but I don't think it's worth it right now. You can also try the administrators noticeboard/Incidents for more complicated cases, but again make sure it's 'bad' enough for that. Peter 20:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Deskana

Deskana, your most recent edit to the sockpuppetry investigation erased my edit summary about Jamiemichelle's comments in the General Summary box that I've created. I'm afraid of creating an edit war; since the last time I edited my replies (after reverting the comment that Jamiemichelle posted and now the edit summary is buried beneath the page history), Jamiemichelle mistakenly reverted my edit claiming that I used a "false" edit summary. Could you reinstate my edit above yours? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

If this is confusing to you, just look at the history of the page and see the general edit summaries we've posted. It looked like an edit war. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:13, 25 June 2010 (UTC):

If you're asking me to move around the edits in the page history, I'm afraid that's a technical impossiblity. Besides, if you want to tell someone something, you should do so directly rather than via an edit summary. (FYI, the reason I was confused is because people don't normally start threads to other users on their own talk pages, so your talkback notice seemed misplaced) --Deskana (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh, okay, perhaps I'll just respond on their talk page then. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Tip of the Iceberg

Thanks for the info, my advice is to keep the wikidrama (WP:SPI and WP:NPA problems) from impeding progress on improving on the article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. (Good pun, by the way. You should be a comedian. :D) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:35, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey Telcom, I'm assuming your most recent replies over there were directed at James but it's not entirely clear from the reply depth/threading/thing. I think we're making good progress on the article so let's not let ourselves be too distracted with the talk page :) 58.96.94.12 (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm? James? Who are you talking about? But anyway, I'll duke it out with Jamiemichelle on the talkpage, while you can, at the same time that I'm doing that, improve the page if you want to. (By the way, I prefer to operate within Wikipedia policy, if you don't mind. At this moment, you can do whatever you like.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:49, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

KK, personally I don't mind the separate sections attacking each other editor, it makes the true issues clear to anyone else that stumbles on the talk page. And it's not like we actually scroll through it all looking for updates, well I don't anyway. 58.96.94.12 (talk) 01:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

David Deutsch flags

Hi. You added the overlinked and citation needed flags to David Deutsch. Can you help me understand why you applied those flags, by listing (or better, correcting) some specific cases in the article of the problems that those flags refer to? Thanks.

--Johnjlee (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there are, at the moment, too many redlinks and not enough references (we only have 8). :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 02:07, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Breaking Benjamin

Hi! Um, you warned me not to edit the Breaking Benjamin pages again w/o a reputable source, but the thing was, someone had gone through and made it where the band members were (not are) members of Breaking Benjamin. They didn't cite sources, as there has been no official statement about the band breaking up. I didn't do anything except edit it back to the way it was before. Maybe I could have just undid their changes, but it's faster for me to correct the text. I didn't change anything incorrectly.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.220.85.193 (talk) 22:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia in culture

Sorry, but you're going to have to go via AfD if you want that article gone from mainspace. Requested moves is not a way to get an article removed. Fences&Windows 22:34, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

And now I notice that the closing admin last time said "A proposal to move this in to the Wikipedia namespace should be carried through the normal move decision making process, as I don't see a clear consensus for such a move at the moment." Huh. Let me get back to you on this. Fences&Windows 22:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Requested moves#Requested moves from namespace. Fences&Windows 22:48, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I got confused when I read over the previous two AfDs as well. There seemed to be half-consensus in both of them for Keep people; the other half were Keep, but Merge and only one person, not counting nom, said Delete. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 00:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)