User talk:Porchcorpter

What the heck?

[1]Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Ohhhh. I didn't realise I was not blocked. Funny that. Was that a joke? -Porchcrop ^{(talk|contributions)} 08:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

TV station vandal

We've come up with a simple plan. Please see User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

A suggestion

You know, instead of endlessly fiddling around with your neutral vote, you should probably just stop editing that page altogether if you're not going to support your mentor's candidacy. You really lucked out with a patient, helpful, friendly mentor, and it's a shame you feel the need to withhold support for him, because I (and just about everyone else who's run across him) think that he would be a very good administrator. But, to each his own, I suppose. 28bytes (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

In what way is that true? I like my mentor, and how he mentors me, and that is why I used "Neutral leaning support". However, similar to ArcAngel's neutral vote, I meant that because I'm not sure if he has admin-related area experience. And please stop your misjudgement on me. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 05:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

What a remarkably ungrateful person you are. You puff yourself up as a "proto-admin" in the most ridiculous ways possible, yet when you're helped out by someone like this (with far more patience and ability to see your potential than I could ever muster) you can't even recognise that. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Andy, please stop your rude and disrespectful comments that you have put about me. I am not too eager for adminship anymore. I hope you can understand this, or please stay away from me, or I will have to then request a sanction for you. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Whether Archangel is right or wrong with his !vote, I think there is a difference between his performance here and yours. One of the things that spoils RfA and stops a lot of good experienced people from wanting to be admins is the voting drama caused by less experienced editors. You can help :) --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:06, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for changing your vote. And BTW, I'm also an editor to whom you are welcome to come for help and advice if ever you need it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Sure thing Kudpung. I'll be happy get assistance from you at anytime. :) Btw, the RFA reform seems something new to me. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've heard of hounding the opposers, but hounding the neutrals? I think a lot of this criticism is misplaced; I can't find anything in the RfA that indicates that PC is ungrateful. The rationale here for witholding support was something that the candidate told PC just a couple months ago! One can hardly blame PC for taking that seriously. This is unseemly. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 10:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Impressed

Hey Porchcorpter, just a note to say Ive just been reviewing some of your recent edits and Im really impressed with the progress you're making as an editor. I especially like your restrained response to the badgering arising out of the RfA, and also your flexibility into changing your position where many might have dug in their heals. Good to see you getting stuck in with some serious article work to. FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Hey Feyd. Thank you for the kind comments. Yes, I am starting to have new articles in my mind. And by the way, I am not intending to run for adminship probably till the end of the year, or otherwise next year. I am doing lot more work before running as an admin.

P.S. I just want to point out that you spelt my new name wrong, so I fixed it for you. :) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome and thanks for that, Im terrible with names... FeydHuxtable (talk) 10:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No problems at all. :) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Notability of Advanced SystemCare

Hi, I was reading the Advanced SystemCare article and I noticed you tagged your own article as possibly not meeting WP:GNG? If you feel that it isn't notable, then why did you create it?--EdwardZhao (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

It probably needs more sources to meet the GNG guideline. But it is a computer tool used by a lot of people. Do a Google Search on it and you will see. I'll be adding more sources to it. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:16, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Bot" account

Re User:Porchcorpterbot, I can find no evidence that it is a bot account; am I missing something? (Indeed, I believe that naming an account with "bot" in its title is against policy if it isn't a bot.)  Frank  |  talk  22:54, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Porchcropbot, that account is not a bot account. In fact, I think it definitely does violate username policy; it's an alternate account but not a bot.  Frank  |  talk  22:58, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Curious 3rd party. "You will not be marked as a bot on AWB checkpage (which means you will have to review the edits), and you won't be flagged as a bot, since you aren't one. I have requested access to AWB on your behalf, so this bot account should be able to use it soon." This was explicitly approved as a bot account, which seems to contradict your assertion. Also see [2]. I saw this and after looking at all the policies I and am wondering if you could clarify the issue? TIA. --TimL (talk) 03:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Are you misreading? "You won't be flagged as a bot, since you aren't one": It was explicitly "approved" as a non-bot account. I was unaware that Porchcorpter was expecting to get it treated like a bot account, but now that I am I've revoked the "approval". It seems there's just been a lot of misunderstanding, where some think it's a bot and other think it's not. To be clear, it is not a bot. My reasons for marking it as approved are complicated, and in retrospect I should not have done so, as it only added to confusion (hence the revoke) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Tim. It has been approved as a bot, that means it is a bot. It was made to be my bot account for AWB uses. Anyways, please see Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard#Bot in question. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 10:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Please see my comment at the BON (linked to above) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 11:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Adminhelp

{{adminhelp}} Please remove the reviewer rights from my account, and my public account, as it is no longer valid. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 08:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag

While the entire notice may not be an attack, I disagree that there "are NOT personal attacks" in his going away message, and it's not TT's decision to make in any case. It's not his page...it's just the page with his name on it. User pages are for organizing and aiding the work users do on Wikipedia, and facilitating interaction and sharing between users. An unchallengeable going away message isn't constructive as far as 'pedia building goes. It's just excuse and accusation. If you think the message is useful, please feel free to follow up on it with an RFC or something instead of just restoring the accusations. --Onorem♠Dil 06:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Mail call

Hello, Porchcorpter. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate speedy deletions to other's userspace

Resolved

 – Conclusion is that this whole baseless topic is based on a mistake edit. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 09:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

This edit appears to be quite inappropriate. Why are you taking such an interest in other's userspace or what appears to be an innocuous monobook script? If you want to practice editing, there is a sandbox for that. I know you regard Wikipedia as a playpen for practicing editing within, rather than an encyclopedia based on the addition of content, but please keep this habit to yourself. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit summary on blanking) I self-reverted my mistake edit. Go away.

The point is not that you self-reverted this edit afterwards, but what the hell were you doing dropping speedies across another editor's userspace in the first place? This is not your toybox. WP does not exist to give you something shiny to play with, and the more you treat it as such, the more risk there is that you'll break something - not including the workload you create for other editors in continually checking that you have correctly put the toys back in the box.

There is a sandbox for this sort of task. Please limit yourself to that. If it's not big enough, download a copy of MediaWiki and run it locally. Then you can even finally get to be an Admin. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:03, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Stripping away the pointless abuse from the comments above, I think Andy's point is that, although you did indeed fix your mistake, you should generally be more careful so as not to make them in the first place. Best, ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 11:05, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
• That's fair enough. But do not warn editors when they self-reverted their mistakes. And I will try be more careful in the future with whatever I do. :) -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 11:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Hang on a moment. PC did nothing excessively wrong here. He made a mistake, hit a twinkle CSD on a page that didn't need it. Oh dear. Obviously, he couldn't actually delete it, and twinkle went on to put a CSD notification on a users page. He reverted himself immediately.

Andy, what I see here is you assuming that PC is messing about or practicing. That's not assuming good faith. He's also allowed to blank comments, left on his talk page, as you should know. Porchcorpter has made a lot of progress over the past few months, he's not saying that what he did was right, quite the opposite. Cut him some slack. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I assume PC is practicing, because that's pretty much all he ever does. He evidently needs three PC accounts, and yet barely a thousand article space edits between them in over 3½ years?

• Porchcorpter
• Porchcorpter public 3 live edits & granted rollback?!?
• Porchcorpterbot

GF isn't to assume that this isn't practicing, it's to accept that practicing is a reasonable goal in itself and ahould be accepted. I'm happy to grant that much, same as blanking comments on a userpage means, "I've read it". I restored it because I don't consider "Go away" to be an acceptable response and didn't want my own comment afterwards to be left sitting out of context.

Twinkle doesn't seek out other editor's userspace and add CSD notices to them on itself, you have to be careless and hit the wrong button (it happens, no big deal), but also you have to be prodding through other editor's userspace in the first place. Why is Twinkle even open on another editor's scripts unless you're looking to fiddle with stuff that it's none of his business to be fiddling with?

If PC has such an overwhelming interest in the minutiae of MediaWiki operations, he really would be better hosting his own copy. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Nearly 6 months ago, the community said to PC that they were unhappy with the way he was behaving. He accepted a mentor, me, and we've worked hard to address the issues raised. PC has been open to this throughout, even before the community sanction, as was shown by the fact that he had an editor review. We've covered EVERY item raised by the community. He may not quite be administrator material at the moment, but he's worked damn hard to get himself up to the level that he is.

How on earth can you sit there and say that you assuming he has a pattern of practicing is assuming good faith, when in the same breath you use phrases like "this is not your toybox". This was clearly a mistake to me and the most that I think it deserves is a comment like "try to be more careful in the future", but since PC self-reverted instantly, he had clearly seen this was a mistake - I expect he will be trying to be more careful anyway! I mean, I can't tell you how many times I've accidently pressed rollback, and had to self revert.

And that you're worrying about legitimate alternate accounts, which are clearly marked astounds me. The bot account is currently only for use within PC's space, in case he wants to work on bots - there's no evidence that he's done anything else with it. Many users have a public account, to allow for security. Would you like to complain about my alternate account User:WormTT, which I for the sole purpose of reducing confusion if an editor types in my signature to the search box?

PC has not been the best editor in the past but he's working to improve and the last thing he needs is editors assuming bad faith (and no, I don't agree that your classifying a mistake as a pattern of practicing is good faith) and telling him off. He is allowed to blank comments, with any edit summary he likes - he only has to read and understand your comment, he doesn't have to agree with it. I'm going to ask you again, cut him some slack and back off. Worm^TT · (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just baffled as to what you were doing on my monobook in the first place. Badger Drink (talk) 23:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Why doesn't every just drop the stick. Further edits to this section serve no purpose. Everything has been talked about and handled. This entire thing should have been a case of no harm no foul. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

You're darn tootin'! Let's all get back to woik! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 05:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how expressing bafflement at somebody messing around in my monobook is beating a dead horse, and quite frankly I think it's somewhat rude to tell me (in so many words) to fuck off for asking. Badger Drink (talk) 07:15, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Give it a rest. It hasn't caused any harm. It was reverted seconds after taking place. No damage came about. You still have the use of your limbs. Your home is safe. The stock market hasn't collapsed. Just move along. Jesus... ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 07:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

What a pleasant surprise! Here I had been under the (obviously mistaken) impression that you had quit forever. Surely, my asking a simple question isn't worth coming out of retirement just to criticize. In the off-chance that you haven't quit forever, I would still appreciate you not trying to stifle conversation before the parties involved feel it has run its course. Thanks! Badger Drink (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Advanced SystemCare

Just another reminder to source your article. I see google news items in foreign languages mostly, but probably enough to save your article.

Also, if you're ever Wiki-unemployed, and are just wandering around looking for work, just ask. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Anna. :) P.S. Haven't seen you on IRC for a while. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 11:28, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

No prob. I've been on IRC, but mostly busy editing. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:37, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting this overwhelming urge to nominate it for deletion. I know we're friends, but seriously, two Cnet refs? I've bugged you about it a couple of times, and you've made hundreds of talk page edits since you created it. Please source it.

If it were not your work, I would have PRODded it by now. I can't play favourites. It would make me look bad. I'm getting an itchy trigger finger. (Although that could be some sort of fungal thing.) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Huh? Google shows that this is a tool used by a lot of people. Therefore, the article subject IS notable. :) But it is only an article without well-written sources yet. But I will look for sources and make the article well-sourced. -Porch corpter (talk/contribs) 04:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Maybe not PROD, but AFD so others can look at it and maybe even improve it in the process. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 19:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant AfD. It's not uncontroversial. But yes, it's nothing personal Porch. We're friends. But, I think it's a good idea to give poorly-sourced articles a shove to see if they can stand. I've had a few of my own get AfDd. Some ended up better, a couple got merged to the right place, etc. I actually welcome it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Before you do, can you give me a few minutes? I've just had a glance and I'm seeing sources - I'll see if I can incorporate them. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually, turns out I'm a little busy, but I've put the sources I've found on the talk page for someone (hint hint Porchcorpter!) to incorporate. Worm^TT · (talk) 10:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

You learn best from your peers Porch, so I think you best take their advice. Tofutwitch11 ^(TALK) 01:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

PC, it's been over a week since I put the sources on the talk page. Did you plan to integrate them to the article? Worm^TT · (talk) 14:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

I've done some. But not all. -Porch corpter (contribs) 08:11, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

That's alright then. The more you add, the better the article gets. Also Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Worm That Turned#Your mentee's talk page.. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi Porchcorpter. Are you too busy off-wiki to move the refs from the talk to the article? Would you like me to do it? (Of course, if you say you are too busy, and want me to do it, and then make edits elsewhere in the interim, I'll have to trout ya! ) Hmmmm, maybe I'd better let you do it. After all, you started the article, and Worm took the time to kindly dig up refs. If I did it instead of you, it might insult him that you didn't do it. You pick, because one way or another, that article needs refs in it. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:57, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Anna, you can help if you like. :) I will do the most of the sourcing though. -Porch corpter (contribs) 04:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. The sources are sitting at the talk page waiting for you to add them to the article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

copyright

Your addition to Wenderholm Regional Park has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 18:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Advanced SystemCare

Please note that press releases are considered self-published and unreliable. Therefore, I've restored the maintenance tags on the above referenced article. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 10:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

In what way is the 4th ref a press release? -Porch corpter (contribs) 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

You can see from the article that it was originally published at "Boston, MA (PRWEB) June 21, 2011". See the PRWEB? That means it's come from a press release. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

And that's my fault. I didn't spot it first time. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:28, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Porchcorpter, regarding your comment that you "didn't write these sources", please understand that "self-published" doesn't imply that you wrote a source, but rather that the subject wrote it. Press releases are typically that way, as are blogs, Twitter feeds, Facebook pages, corporate web sites, and similar sources. Such sources can be used in limited circumstances, but when an article is primarily reliant on them, that is not good. Also, your comment seemed to indicate that because Worm had found the sources, that meant you had no responsibility for checking them. Worm has been a great mentor for you, but ultimately you need to remember that you are responsible for your edits - nobody else is.  Frank  |  talk  12:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Wenderholm Regional Park

I read the above referenced article that you created and noticed the red link on the term, "pouwhenua". I was curious about the word and definition and ended up creating an article, in order to remove the red link, along with the "clarification needed" inline tag in the Wenderholm Regional Park article. If you are interested, you are welcome to submit the article to DYK. The article can be found here. Best regards, Cind.amuse (Cindy) 13:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I was the one who redlinked it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Cindy, just a thanks for spotting the spelling error of "References". I hadn't realised I misspelt it. -Porch corpter (contribs) 04:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK

Hi PC. I see you have tried to put Wenderholm Regional Park up for DYK. Remember to be eligible for DYK it needs at least 1500 characters (about 2-3 paragraphs). It currently sits at about 430 characters, significantly below the required minimum. Worm^TT · (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

I've added, well, quite a bit, so that it's closer to DYK. I think this is a much better article for you to focus on than Advanced SystemCare, I think we could turn this into something good. It could do with a lot more expansion though, see if you can find reliable sources about it's size and more about it's history. I'm very interested to know when it became a national park, and more about the Maori who lived on it. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Relist?

• Why? "Book:, Help:, Portal:, MediaWiki:, Wikipedia: (including Wikiprojects), User:, the various Talk: namespaces, and userboxes (regardless of namespace)" Bulwersator (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Well I am unsure about userboxes. But I think that templates go to TFD. -Porch corpter (contribs) 05:19, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

All userboxes, regardless of whether they are in the Template or User namespace, must be nominated at MFD. — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Advanced SystemCare

Hello! Your submission of Advanced SystemCare at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Suraj T 07:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Bamboo Massage

Hello, just trying to add information on Bamboo massage. However, it has been tagged as too short. It is around the same length as stone massage information. The bamboo massage information is self explanitory like stone massage. Am happy for any advice. I also don't know how to put in catagories. There is a link at The Natural Therapy Pages, however, most other links promote either a business or therapist. http://www.naturaltherapypages.com.au/article/hot_stone_seashell_and_bamboo_massage

Also Warm Bamboo Massage appears in the Urban Dictionary. However, I am unsure if these reference links are acceptable so I simply didn't include them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massage-guru (talk • contribs) 14:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Have just worked out how to do headings and have added more content. Hopefully this resolves the too short tag problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massage-guru (talk • contribs) 14:54, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Massage-guru (talk • contribs) 14:37, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Massage-guru (talk) 15:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Since you've expanded the article, I've removed the CSD tag. :) But please expand it further and find some sources, or I might have to propose it for deletion :D -Porch corpter (contribs) 15:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I have added reliable sources and have expanded the information. Am not a writer per say, so am unsure how not to write it like an essay. Hopefully, this is what is required. Many thanks. Massage-guru (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

You put the sources as external links themselves. To source correctly, put it at the end of the paragraph(s) or sentence(s) where you got your information from, and here how to do it:

<ref>Source link, date it was retrieved</ref>

Or:

<ref>{{cite web|url=URL of source|title=Title|publisher=Publisher|author=Author|accessdate=Access date}}</ref>

See WP:CS for more info. Best regards, -Porch corpter (contribs) 22:22, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Porchcorpter. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter.
Message added 23:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Kudu ^~I/O~ 23:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

CSD Tagging

You appear to have been counting minutes until your topic ban expired. I admire your dedication to this project, but upon expiration of your ban, you've resumed inappropriate tagging almost immediately. These two are blatantly NOT candidates for CSD:

1. Bamboo massage - nominated here as A1 (no context) when the context is crystal clear: Bamboo massage is the use of hollow bamboo canes that are warmed or used at room temperature.
2. Sadullah sha - nominated here, also as A1, when the context is also crystal clear: Qalifa e Kamil Sadullah sha saheb of Nizamabad was a renowned Muslim Sufi, saint, from the Indian subcontinent.

In addition, you nominated William Cunningham Blest as a copyright violation, and then, 12 minutes later, de-nominated it. (See history here.) I don't understand your edit summary on the de-nomination, but the point is, you should be pretty sure if you're going to nominate an article at CSD.

Also, you nominated Amba Tremain for WP:BLPPROD even though it already had been nominated for deletion...and you had already expressed a delete opinion in that AfD. Since BLPPROD calls for deletion after 10 days, and AfD takes 7 days, this does not appear productive.

Again, your dedication is appreciated, but the amount of time it takes other editors to look over your work is far more than your edits themselves take. Please be more careful...at the rate you're going, you will be topic-banned again in short order. That's 4 problems with 17 CSD tags, according to your log. And there's already discussion above about bamboo massage.  Frank  |  talk  00:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I had removed those CSD tags: [3], [4]. They're all pretty much mistakes. And according Amba Tremain, I have come across other CSD tags that were as well on the page while XFD processes were running. And William Cunningham Beast, when I saw at the bottom of the copyright website that it was using Wikipedia's GDFL license, I removed it. All these mistakes I had cancelled myself. Anything more you want to say that I am wrong? -Porch corpter (contribs) 02:23, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing the CSD tags isn't the point here, although that's better than leaving them. The point is that they should never have been tagged in the first place. And, although you removed the tags, I can find NO evidence that you notified the users (User talk:Massage-guru and User talk:Sadiqmff) that the messages on their talk pages no longer applied. Furthermore, in removing the tag from bamboo massage here, your edit summary stated Speedy deletion contested. Information has been increased as the reason for removing the tag. That implies that the tag was correct in the first place, and that there was some hoop to jump through that had been satisfied in order to remove the tag, which is incorrect. The article had sufficient context to avoid speedy deletion even when you first tagged it.

On top of that, your edits to that article (see history here) are not very friendly at all. It is clearly a new article; why do you feel the need to tag it instead of actually adding content to it? How about helping the new user rather than adding tags to the top of the article after each group of edits that improve the article?  Frank  |  talk  15:43, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

In addition, regarding William Cunningham Blest, the web site you originally claimed it was a copyvio of is actually copying Wikipedia. See the full text at http://www.mundoandino.com/Chile/William-Cunningham-Blest: This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article William Cunningham Blest. Note the second sentence. This article was created in 2009 and eventually it was copied to another site. This happens frequently; please read WP:MIRROR.  Frank  |  talk  15:53, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly. This looks like expecting perfection. -Porch corpter (contribs) 23:19, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

That is a matter of opinion, but with 4 blatantly wrong CSD tags out of 17 - nearly a 25% fail rate - you're not even in the game, let alone the ballpark. You are wielding CSD as a blunt instrument, tagging first and thinking about it later. It needs to be used much more as a surgical instrument. Furthermore, although you removed CSD tags in two cases, even after being told about here on this page, you have not gone back to the user talk pages and apologized and/or removed the CSD tags. No, we aren't discussing an attempt at perfection here; we are discussing competence and civility. You make a big point out of demanding civility from others posting on your talk page, but what you don't understand is that what you are doing is a pretty serious form of incivility. In addition to the CSD taggings, you are picking new articles and adding all sorts of problem tags to them instead of actually building content. Again, I ask you - instead of tagging articles, how about adding content to them? An example of a newly created article I did that with, Django Walker, was listed at DYK. When I first saw it, it was nominated for CSD. We are here to build an encyclopedia. Are you?  Frank  |  talk  02:52, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Your request for Edit Filter permission

Hi Porchcorpter. I see that you have again requested Edit Filter permission. In your request, you state that you were declined last time "somewhat because of [your] ban". That's true to an extent, but the main reason you were declined was that your editing lacked competence, a trait of which the ban was just one symptom. Looking at the section immediately above on this talk page, it is not at all clear that you have resolved your issues with editing competence, and as such I will be declining your EFM request. Should your skills demonstrably improve in the future, I will be happy to reconsider. Please let me know if you have any questions. 28bytes (talk) 01:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Competence issues? How? If you are worrying about the CSDs above, perhaps you could read my response. -Porch corpter (contribs) 02:24, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

28bytes, you closed it a few hours after I requested it. I would like to re-open the discussion. And get a consensus if I still have competence issues. Thanks. -Porch corpter (contribs) 03:14, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, at least you asked this time, instead of just reverting the close! So that's progress, and I appreciate that. Nonetheless, your ban has just expired, I think it would be wise for you to wait some time before requesting any advanced permissions. First show us that you can edit without controversy in "normal" areas (e.g. CSD) and then we can discuss advanced permissions. I will leave a note about this discussion with your mentor and another couple of admins, in case I am off-base in my assessment here. If there's consensus here on your talk page that the request should be re-opened, I will do so. 28bytes (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Given my comments in the section below and the fact that the edit filter isn't even given to admins by default - it requires skill (not just competence) along with community trust. I'm not certain PC has sufficient levels of either - the edit filter is not a place to make bold changes as it can do significant damage. I have two degrees in relevant subjects, I work in an area that does large amounts of Regex work and I'd be worried about my skill level in such an environment. I'd need to be absolutely convinced that anyone getting the skill set knew more than me on the subject, and I certainly don't feel that way about PC. I'm sorry Porchcorpter, but I would suggest the edit filter should be an absolute no-go area for you. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No. I don't think you have either the maturity or the competence level to use EFM. Reaper Eternal (talk) 12:10, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Awwww alright. 28bytes, I am happy with your suggestion that I will work in my other areas without problems first. :D -Porch corpter (contribs) 23:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's not much more I can do for you.

Hi Porchcorpter. I see I've woken up this morning to find you've reverted to your old ways, pre-topic ban. Within hours, you've made significant mistakes on CSDs. Topic bans are designed to prevent damage to the encyclopedia - temporary ones are designed to allow the user to learn what they need to to stop permanent ones. Resuming the exact same behaviour immediately at the end of temporary topic ban will lead to a permenant one immediately. I would suggest that you self-impose a topic ban on those topics before someone else does it for you.

In the past few months while I've been mentoring you, you have made exceptional progress. Everything brought up at the editor review has been covered, and improved. In the past couple of weeks, you've even (slowly but surely) started working on articles, something I've been pushing for for a very long time. You need a lot more experience in article building - but I think that you can do it.

However, due to the fact you are not a patient individual, you do not read everything written to you, let alone the policies and guidelines around and about, much of what I've tried to teach you has been lost at the wayside. For example, the final test I was going to give you - I told you to let me know when you were ready meaning I could copy it across for you and explain what I was planning. I didn't tell you where it was - I kept it hidden under my alt account. Yet, you copied it across without notifying me even though you had previously said you weren't ready. I will mark the test when I get a moment, but since you didn't actually READ the questions - you tried to get me to mark it incomplete.

Many times have I found that you've ignored my advice, not discussed things with me and made bold changes. An editor with this attitude is more likely to make mistakes. I have no problems with you doing this as an editor, as little significant harm can come from it (though others may disagree with me). However, I would be surprised if you were to gain a position of trust within the community with such an attitude.

I am afraid that given your actions over the last 24 hours, I'm going to have to call our formal mentorship arrangement at an end. You are welcome to come to me for questions and I'll ensure that I stay in touch. Good luck in the future. Worm^TT · (talk) 09:00, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Worm, I can't understand lot of things you've said. So I think you need to clarify:

• "I see I've woken up this morning to find you've reverted to your old ways, pre-topic ban."
• "Within hours, you've made significant mistakes on CSDs."
• "You do not read everything written to you, let alone the policies and guidelines around and about"
• "You didn't actually READ the questions - you tried to get me to mark it incomplete."
• "Many times have I found that you've ignored my advice, not discussed things with me and made bold changes."

So, these sentences I think you need to clarify. Or I can ask you some questions as well:

1. Do you have evidence that I am still incompetent? Diffs would be helpful.
2. Do you have any problems with my recent CSD activity?
3. Are you referring to what Frank had said above?
4. You haven't marked my final test yet. How can you judge me on this?

So, only your second paragraph has positive remarks. Just so you know, you're very welcome to feel that there are problems with my recent CSD activity. But since I am now aware of topic bans, I have started to be more careful with whatever I do, and started to look around more. -Porch corpter (contribs) 04:53, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I find it ironic that this is one of your best responses you've ever written to me! I'd be glad go through and clarify each of my sentences.

• "I see I've woken up this morning to find you've reverted to your old ways, pre-topic ban."

The purpose of the topic ban was to keep you away from working in CSD and UAA because of your high error rate (high being relative to other users, who often work at 1-3% error rate). I went to sleep, and you added CSDs to 17 different articles. We've hardly discussed CSD policy and the caution you should use around it - so it certainly wasn't agreed by me - something you'd expect from a mentoring relationship.

• "Within hours, you've made significant mistakes on CSDs."

You yourself admitted making mistakes on CSDs, which you self reverted. CSD however is a place where you can "bite" easily, and you should excert more caution. Yet, as Frank said above, you've made mistakes and although you reverted, you didn't fully clean up your mess.

• "You do not read everything written to you, let alone the policies and guidelines around and about"

This is symptomatic of our conversations. I've tried giving you information piecemeal, but I have no evidence that you actually read many of my comments. I can go through and give you examples - but if you carefully read through our adoption talk page, you'll see there's been large areas where you've just ignored part of my comment or not answered me.

• "You didn't actually READ the questions - you tried to get me to mark it incomplete."

On IRC I pointed out to you that I wanted you to actually write the comments for the last part of the test. The question explained that, but you didn't read it - and tried to get me to mark the test whilst incomplete.

• "Many times have I found that you've ignored my advice, not discussed things with me and made bold changes."

Things you should have discussed with me for example - working in areas you'd previously been banned, requesting new permissions? I would have thought that should be a bog standard mentorship process.

1. Do you have evidence that I am still incompetent? Diffs would be helpful.

   I never said you were incompetent - not once did I use this word. It would be helpful if you focussed on what I said.

2. Do you have any problems with my recent CSD activity?

   Yes. Similar to what Frank has said. I would be willing to discuss each with you further.

3. Are you referring to what Frank had said above?

   That and your reaction. You've done well, but have been very confrontational.

4. You haven't marked my final test yet. How can you judge me on this?

   I haven't marked it, but I have looked over your answers. Marking will take time for me to sit and decide how many points I should give and whether you have passed or failed. I can still gain an impression by just reading through. For example, I specifically told to you patrol on NPP from the bottom of the log, yet you were patroling within minutes of the article being created.

Yes, not all my comments were positive. I don't need to be positive in every paragraph - I was clearly pointing out that you have made exceptional progress, and I am proud of you for that. However I am disappointed with your recent behaviour. I will be watching your future CSD tagging, as suggested. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:56, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Taragarh Talawa and telling you truly

Hi Porch. Just wondering why you made these edits to the article? You left it in the same sorry state. A more productive use of keystrokes might be to actually clean it up, and maybe add a ref or two.

If you're actually interested in building articles, let me know. I know a ton that need expansion. Personally, I really suggest you stay away from other areas. I sense approaching admins, and fear for your future here at Wikipedia. The best path may be to immediately start good ol' fashioned article work, and I don't mean tagging and prodding. Do you like gastropods? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn. See below. Anna Frodesiak (talk)

Task

Here is something for you to do, if you like:

1. Go to User:Anna Frodesiak
2. Look under collapsebox: "Gastropods"
3. Click on one item
4. If it has no distribution section, google the item.
5. Add Distribution section to article with bullet form list of locations.
6. Add reference to support it.
7. Go to step 1

If you help with this, I will:

• Be grateful
• Give you a barnstar
• Give you a Faberge Egg

Thanks if you can help. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I've tried a number of times to guide you toward productive edits, and away from areas that are problematic for everyone.

I now believe that your edits are not aimed at building an encyclopedia, and edit ratios for your account show this. Worse still, I think your edits are sapping valuable keystrokes from others who would otherwise be spending that energy helping the project. If you're not part of the production, please don't be part of a problem. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2011 (UTC)