User talk:TPTanque

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

Linking to YouTube[edit]

Please stop adding links to YouTube clips (read WP:EL for rules on what's allowed with links), and, whatever you do, do NOT mark edits like that as "minor." The minor check box should only be for the smallest edits that you know nobody could potentially find controversial (like correcting a typo on a single letter, for example). Marking those as minor means you are purposefully having your edits hidden from people who have their settings at the "ignore minor edits" option. DreamGuy (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I want to reiterate what others have told you. Stop adding the links. If you keep it up, it's likely to lead to a block. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can be blocked because that violates our copyright rules. This is your last warning, continue and you will be blocked. You are obviously new here, I would think that you should take a warning from several users, and admins, that have been here longer and likely know policy better than you. As I said, this is your last warning, stop, or you will be blocked to prevent further damage to the encyclopedia.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If violates our copyright rules, and our policies concerning external links. Add them again and I can guarantee that you will find yourself blocked very soon for continued disruptive editing. You have been warned by an admin to stop, so you better stop.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I being so mean to you? Several other editor have told you to stop. You refuse to listen to them, and not only that, you have labeled one of their edits as vandalism when it clearly isn't. I am not assuming good faith of you when you outright refuse to listen when told to stop, and then insult another editor like you did. It was clearly explained to you why these links violate our policy, but let me just add one iota more to why they violate our policy. They cannot be used as references, as youtube is not a reliable sources, as videos can be edited to change meaning, or suit whatever they were cited for. You have been warned by several of us, who have been here for years. I suggest you listen to us and stop asserting your right.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another reason I'm showing you hostility, is, even after you were told to stop by an admin, along with several users at the noticeboards, you went ahead and did it anyway. As to insulting another editor, per our policy, adding such links, especially when told not to, can be perceived as vandalism. Lastly, I suggest you read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. You do not have the right to attack back. If you are attacked, or feel you are attacked, you remain civil. Period.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 05:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, and if you do, you'll be blocked for disruptive editing. As to policy, I, along with others, have linked you to the relevant policies several times. There is no evidence to back up your claim that this is the record label's account, and therefor, per our policy concerning copyrighted material, they cannot be linked. If you can come up sound evidence proving that this is indeed the record label's account(take note, an email won't do, as it is unverifiable), and you post the evidence to ANI, and gain consensus there for the edits, then you can. But as I said earlier, do not revert me with an edit summery of vandalism, otherwise you will only make things worse for yourself.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm not editing disruptively. You however are. I have already linked to the relevant policies, but I shall do so again: This is particularly relevant when linking to sites such as YouTube, where due care should be taken to avoid linking to material that violates its creator's copyright. You say there is no evidence proving that that youtube account is not that of the label. You're absolutely wrong. There is plain evidence as there is a lack of evidence. One of our core policies here is verifiability. Now, as I'm sure you know, we, along with anyone else, can be sued for posting material which infringes one's copyright. Unless you have hard evidence that this account is that of the label, we cannot host the link. Period.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are Wikipedia, we are not myspace. We only worry about Wikipedia, so your argument about the other sites is moot. And no, you are not right. First of all, I suggest you read WP:DISRUPT, as it plainly outlines what you were doing: continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well.. What you were doing was disruptive, pure and simple. Your word against this does not work, as you are likely to always speak in favor of yourself. Since it is not verifiable that that account is that of the Record Label, we can only assume that it is a copyright infringement. That is what it has been decided as, I realize you have stopped, but you also refuse to get the point. Just because you believe something to be legit does not mean it is. If you want the links included, you must provide us with verifiable evidence, period.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 07:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one trying to insert the information, therefore the burden of evidence is on you, not me. Stop trying to twist things so you can get your way, it won't work. As to why I'm not, did you not here me? I am not in charge of myspace or the other site you mentioned. Your argument of I won't do it unless you do it wont work here, as, as I said above, the burden of evidence is on the editor who is trying to add the content.. It is very simple, you either prove that what you say is true, and you can add the link if the evidence you supplied meets our policy regarding such(It is verifiable and from a reliable source), or you don't, and you can't. Trying to push me around so you can get your way isn't going to work, so I suggest you give up on that unless you can provide us with proof. Now, I also suggest you read up on what consensus is here on wikipedia, as currently, it is against you. If you continue this trend of disruptive editing against consensus, then you will be blocked from editing, it is as simple as that.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(outindent)Secondly, I suggest you take back your insult of calling me a hypocrite, as it is against our policy of no personal attacks and our civility policy.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 10:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TPTanque, although I appreciate you discussing this with other users and trying to understand the policy better, at the same time you then proceeded to disregard all the warnings and continued to add links to YouTube. This is unaccepatable, whether you disagree with everyone or not. Feel free to continue the discussion, but as far as I'm concerned, you're now one YouTube link away from a block. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 12:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marking edits as minor[edit]

Per my warning above, do not mark edits as minor unless nobody could ever even potentially complain about them. If you know or have reason to suspect that anyone would disagree with an edit, it's not minor. You responded on my talk page with: "They are minor as I am adding a link to the video at the official youtube channel", which is completely missing the point. You may end up getting blocked for these edits. They are not minor. In fact, clearly, they are very serious. DreamGuy (talk) 13:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia[edit]

There once was a time when new editors of Wikipedia were welcomed. I am sorry this seems not to happen anymore. I regret the hostile and blunt introduction you have had to go through over your attempted good faith contributions to the encyclopedia. Unfortunately there exists a number of admins here who would seem to discourage contributions to the encyclopedia especially by new editors. The only power an admin has is to block you, some seem overly keen to use that power, and often, it seems to me, they will push and push and push until they can. Then they blow the smoke from the barrel, reload, and go hunting again. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HOWEVER, and this really is an unavoidable point, there are rules here which must be obeyed. Some of them do not seem logical, at least at first, but (mostly) they make good sense. The copyright thing is a case in point. You need to be able to demonstrate or legitimately assert rights over the material you upload. The onus is on you. You're right: Sometimes it is near impossible to do so. In such case the material may not be uploaded. If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask. Just ignore those who seem to be more keen on provocation than on assistance or welcome. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How to call someone a hypocrite on WP[edit]

(1) You approach a drunkard in a bar preaching abstinence and you say, "you hypocrite", and you get punched on the nose. (2) You approach a drunkard in a bar preaching abstinence and you say, "your actions strike me as hypocritical", and first you get called a smart-arse and then you get punched on the nose.

That's real life. This is Wikipedia. On Wikipedia you call someone "you hypocrite" and they squeal like a stuck pig and accuse you of personal attack. But if you say "your actions strike me as hypocritical" then you're in the clear. It has the same effect - the person on the receiving end is still rebuked and they might smart at the rebuke - but it's allowed.

It's gaming the system. But don't feel bad. Should you for very good reason call an experienced admin a hypocrite, for example (and hypothetically speaking), and they know you're new around here but they still squeal like a stuck pig and they threaten you with a block rather than admitting they're wrong, then they're gaming the system too. And they have a bigger gun than you. And their dad is bigger than your dad. It's disreputable of them to play such games, but they do. So you need to wise up and learn the ropes. It's just how it works here.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaming the system is strictly prohibited. I suggest you ignore what this editor says, as he is also using your talk page as a venue to attack others.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 21:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daedalus could have shrugged, Daedalus could have laughed, Daedalus could have cried, Daedalus played the system: He hit the escalation button and took this to WP:ANI. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather concur. Though you might be tempted to do precisely the opposite of Daedalus suggests, PaulBearsell, were he to follow his own actions, would be quickly and subsequently blocked for an indefinite period of time. You should ask yourself whether you want to listen to one person's advice, or try to find a way to fit in with the rest of the Wikipedia community. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I disagree: Usually, all you have to do to avoid the charge of playing the system is not to admit to it while you're doing it. Just look around here, there is plenty of the breaking of WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL just by the application of an insincere veneer of politeness. If you're an admin it seems you can even skip the politeness. When a newbie doesn't understand WP:V, for example, all pretense as to civility and assumption of good faith just goes out the window. Paul Beardsell (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're continuing with the personal attacks. Take note making accusations without evidence can, and is, considered a personal attack, so before you go throwing claims around, back them up.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 08:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, snap! I deny making any personal attack and I insist you back these unfounded allegations that I have done so (which amount to WP:PA by you) up with evidence. But not here, you have created a WP:ANI thread, or on either of our talk pages. Thank you. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telling me I've broken several policies without evidence. There, even though it is as clear as day above. Now, that is a personal attack, as you have refused to back it up with evidence.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 09:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AS to AGF, I lost good faith when he blindly reverted someone who had reverted him, with the label of vandalism, not to mention that after he was warned to not add the links, he did so anyway. Why don't you go somewhere else, Psb, as you obviously do not know the entire situation here, and failed to look up the relevant material, what's more, you told a new editor to game the system which is wholly unacceptable.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 08:03, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the cap fits, wear it. Rest assured, I have read every word. I note that you are in the habit of accusing me of not reading, and that I always say I have done so, so I suggest we don't repeat that "didn't - did - didn't" mantra again. Or, if so, not here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you still have yet to back up your claims. Either back them up, or I'm removing them as unfounded personal attacks.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 09:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming I was willing to do as you demand, I could not do so if you will not identify the supposed personal attacks. Please supply the diffs. There is a thread for this at WP:ANI created by, let's see, you! Please continue there. I am surprised that you are so defensive, as you have obviously done nothing wrong, you say so yourself. You are responding to general comments I have made as if they apply to you, or only to you. Actually, you know, you're right, they might just apply to you, just read this page! Shocking! Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:32, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am surpised that you continue to assert that you read, yet you continue to show that you have not. The diffs are above, go on. Read them.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 09:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Did" - "didn't" - "did". The "conversation" has moved to my Talk page, or perhaps to WP:ANI. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should rephrase it to remove 'gaming the system'.IAmTheCoinMan (talk) 18:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 16[edit]

I will reply to my messages on this date, as my internet is too slow to do anything at the moment. TPTanque (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

My apologies for the rough welcome you received. Really, Wikipedia can be a fun place - and most people here are usually helpful and courteous, but sadly not everyone all the time. Occasionally some users aren't polite or patient enough when trying to explain the reasoning for some rule. One of the problems of running a community driven website is a certain lack of consistency in how we do things. In any case, if you have happen to have questions or run into any problems, I'd be happy to help. Cheers! henrik•talk 14:54, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold[edit]

When you're back feel free to ask me any questions you like, as you have suggested you might. You might however get a more well-considered reply from Henrik. But there is no need to pass anything by me or by anyone. There is (still!) a principle here at WP, and that is to edit boldly. See WP:BOLD. There are however other rules and guidelines which you need to have at least a passing understanding of and I suggest you may decide to start by reading WP:5PILLARS. The dispute has been ramped up by Daedalus, there is no imperative for you to become involved further, and perhaps you ought not to, but I'm sure you're interested. It is here.Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I so badly wish my internet regained it's speed before the 16th so I could have helped you with Daedalus' rampage against your warm and enlightening welcome to me, teaching me the ropes of wikipedia. But it seems that it was over before I got a chance to defend your noble comments. But I'm afraid I must say goodbye to you as this does not seem like a community I wish to be apart of and it's editors like Daedalus who have made me come to my decision. I wish you well and all the best and hope you stay one of the few descent people who inhabit wikipedia, because from my experience and everything I have been reading with other editors, and I have spent days and days reading interactions, there don't seem to be many. So you my friend are really a gem in the ruff and I think wikipedia would be 2000% better with people like you only editing it's articles. Anyway, have a good one and thanks for your help. TPTanque (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]