User talk:TeleComNasSprVen/2013

Editing Restriction Policy

Hi. Re: Editing Restriction Policy, it looks like Talk:Editing Restriction Policy is from 2007. I don't think the subject-space page redirect or the talk page redirect qualify for speedy deletion and I personally don't see much harm in keeping the redirects around indefinitely. You can nominate the redirects for deletion through the (formal) deletion process if you'd like. --MZMcBride (talk) 11:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi MZ, thanks for the quick response. I did not check the talkpage's history, so I only saw the move made this September by User:Technical 13 on the subject page and the subsequent revert by User:Kephir. I applied G1, M1 and M2 from Meta:Deletion policy, but perhaps my interpretations were contrary to that page's intentions. Anyway, I appreciate you bringing it here to my talkpage and I recognize speedy requests as only for uncontroversial deletions; since you objected I will follow your advice and take it to the appropriate venues. Cheers, TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:26, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, I saw some logs and nontrivial histories behind that page that I couldn't see with just &action=history alone. Though I do question some of the motives for the page's creation and 'hiding' of its history in the first place... TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Global ban again?

[1]. TCNSV, you have a history of requesting global bans contrary to ban policy. This user seems to have done nothing but attempt to create some user pages with his personal information and photo(s). That is not uncommonly a first edit on Wikiversity. It may or may not lead to contributions. I just saw that you renominated for deletion, on Commons, two used photos of this user that had previously been kept in a deletion discussion. This is not only biting the newcomer, it's disruptive. Please be careful, and don't request global bans for anything other than ongoing and widespread disruption. A user blocked on one wiki for behavior that would have no consequence on others is hardly being globally disruptive, merely, in this case, clueless. —Abd (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, there's a difference between a global ban and locking. I agree a lock is not necessary in this case. PiRSquared17 (talk) 23:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, as there is a difference between a block and a ban. However, to the locked user, it's quite similar. Global bans are implemented with a lock. The difference is that appealing a global ban is very difficult, appealing a lock is relatively easy. To a newbie, though, "appeal" might be like running backwards on tiptoe. —Abd (talk) 23:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Please, Abd, this was none of your business. I don't particularly care what he did on Wikiversity, and I never considered that edit in question. I know that Wikiversity is just a place to test out your new editing tools, and I don't want you to make any association between me and that project. You can be an admin and run the town how you like, it's not my place to tell you what to do; in fact, I've noticed you've been host to globally banned users such as the likes of Poetlister there, so it's not surprising to me why you would defend him. What I did, and have done, is review the sum total of all his edits, the first of which I noticed on Wikidata, and realized he engaged in crosswiki disruption of multiple project Main Pages, and especially self-promotion on Commons after being warned numerous times. There is nothing about this concerning you. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 11:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

And also you misrepresent me by saying I "renominated" for deletion two of his images; I've only met the user once, to which I reported to the stewards and deferred to their judgement, and I haven't made any sort of past nominations of his images on Commons. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 12:02, 31 December 2013 (UTC)