User talk:Timothy Robinson12345/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Teahouse host

Hello Timothy Robinson12345,

I appreciate your willingness to help at the Teahouse. But you have only been editing for a week and have fewer than 100 edits. You need far more experience to be an effective Teahouse host. Please spend a few months improving articles and studying our policies and guidelines. Thank you. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 16:55, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Twinkle

Hello,

I see you're new to Twinkle and Wikipedia. I've had Twinkle for over two years now. I noticed that you reverted my edit on a talk page without any explanation but with good faith. Next time, please explain why you are reverting the person unless it's way obvious, though 100% of the time would be preferable. However, I noticed that you are giving IPs unwarranted warnings. Please know that one edit does give you the reason to send out a Only warning template. Those are only met for repeated offenders, not for someone who blanked once. Please follow the template process. General notice is for the first offence. Caution is for the second. Warning is for the third and Final warning is for the fourth edit. You can't jump to a Warning template when they've made only one edit, which you may believe the content removed/added should deserve a Warning template. Also, please allow for the templates to get to 4 before reporting the user for vandalism (please see WP:VANDALISM of what constitutes vandalism and what doesn't). Please read WP:WARN, WP:REVERT and WP:DE as well to get around reverting. Please learn what reverting means, if it's worth it and how to properly warn them before rushing to use the tool. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear constructive and has been undone. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Warning

Please stop experiementing Twinkle on my talk page. You have me a talkback for no reason and a barn star for no reason. If you continue, I will ask that you stop communicating on my talk page altogether. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 14:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to further warn you against reporting to WP:RFPP unnecessarily. I've declined three requests from you this morning that clearly go against the protection policy. You're wasting our time and keeping us from evaluating and acting on requests that need attention.

Be sure you have read and thoroughly understand it before you make another request for protection. Katie^talk 14:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

October 2016

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made to User talk:Luiz claudio mota junior has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. 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. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 20:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Alina Janowska

The Alina Janowska article clearly has content, and it also has enough context to understand what the article is about. I do not understand why you tagged this article for speedy deletion using the A1 and A3 criterion. -- GB fan 12:48, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I have to say I respectfully disagree it has almost no context and barley a sentence on it.Timothy Robinson12345 (talk) 12:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Then you do not understand the criterion and you should stop using it. There is clearly content in that article, there is clearly enough context to understand what the article is about, and there is a clear claim to significance and probably notability. -- GB fan 12:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Timothy Robinson12345 - you've only been here a few days and are already tagging things you have no clue about. I suspect you'll be blocked shortly for disruption. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:50, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Ditto. You've given me a talkback and barnstar for no reason. You've opened an SPI investigation against me even per WP:SOCK#LEGIT, I am allowed. And now you've warned for biting newcomers when I've given you nothing but chances. You're abusing Twinkle at this point. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 12:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: He opened an SPI against you?! For a "new" user, they sure do know a lot about how things work around here from day one... Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 12:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

@Lugnuts: Sadly, yes. They've been disruptive since they discovered Twinkle and the knowledge of policies is a little suspicious. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:02, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

Hi I would like to say I am sorry. I completely acted up and I was being kind of a jerk. I did not mean any harm to come to anyone just trying to help.--Timothy Robinson12345 (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC) @Callmemirela:

Your ping above did not work. You need to add the ping and a sign the post all in one edit. -- GB fan 13:13, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Reporting me of socking without verifying the facts is inexcusable and disruptive. I've assumed good faith in the beginning, I've helped you with warning and so on. You're abusing Twinkle by unnecessarily tagging articles for CSD and AfD, warned users unnecessarily, filed unwarranted requests, etc. Please do not post on any of my talk pages from now on. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:31, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigations

I've just come across a sockpuppet investigation you created under the name of an account that does not exist, requesting it be checked against an IP. First of all, CheckUsers will not check an IP address against a named account, because our policies forbid publicly connecting an IP acccount to a registered user. Second, the user you requested to be checked does not exist, thus there was nothing to check. I notice that you've created a number of other sockpuppet investigations cases, but I don't think you've taken the time to review our policy on the use of multiple accounts. Please do not make any more nominations until you have read and understand the policy. If you have questions, please ask at Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations. Thank you. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)