User talk:Avengah

Welcome!

Hello, Avengah, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Look, I'm sorry!

My disruptive activities stopped some time ago, and my most recent edits have been constructive. The only possible exception is when I repeatedly put "emphasised" back into the Okay article, because I misinterpreted the MoS. I thought it meant that the original form of the word should be there, and someone changed it to "emphasize" which not only changed the form, but also messed up the grammar of the sentence. When I reverted it, someone changed it back to "emphasized" so naturally, I reverted it again. This was not done out of malice, but I thought I was following the MoS. Anyway, I've stopped all that now, so I hope I can be unblocked.

Also, how can this account be a sock puppet of itself? This is my ONLY account, and I only registered it today. I haven't got any other accounts at all. Honest!

Please unblock me, and I'll make an effort to contribute - in fact, I was attempting to correct quotations' punctuation when I realised I was blocked. Thanks!

My other contributions are here:[[1]]

Avengah (talk) 02:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found an article that I want to clean up (apply the logical quotes rule), and I can't currently do that. Avengah (talk) 02:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your disruptive behavior continued until mere minutes before you were blocked, when you violated WP:3RR and attempted to distort the apparent center of opinion by the use of this account after previous anonymous edits from IP #90.205.80.22. Further, this abusive use of a sock-puppet itself followed just minutes after you previously claimed to have reformed. —SlamDiego_←T 03:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought I was in the right as regards the Okay article - as I say, I thought the MoS was on my side. It wasn't until it was explained properly to me that I realised. Anyway, that's all in the past now, and I would appreciate another chance. Please? I promise, my disruptive posts have stopped.

I also didn't realise that what I was doing counted as sock puppetry - I didn't know the rule. The reason why I put that message there was because I was trying to clarify that I was not actually changing the spelling of "emphasizes" - but reverting it to how it was before, and I thought, quite simply, that I was being ignored. Since I thought the MoS was on my side, it would have been nice to have been told WHY it might not have been, then I would have stopped reverting the article much sooner.

Also, I thought I was being accused of changing the word rather than reverting it, and the reasons why it should not have been left as it was were not made clear originally. The fact that I didn't know I was blocked until I tried to fix that quotation problem in a different article surely shows that I'd finished disrupting "Okay". I also didn't realise I'd reverted the article more than three times.

Anyway, enough of that. I'm sorry, please unblock me and I'll behave, I promise. I tell you what - please give me another chance, and if I blow it, you can ban me again instantly. Can't say fairer than that, surely? Avengah (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And should it be taken that it is also “all in the past” that in your plea above you deceptively referred to having ceased to be disruptive “some time ago”? (The fact that you now offer an excuse of ignorance — which simply won't cover the use of the puppet to shift the apparent center of opinion — for the disruption doesn't change the fact that you have nothing to show but disruption between your last claim of reform and the block, and that the disruption itself continued up until the block.) —SlamDiego_←T 03:39, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While you were typing that, I changed something above.

Actually, the disruption stopped when you explained that the article shouldn't be a mix of British and American English. As I said, if you'd explained it sooner, I'd have stopped sooner. I put "MoS" in all my edit summaries, so that should have told you that I thought the MoS was on my side - yet you didn't explain it to me at first, which is why I carried on reverting it! I hope that makes sense. Anyway, when you DID explain it to me, that's when I stopped reverting it, and I didn't find out I was blocked until I tried to fix the quotes in a completely unrelated article.

I'm sorry for the puppet thing, too, I didn't know the rule. I just wanted you to actually check to see that I was indeed simply reverting the article, not changing it - as you simply put "reverting vandalism" I thought you thought I was vandalising it when I was simply reverting it in good faith, as I said.

Anyway, I added to the above section this: I tell you what - please give me another chance, and if I blow it, you can ban me again instantly. Can't say fairer than that, surely? Avengah (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's more! Someone has explained the situation to me at Talk:Okay in great detail, and it is clear that I misunderstood the MoS. Having read this person's reply, it all makes perfect sense to me now. Avengah (talk) 03:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock me!

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

promise to behave, user requests to be banned if misbehaves

Request handled by: Toddst1 (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for unblocking me!

I appreciate it. No more disruptive posts, I promise! My first constructive post is to fix the quotations in Murder, Inc. Avengah (talk) 03:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I for one would be glad to see all the d_mn'd quotations in Wikipedia fixed. —SlamDiego_←T 04:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbo Token

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Mumbo Token, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.supercheats.com/nintendo64/walkthroughs/banjokazooie-walkthrough02.txt. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:33, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mumbo Token

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Mumbo Token, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — Insanity Incarnat e 20:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mumbo Token

I have nominated Mumbo Token, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumbo Token. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? — Insanity Incarnat e 21:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Mumbo Token

A tag has been placed on Mumbo Token requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later." You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

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), coupled with adding a note on the 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 would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 21:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbo Token

There was still no proof that you owned the copyright. I would suggest talking to User:Ohnoitsjamie, the admin who deleted the page. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 15:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Normal English

Hello Avengah, this is a message from an automated bot to inform you that the page you created, Normal English, has been marked for speedy deletion by User:GB fan. This has been done because the page is a recently created redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer (see CSD). If you think the tag was placed in error, please add "{{hangon}}" to the page text, and edit the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. If you have a question about this bot, please ask it at User talk:SDPatrolBot II. If you have a question for the user who tagged the article, see User talk:GB fan. Thanks, - SDPatrolBot II (talk) on behalf of GB fan (talk · contribs) 05:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Avengah. You have new messages at Davejohnsan's talk page.
Message added 00:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]