User talk:Tekwani
Welcome!
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia, Tekwani! Thank you for your contributions. I am VQuakr and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- Introduction
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- How to write a great article
Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian!
VQuakr (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
August 2011
[edit]Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Albatross Aircrash (2011) has been reverted.
Your edit here to Albatross Aircrash (2011) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.flickr.com/photos/8270787@N07/4591743788/) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (File:Marthinus_Versfeld00.jpg)
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Marthinus_Versfeld00.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 12:16, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
){kind=link}
You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Paul venter. Thank you. Rkitko (talk) 02:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Rkitko you most certainly will never be known for your razor-sharp intellect. The only things important to you are your edit count and making sure that nobody gets by YOUR interpretation of the MoS, and to this end you have become an obsessive stalker. How this benefits WP only you will know! I don't think that anyone in their right mind could possibly see my contributions as anything but positive, yet you persist in your amateurish sleuthing and give exclamations of undisguised delight when you unearth a clue. If you could divorce your mind for a while from your compulsive behaviour and - heaven forbid! - try to be objective, you would have to admit that I have done nothing to bring down the edifice of WP, but on the contrary, have made numerous, useful additions and edits. So do stop behaving like a spoilt child. Tekwani (talk) 14:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh incidentally, I note that at 02:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC) you invite me to 'respond to the evidence' and 81 minutes later I have been blocked. Does it ever occur to you and the editors responsible(!!) for this, that not everyone in this world lives in North America and that having a few days' leeway would enable one to say a few words in one's own defence...... Do see kangaroo court Tekwani (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I won't dignify any of your personal attacks with a response, but I will say the following. Evasion of a block is a violation of policy. I noticed your edits and reported the evidence in a sober manner at the appropriate venue. There was no glee or delight in my tone; I'm sorry you took it that way. As I have said on numerous occasions - and I'm sorry you forget this - your contributions are mostly positive and certainly in subject areas that are lacking (if I recall correctly, you once told me you'd rather I not compliment your edits since it seemed patronizing). And this is no longer just about the manual of style. I know you feel you've been wronged, but the appropriate response is not to be disruptive and attack others (as evidenced above), a pattern that got you indef blocked in the first place. If you want to return and continue contributing to Wikipedia, the way to do it is not through evading the block, but to own up to your mistakes that led to the block, drop the combativeness, and engage in consensus-building discussions to change the guidelines you don't like, e.g. MOS:IMAGES has changed since the last time I've looked at it, so change is possible with input. And to respond to your last point, I have no control over how quickly the admins and clerks at WP:SPI take on a new case. Frankly, I was surprised how fast they assessed the situation. And yes, I do realize the text of {{Uw-socksuspect}}, the template I was encouraged to use to notify you of the case, does suggest you respond. Perhaps that's another thing you could begin a discussion on (changing policy to wait 24 hr from notification to action on a sockpuppet investigation, though I note that notification is not mandatory for the process with some compelling reasons in more abusive cases) if you were to return through the proper procedure. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- As you have shown a number of times, anyone with a modicum of common sense would not find it difficult to link all my sockpuppet names and I have not gone to any great lengths to hide my identity. What is far more interesting is why I found it necessary to resort to sockpuppetry and the reason for that is quite simply your self-serving stalking, harassing and initiating blocks. The 'mistakes' you want me to confess to in the best Inquisition manner are, I presume, not the perceived (by you) transgressions of the MoS. My only 'combativeness' was toward you and your buddy Hesperian, particularly when I was labelled 'disruptive', for daring to hold opinions which differed from yours. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you (and Hesperian), if I am really disruptive and regarded as a threat to WP by the community, then you should recuse yourselves and leave it to some other editor to take punitive steps - this you have not done. My editing under the names Androstachys and Tekwani have been constructive and relatively free of incident, which makes it all the more exasperating that Hesperian should cite 'disruptiveness' as one of his reasons for blocking Androstachys. Tekwani (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- The bottom line, really, is, do you honestly feel that this resolution of the 'problem' is in the best interest of Wikipedia? Tekwani (talk) 09:15, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- As you have shown a number of times, anyone with a modicum of common sense would not find it difficult to link all my sockpuppet names and I have not gone to any great lengths to hide my identity. What is far more interesting is why I found it necessary to resort to sockpuppetry and the reason for that is quite simply your self-serving stalking, harassing and initiating blocks. The 'mistakes' you want me to confess to in the best Inquisition manner are, I presume, not the perceived (by you) transgressions of the MoS. My only 'combativeness' was toward you and your buddy Hesperian, particularly when I was labelled 'disruptive', for daring to hold opinions which differed from yours. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you (and Hesperian), if I am really disruptive and regarded as a threat to WP by the community, then you should recuse yourselves and leave it to some other editor to take punitive steps - this you have not done. My editing under the names Androstachys and Tekwani have been constructive and relatively free of incident, which makes it all the more exasperating that Hesperian should cite 'disruptiveness' as one of his reasons for blocking Androstachys. Tekwani (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I won't dignify any of your personal attacks with a response, but I will say the following. Evasion of a block is a violation of policy. I noticed your edits and reported the evidence in a sober manner at the appropriate venue. There was no glee or delight in my tone; I'm sorry you took it that way. As I have said on numerous occasions - and I'm sorry you forget this - your contributions are mostly positive and certainly in subject areas that are lacking (if I recall correctly, you once told me you'd rather I not compliment your edits since it seemed patronizing). And this is no longer just about the manual of style. I know you feel you've been wronged, but the appropriate response is not to be disruptive and attack others (as evidenced above), a pattern that got you indef blocked in the first place. If you want to return and continue contributing to Wikipedia, the way to do it is not through evading the block, but to own up to your mistakes that led to the block, drop the combativeness, and engage in consensus-building discussions to change the guidelines you don't like, e.g. MOS:IMAGES has changed since the last time I've looked at it, so change is possible with input. And to respond to your last point, I have no control over how quickly the admins and clerks at WP:SPI take on a new case. Frankly, I was surprised how fast they assessed the situation. And yes, I do realize the text of {{Uw-socksuspect}}, the template I was encouraged to use to notify you of the case, does suggest you respond. Perhaps that's another thing you could begin a discussion on (changing policy to wait 24 hr from notification to action on a sockpuppet investigation, though I note that notification is not mandatory for the process with some compelling reasons in more abusive cases) if you were to return through the proper procedure. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
- Oh incidentally, I note that at 02:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC) you invite me to 'respond to the evidence' and 81 minutes later I have been blocked. Does it ever occur to you and the editors responsible(!!) for this, that not everyone in this world lives in North America and that having a few days' leeway would enable one to say a few words in one's own defence...... Do see kangaroo court Tekwani (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
It seems obvious that Rkitko has washed his hands as far as this matter is concerned, and that he has achieved his long-standing goal of an indefinite block. The indecent haste (81 minutes) with which a decision was reached left me unaware that there was a problem and that my future editing was in the balance. Since 2006 I have made considerable contributions to WP and Commons and I feel that this has been ignored in railroading this blocking decision. Therefor I request that this matter be re-opened and that a wider circle of editors be involved in reaching a decision. Tekwani (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hi Tekwani. I have removed your {{helpme}} tag as there is no help available. This account has been blocked for its owner's abuse of multiple accounts (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppetry). As you are very much capable of producing good work, and seem to want to help, then it would probably be better to return to your original account, or any one of the subsequent ones you have previously used, and post an {{unblock}} request in which you pledge to only use the one account, and to work in a collegiate spirit with your fellow editors. This may be sufficient for the reviewing admin to feel you could be given a final chance. I would certainly support this. fish&karate 14:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
Lake Fundudzi
[edit]I'm posting this message on your talk page because I noticed that you've recently created the new article Lake Fundudzi-- The information is presented clearly and is easy to understand. Amy Z (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Table Mountain Challenge-logo.jpg
[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Table Mountain Challenge-logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
