User talk:Hildanknight/Archive 3

This is an archive. To post a new message to Hildanknight, please do so at Hildanknight's talk page, not this archive.

25 July 2006 is the day of my decision. My decision is stay on Wikipedia.

Thanks to everyone for your encouragement and advice. I've realized I've done some great work on Wikipedia, and I want to do much more great work.

My task over the next few days will be to establish myself as a Wikipedian, and to sow the seeds of my future as a contributor. I've joined WikiProject Computer and Video Games. I am currently pushing for WikiProject Singapore, for my contributions to articles on Singapore TV shows/movies. And it is likely that I will join WikiProject Chess. I will also be working on my userpage.

Some unsettled issues may cause me to change my decision, and leave, though this is unlikely. The unsettled issues are that the purported solution to collateral damage caused by IP blocks has some problems (and thus I am still occasionally blocked as collateral damage, though not as often as previously), and whether my attempt to push for the creation of WikiProject Singapore succeeds or fails. In addition, User:Tdxiang, one of the few Wikipedians I have befriended in my short span here, has decided to leave Wikipedia.

Nevertheless, I hope these issues can be resolved, and I look forward to making a significant contribution to this great project. Cheers!

Would a kind admin please help me archive my talk page, and restore all the comments prior to the time I wanted to leave?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Apparently, you thought some special powers were needed to archive your page and restore the old comments. That's not true. I'm not an admin and I was able to accomplish the task in a matter of minutes. Here's what I did.

1) I created User talk:Hildanknight/Archive 2 by typing it into the search box. Wikipedia said "No such page exists but you can create it." I created it by clicking on the redlink.

2) I used "cut and paste" to move the "discussion about leaving" to User talk:Hildanknight/Archive 2.

3) I copied the text from User talk:Hildanknight/Archive 1 into User talk:Hildanknight and added a link to User talk:Hildanknight/Archive 2.

Et voilà!, we are done.

Now that you know how to do this, you can archive your talk page in the future when the need arises.

Consider this a friendly service provided by a member of WP:ESPERANZA (which you should consider joining).

--Richard 15:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Richard. Thanks for helping me archive my talk page. I assumed admin intervention was required because I'm not good with wiki markup and I thought you needed to move pages and do other dirty work that required adminship. Thanks for showing me how to archive my talk page - that will save me lots of time. You've been a great help to me and I look forward to being Wikifriends with you - I'll give you a barnstar soon. I might consider joining Esperanza when I'm a more established contributor. The Good Article nomination for Google Groups failed, and I withdrew Homerun's nomination. I hope that their next nominations - in late August after I work on the articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}} Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Can't sleep, clown will eat me for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "ReaddingStrroot". The reason given for ReaddingStrroot's block is: "vandalism account".

Your IP address is 202.156.6.54.

Although the new changes to the blocking policy have resolved some of the problems, I think we need to make further changes to stop autoblocks. Perhaps to configure "no autoblocks" for shared IPs? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The autoblock has expired, but the root of the problem has not been solved.

Sometimes if you switch your computer off at the plug and on again, it can fix that, but not always, so if you need to know anything, contact me on my talk page, cheers —Minun ^Spiderman 19:16, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't work. The autoblock is because my IP is shared by almost all Singaporeans. Autoblocks should be disabled or optional --J.L.W.S. The Special One 15:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked by Firsfron for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Piugmene". The reason given for Piugmene's block is: "vandalism-only account; vandalism images; user warned x5".

Your IP address is 202.156.6.54.

Try again. --pgk^(talk) 12:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still blocked.

And again --pgk^(talk) 12:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally the autoblock's lifted. Cool.

Argh! The autoblock's back! {{unblock}} Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Theresa knott for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "1 Meat and 2 Veg". The reason given for 1 Meat and 2 Veg's block is: "trolling only account".

Your IP address is 202.156.6.54.

P.S. On 1 Meat and 2 Veg's user page, the template has a spelling error. It should be "inefinitely", not "indefinately". This is confirmed by WP:BLOCK --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}} Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Malo for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "I Hate the Hating People of Hateland that Hate". The reason given for I Hate the Hating People of Hateland that

Your IP address is 202.156.6.54.

Again. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block has been lifted. Thanks, Tdxiang! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock}} Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing. You were blocked by Freakofnurture for the following reason (see our blocking policy): Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "That any any Hat Gatesburg Effort Good Job Ok?". The reason given for That any any Hat Gatesburg Effort Good Job

Your IP address is 202.156.6.54.

Hi, thanks for your message. I've taken a look at the discussion on the village pump, and it's good to see RFF being considered for inclusion as a standard Wikipedia procedure. I'll add my comments when it's appropriate. As for archiving, that's okay - I just felt it should get regular pruning, because nobody seems to be doing it on a regular basis. You can set the "7" in the bot tag to "30" to make it archive once per month. Cheers, Tangotango 09:21, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tangotango. I've changed the bot parameters as instructed - could you check if I did it correctly? I hope to make RFF an integral Wikipedia process, and I hope to see your comments on how I can achieve this goal. P.S. Keep this discussion to my talk page; I don't like going back and forth. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:41, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		This is for Hildanknight for creating a very useful place in Request For Feedback and for your comments to make our (including me!) articles better and for your nice wishes!! -- Imoeng 07:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar, Imoeng! It's my first; I'll treasure it. When I first discovered barnstars I thought if I ever got one it'd be due to my writing contributions - I never expected a Random Acts of Kindness barnstar. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited the barnstar slightly, so people know who you are! :) Imoeng 11:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've been thinking about this all day.. I just want to ask what is your interests, as probably working together with you will be one great fun thing to do! Okay, looking forward to your reply. Imoeng 11:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Imoeng. I'd like to be Wikifriends with you - what's your ASL? My interests include the Internet (I wrote the Google Groups article), chess and Singaporean TV shows/movies. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I'm just a 16 years old Indonesian boy and right now I'm studying in RMIT Melbourne. Internet is good, its one of my interest as well. Hey its 11pm here, I need to go to bed, (school tomorro! arrh!!!), yeaah, so, talk to you in 8 hours from now.. Cheers :) Imoeng 12:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. I've been thinking about a collaboration, but, I cannot think a good subject to start with! hahaha. So probably you could give a suggestion. Cheers. Imoeng 09:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Imoeng. (Oops - I thought you were a girl as your username's very similar to Imogen!) We share a common interest in the Internet. Please look through the to-do list I have recently added to my userpage. Hopefully you'll be interested in collaborating with me on one of the articles I listed there. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, neopets. I played that about fours years ago, remembering the old times. Then I realised, all the internet related articles have developed and probably get through Good Article easily. So, maybe I'll work with you on Friendster, how about that? Are you interested in music or something related to that? Cheers, Imoeng 10:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although most of the Internet-related articles are well-developed, there are some issues that need to be addressed before they are nominated for Good Article. For example, Neopets has some problems with POV and weasel-wording. RuneScape also has a problem with vandalism and fancruft. I'd be happy to collaborate with you on the Friendster article. How long have you been using Friendster, and how much do you know about it? I'll do a major expansion of the article and upload a few screenshots. Then you, I and anyone else willing to collaborate will discuss on the talk page and keep working on the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:11, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hildanknight, sorry I've been busy about the new proposed project. Yeah, I've been using it for, umm, 4 years now. You know, its like a trend in Indonesia, although now I'm in Melbourne. However, this week probably I'll focus on the new project, but I'll look at the friendster article from time to time. Oh yeah, I've created my new userpage, although its a rip-off from 10+ other users, ahahah, please take a look at it and give me feedback.. Cheers. Imoeng 15:14, 4 August 2006 (UTC) and a new signature![reply]

That's OK. Real life can be stressful - my common tests just ended. You've been using Friendster for 4 years? That must date back to 2002 - in Friendster's really early days. Perhaps you could help with the History section.

I checked your userpage. It does seem pretty cliched. Perhaps you could think of something more original.

I think it would be best for us to collaborate on RFF. You are one of 4 Wikipedians - Hildanknight, Tangotango, Saxifrage and Imoeng -who regularly respond to requests for feedback posted on RFF. Thanks for your contributions to RFF. (P.S. How familiar are you with policy? Knowing policy will help you give quality feedback.)

I hope to make RFF an established Wikipedia process, and perhaps you could help me with that goal. We need more experienced Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers, to respond to requests for feedback posted on RFF. If you have any ideas for attracting such Wikipedians, please let me know. You may also be interested in a discussion about RFF at the village pump. We should also discuss about RFF on RFF's talk page - I posted some ideas there.

All the best for your project! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 16:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hildanknight, please add your name to my brand new wikifriend list, hehehe, I've just created it. Its on "People around me" page. Cheers, take care! -- Imoeng 14:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added my name to your Wikifriend list as per your request. When I release my new userpage in the third week of August, you will be on my list of Wikifriends too. Now let's work to make RFF an established Wikipedia process! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I spotted two errors with two seperate templates. I don't know enough wiki markup to fix the templates, so I'm pointing out the errors.

On 1 Meat and 2 Veg's user page, the template has a spelling error. "indefinately" should be spelled as "indefinitely".

In addition, in the "Major computing companies" template at the bottom of the Yahoo! article, Google, Yahoo! and eBay are listed as software companies. This is factually incorrect, as these companies are dot-com corporations, not software companies. Their realm is the Internet.

Once you have fixed the errors, if you wish to offer me advice on how to fix such errors in templates should I spot more errors in future, I'd appreciate it. Thanks.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its easy to edit templates to an extent. You can edit in the same way as normal pages and change the plain text - although watch out for anything in side combinations of { because these are part of special syntax. See here for more info on templates. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 13:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a "template sandbox"? If so, I may try some experiments. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As to the second 'error' they are all companies that deal with software - just internet software so I think the distinction is ok. All I will say is that Google deal in hardware as well so I am moving that to the joint category --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 13:17, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does Google deal in hardware? Perhaps we could find a better page to discuss whether eBay, Yahoo! and Google should be listed under "software companies", or whether a "dot-coms" section should be created for them. Most people think of them as dot-coms, not software companies. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google sell servers to corporate clients too, there is no real template sandbox but just using a sub pae to your userpage works fine. All templates are stored in the Template: namespace and probably the best place to express your concerns are on the talk page of that template. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 08:25, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I didn't know that Google sells servers! What kind of servers do they sell? Regarding a template sandbox - if I create any templates in the Template: namespace for testing, they'll probably be deleted. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I'm moving this from the village pmp if thats ok - otherwise I'll lose track of it :D. First off the servers, after you pointed out that template I changed google to the dual category - and it got disputed, rightly so this is wikipedia after all. User:Samsara reverted my edit and asked for evidence - which I gave here, the links are on that page. Google sells 2 servers to corporate clients which are preinstalled with software to index companies intranet or internet sites. As to the templates etc. you can discuss the google, yahoo, ebay etc. issue on the templte talk page - Template_talk:IT_giants so feel free to post your ideas there.

As to testing, yeah randomly adding templates will probably end in deletion however if the template is useful it could well stay :D. Other wise the best place to test is on a sub page to your userpage eg: User:Hildanknight/test_template. You are fine to create as many of these pages as you like - they don't get deleted.

Hope thisd answers all your questions - if not feel free to ask away on my talk page :D --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Google make the servers, or are the computers manufactured by another corporation while Google just provides the indexing software? Do the servers have a special brand name? I've started a discussion on Template talk:IT giants and am awaiting a response. Perhaps I should think up a useful template. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:22, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to jump into this discussion but I think User:tmorton's advice is incorrect.

Based on some experimentation that I have just conducted, I do not think you can test a template in User space. The problem is that the wikiprocessor sees {{foo}} as a request to find the "foo" template in Template space. That is, it will look for a document called [[Template:foo]] and then process it as a template with parameterization, etc. I'm not quite sure what precisely the wikiprocessor thinks when it sees {{User:Hildanknight/Test template]] but I can tell you what the net result is. It seems to ignore the curly brackets {{ }} and treat them as square brackets. See User:richardshusr/Test for an example of this not working the way User:tmorton suggested it might.

My recommendation is to test templates on a subpage in Template space e.g. Template:Hildanknight/Test template to do something wonderful and then put a comment at the top indicating that this is a test and perhaps what you are trying to test so as to deflect the reflex that some people might have to put the template up for deletion.

Good luck.

Sorry... User:tmorton166 was right and I was wrong... see below.

--Richard 21:45, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, tahts wrong I'm afraid. If you use a simple statement such as {{a template}} the script automatically searches for a page of that name in the template namespace. If you want to display another page then you have to specify the namespace eg: {{User:Hildanknight/Test template to do something wonderful}} (note the User: namespace bit before the page name. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: User:richardshusr's comments about templates on Hildenknight's talk page. You are right that {{a template}} syntax does only display pages in the template: namespace. However other pages can be included in the same way too. You use the same syntax just add the relevant namespace to the front. Taking your example {{User:Hildanknight/Test template to do something wonderful}}. Note ther User: namespace tag tacked on to the start. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 20:05, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there was something wrong with my test yesterday. My retest today worked.

This is a test - User:Richardshusr/Test template to do something wonderful

--Richard 21:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe no problems glad to have helped ;) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk)(Review me) 21:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think my article basketball (ball) is Good Article Standards now, and if not please tell me the things I can improve on.

Hello, Supershow. I notice you have fixed the problem with the footnotes. However, I'm not sure if you've addressed the other issues I pointed out in my response to your request for feedback.

I suggest you read the Good Article Criteria and check whether Basketball (ball) meets all the criteria.

Is it well-written, broad in its coverage and comprehensible to non-specialist readers? No. I spotted several grammar mistakes. In addition, some sentences don't have the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia. I'm not sure if the "Basketball sellers" section belongs - but other than "History" and "Uses", what else can you write about the basketball to make the article "broad in its coverage"?

Does it adhere to the NPOV policy? Mostly. I do not spot any problems, except in the "Basketball sellers" section, which some may consider advertising - the "Nike balls" section contains some POV and weasel-wording.

Does it have good structure, organization and formatting? Yes. The article uses headings to offer coverage on each aspect of the article topic. There is a template at the bottom for navigation.

Does the article make good use of internal links, external links and references? Mostly. It has references and footnotes, as well as some external links. However, there are slight issues with internal links, as I pointed out.

Is the article stable? No. Too many edits daily. The article still seems very much "under-construction".

Does it make good use of images? Yes. There are two useful images in the article.

Please use my feedback to improve the article, then send it for another Peer Review. Once that Peer Review is complete, you may ask the Good Article reviewers to look through your article to see if it meets the criteria - if so, nominate it. I hope to see Basketball (ball) become a good article! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hildanknight, I plan on helping you make the Google Groups article better. First of all, I've done link checking, and some of the links are dead. Also, the page is out-of-date.

If you use GGroups, can you advertise the article in a group you own, so, hopefully, someone will check it and give revisions that need to be made?

Troy Plummer 18:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I added a section called 'Official Google Groups' in the Google Groups article. It needs more information.

Hello, Troy Plummer. Thanks for your improvements to the Google Groups article. Would you like to collaborate with me to make Google Groups a good article?

Are you a member of Google Groups? How long have you been using it? What's your Google Groups account e-mail? If you're a member of Google Groups and we collaborate on the article, we could become Wikifriends.

I was planning to add the "Official Google groups" section myself, but thanks for adding it first. I think it should not be a subsection of the "Interface features" section, but should be in its own section. I will work on the section you wrote, adding more details.

What expansions should we make to ensure the article has the "broad coverage" required of a good article? I think we need to expand the History section. In addition, the screenshots are outdated and I have changed my browser to Opera, so should I take the screenshots using Opera instead?

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, J. Of course, as stated on the Google Groups talk page. I've been a member of Google Groups for a while. You know me as Luke. I know you were planning to add the article, but you were taking too long. :) I added it to the "Interface features" section, because it was a feature in the official GGroups, especially in the interface. The article only features an overview of the features. It needs more detail. Sometime this week, if you haven't added more detail, I will. I'll probably do it on the weekend. The screenshots using Opera are fine. Do you think there should be something like a step-by-step guide in the sub-sections on how to use the 'skill'? Troy Plummer 22:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So it's you, Luke! I was hoping to make a new Wikifriend. I'm holding my horses until Minors Major becomes more successful, because Minors Major will be featured in the screenshots, and we want to make a good impression. I'll upload the screenshots next week. Anyway, it takes time to improve an article. In addition, Wikipedia does not like fancruft, or excessive, unneccesary detail, so we should offer thorough, yet concise, coverage on the features of Google Groups. In addition, please remember that constantly changing username or using many accounts is highly discouraged on Wikipedia. It's considered sockpuppetry and may get you indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But sockpuppets are only a problem when they are used to disrupt Wikipedia, according to the 'Wikipedian Sockpuppets article. Do you think I'd disrupt Wikipedia? --Troy Plummer 20:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sockpuppets are only a problem when used to disrupt Wikipedia. However, the definition of "disruptive" is sometimes subjective. Constantly changing accounts may be seen by some as a bad-faith attempt to hide other sneaky behaviour. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No autoblock outstanding for that user, can you add new unblock requests at the end of the page, putting them in the middle makes them difficult to find. --pgk^(talk) 18:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. An admin lifted the autoblock and I forgot to remove the template from my talk page. Do you think it would be faster to request autoblocks on IRC next time? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 01:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you mentioned on the CVG talkpage that you wanted to work on Neopets and was asking if anyone could help out. Now, I'm not really interested or knowledgeable about the Neopets game, but there's a pretty extensive article in the Telegraph Magazine (magazine of The Daily Telegraph) about the Neopets phenomenon and the company behind it. I'm sure it would provide some good information for the Wikipedia article, and any article could do with references to good long established sources such as the magazine of a leading broadsheet paper.

I am not interested in personally improving the Neopets article, but I could provide you with magazine scans if you'd like for you to read and maybe use as a source. I cannot however, upload these to Wikipedia due to copyright laws, but if you have webspace, or provide an email address, I can get them through to you. - Hahnchen 02:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I agree that the article does need more references. Please e-mail me the magazine scans. My e-mail address can be found in two screenshots in the Google Groups article. How do you suggest I find Wikipedians willing to collaborate with me on the article? I am currently trying to improve RuneScape to Good Article status - shall we collaborate on that? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent you the scans. With an article like RuneScape, I don't think it'll be hard to find other editors, as there already seems to be a lot of content on the game at Wikipedia (even too much in some respects). What's hard for RuneScape, is that unlike other MMOs which have retail releases such as Everquest and Warcraft, is that it's going to be hard to find reviews for it, as most CVG magazines ignore free games, and generally don't review them. It's something I commented on during the failed WP:FAC process it went through. But looking at the talkpage of the Runescape article, it already seems as there are enough willing collaborators on that one. Good luck. I'm just back at Wikipedia after taking a holiday, so won't we editing that much on anything, am just easing back in for the time being. - Hahnchen 23:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I received your e-mail. Thanks. I currently have a few Wikipedians collaborating with me on the RuneScape article. I am also planning to clean up the AdventureQuest article - perhaps you'd like to collaborate on that? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 03:08, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the next articles I'm planning to work on are my aborted article at User:Hahnchen/KISS and In game advertising which is still currently a redirect to an almost entirely different concept. I'm not really into browser based games, and the magazines I read from time to time like Edge magazine don't really cover them. - Hahnchen 14:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK. Thanks. Neopets and RuneScape have in-game advertising and I could contribute a case study to your article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw you added a reference to the Homerun page and didn't know how to format it. I've formatted that one for you, but you might find this handy in the future if you want to use the {{cite}} templates:

Wikipedia:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Citation_quick_reference

They aren't mandatory (all you really need to do is enclose the reference in <ref>...</ref>), but they allow the references to be read by machines and provide a standard look to all the references. Cheers, Yomangani^talk 19:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Status: Bitten", eh? I know all too well what that's like :| — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 03:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Thanks for dropping a comforting note. I'm trying to get help regarding a dispute over an action that harms readership of an article I wrote that I'm trying to improve to Good Article status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. I hope some of that mess dies down soon for you. — Nathan ^(talk) _{/ 08:34, 13 August 2006 (UTC)}[reply]

Howdy. Sorry you're having a rough time. Maurreen 05:54, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the "Status: Bitten" earlier but I didn't understand what it was referring to so I ignored it. Apparently, you were referring to the troubles you are having with an anon IP which I have spent a little bit of time reading so now I have a better idea of what you were talking about.

I'm sorry to hear that this has been a problem for you. On the other hand, it is a feature of the Wikipedia landscape. In a nutshell, it is a key principle of Wikipedia that the positive contributions of anonymous editors far outweigh the damage caused by anonymous editors.

The key thing to remember during these kinds of incidents is "Don't feed the trolls". You are often far better off to ignore people who attack you than to attack back or even respond defensively. Thus, if someone vandalizes your User Page, just revert the change with the least attention-getting edit summary possible. A simple "RVV" is enough. In fact, if it's your user page, no edit summary is really necessary. Asking a vandal to stop can just encourage him/her to continue their inappropriate behavior. Don't say nuthin'. Just revert, ignore and go about your business. It sounds unfair and it is unfair but it is probably the best response to a bad situation.

I know this because I've had my Talk Page vandalized with an uncivil comment.

--Richard 06:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your encouraging message, Richard.

If you check the history on my user page, you'll see that I added "Status: Bitten" just after I went to mediation over the dispute at Talk:Homerun (film) which you were involved in. I took it to mediation because I was willing to offer a compromise.

I only added the "Personal Message" after the anon started trolling on my talk page. I'm grateful to Cowman109 for blocking the anonymous troll and semi-protecting my talk page.

Anonymous vandals were one reason why I was considering leaving Wikipedia around a month ago. When anonymous vandals sharing my IP vandalized, I was constantly blocked as collateral damage and unable to edit a quarter of the time. Pages like RuneScape are constantly degraded and ruined by anonymous vandals and admins are afraid to keep it semi-protected precisely because they want anonymous vandals to destroy the article. Thanks for convincing me to stay.

Fortunately, I have finally convinced the admins to keep RuneScape semi-protected and in another couple of weeks it should be ready for Good Article. The semi-protection of my talk page means another issue has been settled. A huge load has been lifted off my shoulders, and now I can focus on the mediation case. I look forward to better times on Wikipedia.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP address harassing you. Should he continue from other IP addresses, I will gladly semi-protect your talk page temporarily if you request it. Happy editing! :D Cowman109^Talk 06:00, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cowman109! You deserve a barnstar! The anon who insulted me has stated he usually edits from 69.145.123.171 [1], and is apparently very smug that that IP has not been blocked, so I suggest you block that IP as well. He says he's editing from 172.193.206.104 because of problems with his Internet connection. It appears that he's currently editing from AOL - if so, blocking would not be effective. Please semi-protect my talk page if possible. Thanks again. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:23, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can request semi-protection of pages at WP:RFP for future reference, but I don't believe your user page should be semi-protected just yet as it appears the user has only used a single IP address. There may always be the possibility of an IP address wanting to contact you, for some valid reason, so it would be best to not have such a protect be permanent, either. :) If the user continues from another IP, though, feel free to contact me (though I'm going to bed now, so WP:RFP may be best for that) and I will semi-protect your page for a while. Cowman109^Talk 06:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And he's continued, so I semi-protected your talk page. Happy editing. Cowman109^Talk 06:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for semi-protecting my userpage. Have you blocked the IPs yet? Perhaps you could semi-protect my user page as well. Now I just have to keep User talk:Hildanknight and RuneScape semi-protected for as long as possible. (I don't see any legimate reason for an anon to contact me.) --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have spoken with the user, and it does appear to be that he felt threatened by your recent edits to his talk page. I don't think blocking his other IPs would be productive as he is now communicating civilly with me, and his main IP address has plenty of good contributions. And protection and semi-protection (see WP:PPOL) is generally not used permanently, as well except for extreme cases of vandalism such as George W. Bush. I have asked him to leave you alone, and I ask that you simply leave him alone as well as these confrontations clearly aren't getting anywhere. It would be best to simply getting back to building an encyclopedia :). Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 06:50, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to oppose you on this issue and sorry that you feel "bitten" by the dispute. I don't feel that strongly about this but since you requested opinions, I gave mine as did others. I am willing to submit to whatever consensus decision is reached provided that the consensus is not formed by polling primarily Singaporeans. I did feel that it was inappropriate for you to implement the REDIRECT in the absence of a clear consensus to do so which is why I reverted your change.

As for your proposed compromise, I would urge you to present the compromise on the Talk Page of Homerun (film) prior to beginning mediation. If it's a viable compromise, then you might be able to save everybody the trouble of the mediation process. If it's not, then at least you've tried.

I do not have the impression that anybody who voted is being unreasonable. They just don't agree with you. The problem seems to be that you're not willing to accept that (1) not that many people care about this issue and (2) those that do care don't agree with you.

You might be able to address (1) via a Request for Comment or via a posting to Talk:Home run. I think you'll just get more editors who disagree with you but, who knows?, maybe I'm wrong. Give it a try.

--Richard 08:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Richard. I posted my statement, arguments and compromise offers on the mediation case page. Please take a look there. I hope you'll be surprised. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been having a dialogue on my Talk Page with User:172.191.63.212 regarding comments that I made on this page about not feeding the trolls. I think it might be useful for you to read this dialogue. I hope you will realize that any dispute or edit-warring reflects badly on all involved.

If you are ever a candidate for adminship (and I hope you will be someday), it is very possible that this incident may be raised and that you will be asked to account for your behavior. If I am ever reviewing your candidacy for adminship, I certainly would raise it. I would do this not with the intent of disqualifying you for your combative actions but with the intent of understanding how you would avoid getting into this kind of dispute in the future. (Admins need to stay out of disputes in order to avoid wheel-warring.)

It would be good at that time if you can provide a good explanation for the incident and for your bheavior. So far, I don't think that is the case. Think long and hard about this and try to consider what you would like to be able to say about this incident at the point in the future where you are a candidate for adminship.

Perhaps the best "story" that you can put together is "I was a jerk and he was a jerk. We both figured out that being jerks was not productive so we apologized to each other and got on with the job of building an encyclopedia." If I thought such a reply was sincere, it would be acceptable to me and, I think, to many others who review candidates for adminship.

The response "He was a jerk and I was totally justified in my response." is not likely to be accepted as a reasonable explanation of the incident. (I have no proof of this other than my understanding of the RFA process based on having read the logs of several RFA candidacies.)

--Richard 09:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt I'll ever be a candidate for adminship (I certainly will never nominate myself). I have made far worse howlers. I posted my side of the story at User talk:Cowman109. If that ever happens, I'd say that my post on his talk page was done in good faith (on AOL, he'd keep getting blocked) and it turned into a storm in a tea-cup. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:08, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I realise just how much stress anonymous editors have caused you in block time. I know that I get annoyed when my university IP gets blocked for a few days. However, going on a crusade to get anonymous editing banned because the software is deficient is not helping anyone. Allowing anonymous editing is not the problem. The lack of implementation of the blocking policy proposal is the reason that there is no way currently to differentiate between IP's and users of the IP's in relation to blocking. Taking your frustrations out on a user who prefers to edit when not logged in is harmful and not in the Wiki way.

I agree that you may not have been treated fairly by all involved but the issue is not worth leaving the wiki over.

Also, I disagree that your page should be semi-protected as it does not actually receive a high level of actual vandalism. You do not actually own the page, and as such it is not up to you whether protection is applied to the page or not.

I hope you do not leave the wiki. You seem like a great editor in your areas. Becoming cynical as a result of a few people will not help the wiki as much as your contributions could.

Cheers, Ansell 12:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not really understand why the feud actually occured now, because it has already known that sysops technically now have the option to selectively block anonymous IP users and prevent collatertal damage on established users. - Mailer Diablo 13:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left the message on his user page in good faith. He refused to register, and when editing from AOL, he would probably be blocked constantly as collateral damage. The "block anonymous users only" option apparently doesn't seem to work as I am occasionally autoblocked, although the problem is not as severe as it previously was. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That really depends on the technique of blocking sysops...How often do you get autoblocks right now? In that case I'll monitor the IP status whenever I can. - Mailer Diablo 14:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, it depends on whether the blocking sysop specifies to block only anonymous editors or not (usually they probably just forget to check it, but I will see if I can propose that that option is checked by default). Also, there are reasons sometimes for not registering, as the IP has stated. Perhaps it involves legal matters somehow, but clearly he does not with to disclose is and that's alright. Cowman109^Talk 16:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unprotected your page as we have spoken with the IP user and he seems to be leaving Wikipedia as well. See the semi-protection policy, as well. Thanks. Cowman109^Talk 16:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We will not be able to protect your page as semi-protection is only used to stop vandalism in progress. WP:SEMI specifically states "Semi-protection should be considered if it is the only option left available to solve the problem of vandalism of the page, if the amount of vandalism is difficult for editors to keep up with. Like full protection, it is usually a last resort, not a pre-emptive measure." It also states that semi-protection may not be used "as a pre-emptive measure against the threat or probability of vandalism before any such vandalism has occurred or to "to prohibit anonymous editing in general." The user who was apparently trolling you has since apologised and has clearly stopped, so there is no further need to protect your talk page from my understanding. Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 02:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't think we'll ever fit the description of 'friends', I'll compromise if you will. Truce? --172.190.70.90 06:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relax, Hildanknight. It's not as bad as you think. Remember, we are here...but for what purpose? What exactly is our aim? We know that we are here to help build a free encyclopedia, to educate people. Focus. Just remember what we are here for and you will be okay. Don't feel sad, okay? I'll be here, always, to guide you. Just remeber this little flag and remember what we are here for.Singapore!

Always here to guide you, Hildanknight...--Tdxiang Jimbo's 40th Birthday! 12:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Tdxiang, and thanks for your note. I know we're here to build an encyclopedia, and that's why the points under "My failure as a Wikipedian" (difficulty finding Wikipedians to collaborate with) are causing me considerable. Could you please help me by commenting on the mediation case? I hope we could collaborate on some articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should expect lots of support! No one would hate you for getting stressed out about Wikipedia, especially because it tends to do that pretty easily.

Let me say this first: You are far, far from a failure as a Wikipedian. Don't be so hard on yourself! Your contributions are appreciated and welcomed, and it's silly to say anything else. You really should give yourself credit for the articles you've written, even if they do have their ups and downs. What articles don't? And even though it can be tough to get people to participat in Requests for Feedback, think of all the people whose articles have been helped because of the process.

Maybe I just have a different perspective, but I think most of your problems are not actually problems.

• Collateral damage from blocks: now rare, with the new blocking policy, and the large warning at the top of 202.156.6.54's talk page to check the box will help a lot. And if it does happen, that IP shouldn't be blocked for more than 15 minutes, so if you're editing at the time, you can quickly as for a fix on the autoblock. If you're not editing at the time, then you probably won't even notice.
• Anonymous vandals: I know you're not a fan, and without a massive change in Wikipedia policy, there's not much that I, or anyone, can really do about it. Anonymous vandals are just a part of Wikipedia. True, they really are a pain, but at least we can sometimes laugh at them with WP:BJAODN. And there are plenty of registered vandals too. Wikipedia invites vandalism, but we just have to work hard to combat it and be smarter than the vandals.
• Your percieved failure as a Wikipedian: Shall I say it again? You're nothing like a failure on Wikipedia! Failures don't create articles, they don't create great Wikipedia projects. They loaf around and vandalize things, and don't add to the encyclopedia. You do.
• Verafiability: Red tape can be really annoying, but like polls, it can also be a necessary evil. If you think the policy is so flawed, the talk page is inviting you to bring up re-writing it (I know you've discussed it briefly on there, but you should bring up the specific issues you have with it. Small changes can make big change)
• Redirect dispute: I recommend you solicit outside opinions from users familiar with disambiguation at Wikipedia:Disambiguation and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Having worked often with disambiguation pages, looking over the dispute, it seems less like an issue of what people feel is right and more of what disambiguation policy suggests.

There. All of your problems have been addressed. You may not like the answers, but sometimes an outside opinion can (hopefully) put things in a bit of perspective. -- Natalya 14:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Natalya. Thanks for your response.

I'm expecting copious hate mail, not because I'm stressed, but because of a conflict on 13 August 2006 (which did cause me stress) between me and 69.145.123.171, who is a huge advocate of anon rights. To find out what happened, read both our statements on an admin's talk page.

Regarding my other problems:

Collateral damage from blocks: I agree that the situation has improved considerably. Unfortunately, autoblocks tend to take several hours to resolve. This issue does not cause me as much stress as it used to.

Anonymous vandals: Not much we can do here. I personally don't care much about anonymous vandalism. However, reverting it does drain the energy needed to write well. However, subtle vandalism which goes unnoticed can, over time, degrade the quality of an article. RuneScape is a prime example of this. Fortunately, it is now semi-protected, and hopefully it will stay so to keep out the anonymous vandals, so I can work on improving the article to Good Article status.

My perceived failure as a Wikipedian: I don't exactly consider myself a failure. I know I've done some great work, whether it has gone appreciated or not. And I hope to do more great work. And I need to find other Wikipedians to collaborate with, to do more great work. That's where my "failure" lies. I'm having difficulty finding Wikipedians to collaborate with. And that's what I need help with. For starters, perhaps you could offer me tips for soliciting Wikipedians to collaborate with me, and also look at the to-do list on my userpage in case you are interested with collaborating with me on any of the articles I listed there.

Verifiability: I once brought this issue on the policy's talk page. I got shot down. Still, there's no harm in trying again. Now that I have a more detailed writeup about specific issues, I'll raise them on the talk page again. I'm going to do that now, and hopefully the policy will be slightly amended to make things easier for me.

Redirect dispute: As mentioned, I have taken this to mediation. You could help me by asking others to comment on the mediation case. I will post at the two pages you linked to, asking Wikipedians to participate in the mediation.

It seems like issues 1 and 2 don't cause as much stress as they used to. For issue 4, a post on the talk page, followed by a discussion, is the way to go. Issue 3 is the main issue - it affects my future as a Wikipedian, while issue 5 is also important.

I mentioned that encouraging words are not enough, and we must actually deal with the problems. Nevertheless, thanks for the encouraging words, and I hope you could help me deal with some of the issues. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to think of the ways I've found to collaborate with people on Wikipedia. Sometimes, you may start working out by yourself, but you'll find that as you work more and more on a subject, you'll find other editors with the same interests - I know you've been looking for them, but I think if you just concentrate on editing, you'll find plenty of people inadvertantly. Also, I know Richard has suggested this before, but you should consider joining Esperanza. Esperanza works to create a community within Wikipedia, and to help support editors, it sounds like just something you could use. -- Natalya 21:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know about Esperanza. in fact, I have to thank one particular Esperanza member, Richardshusr, for all the support he gave me when I was considering leaving in July. I was considering joining Esperanza at a later date, when I've become a more established editor, but I wouldn't wait if it will help me find Wikipedians to collaborate with. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am hopeful that we will be able to reach a consensus on the compromise that you offered on the REDIRECT of Homerun.

I did want to point out that you are not the only one who gets stressed by other Wikipedia editors.

Consider the edit history of Expulsion of Germans after World War II and look at the entries on Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II especially the discussion about reverting User:Daborhe's contributions.

Then look at the edit history of Erika Steinbach and look at the entry on Talk:Erika Steinbach titled "View of Erika as representative of Expelees".

Those are more stressful situations than the REDIRECT of Homerun. I hit WP:3RR on both of those.

The advice that I got from Esperanza? Chill out and take a breather. http://wikinfo.org/wiki.php? Good advice.

--Richard 18:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to see you're feeling stressed. Sometimes a break, for whatever length, helps.

Sometimes I go away from WP to other wikis. Besides those by the Wikimedia foundation, others include Wikinfo and a Runescape wiki. Good luck. Maurreen 06:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The press reviews, although deleted, can be found on the discussion page. Happy editing, and sorry about your crisis. I'm kinda stressed out too, since I'm going to go the high school in 2 days. (runs away to finally finish his summer reading)-- Ed^{talk c E} 18:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey dude, are you still here?--Ed^{talk c E} 20:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't left Wikipedia yet. I'm still lurking and checking my watchlist, though not making edits. I'm reading the messages everyone drops here, thinking how I should reply. I'm also thinking how I and others can deal with the problems I am facing. Real life is also keeping me busy. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear that you're at least still vaguely around. -- Natalya 15:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I was worried about you, take a look at Natalya's talk page. =)--Ed^{talk c E} 23:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. I'm currently returning from my break. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mediation case has been closed by the mediator although I disagree with the mediator's comment that the "situation is well in hand" and with the mediator's characterization of me as a "neutral third party". I'd like to consider myself as being "reasonable" but I can't say that I'm a "neutral third party" since I do have an opinion and have expressed it in the vote.

It appears that you are on extended WikiBreak and therefore have not pursued the mediation. I think we are close to a compromise pending your return to active editing. Enjoy your WikiBreak. I hope you are finding that there is a life outside Wikipedia.

--Richard 18:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for informing me. I'm not happy with the fact that the mediation case was closed without anyone trying to help. If we immediately implement the suggested compromise, we won't need mediation, but I'm sure consensus is needed. Otherwise, I will take it to the Coordination Desl/ --J.L.W.S. The Special One 12:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closing of the case is just a misunderstanding. The mediator thought that I was mediating when I was just trying to work towards a compromise. I have noted that I should not be considered as "working on the case" since, to some extent, I am one of the disputants. In closing the case, the mediator indicated that he is willing to re-open the case if necessary. I didn't want to ask him to do that because it appeared you were on WikiBreak and it wasn't clear how active you were. All you need to do is leave a note asking him to re-open the case. --Richard 16:28, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Please explain to him and ask him to re-open the case. I'm not exactly on Wikibreak - I'm just lurking. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hildanknight, how are you going? Hope you are okay, since I haven't heard from you for awhile. I've read all your thoughts about your crisis and its pretty depressing, I reckon. And guess what, currently I have the same situation, ahahaha, but yeah, that is life, there is always that kind of dudes. Okay, hope to see your reply, cheers -- Imoeng 10:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing fine. I'm currently lurking on Wikipedia, but hardly editing. I'm trying to deal with the problems, and I'll be back in full force one they've been resolved. Since you've encountered similar problems, perhaps we could put our heads together and find a solution? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I think the solution is in our own mind, cause there will always be an annoying person. So the best thing is just "leave" the problem and do your daily business, :P. Hey, check out the Indonesian portal I've created and maintained by the Indonesian Wikiproject, it has gained a featured status last night! WooHoo!! So hows your Google Group and Homerun? Cheers -- Imoeng 21:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem we could work on dealing with would be finding Wikipedians to collaborate on articles. Congratulations on your portal getting featured! With all the problems, I'm hardly editing, and have hardly worked on the two articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I remember you said you are participating in WP:GAC. Why don't you take a look at our past collaboration of the week? Because I have nominated that for a good article status. Its Tourism in Indonesia. Cheers -- Imoeng 00:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pleaseeeeee....Imoeng 10:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imoeng - yes, I'm a member of the Good Article WikiProject, but I don't review articles. I nominate good articles and help improve articles to Good Article status. One of my fellow WikiProject members will eventually review the article, and pass or fail it, depending on whether it meets the criteria. I suggest you check the article against the Good Article criteria, and send it for Peer Review for more extensive feedback. As the article is of high quality, a request for feedback is unlikely to help. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying. And, well yeah, it has been peer reviewed and the issues have been fixed. I also have checked the criteria and I reckon it should pass them. Cheers -- Imoeng 11:18, 4 September 2006 (UTC) ps. I'm going to have a wikibreak for a while. But please do let me know if you are interested in pass or fail it.[reply]

Welcome. I hope the nomination passes. Enjoy your Wikibreak and come back soon. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hildanknight, do you still have a copy of the article that I emailed you? Because I've gone and lost my copy of it (scans and all), and was wondering if you could forward them to me. It's for the CVG Magazine library. The idea is that we all post what hard copy magazines we have access to, and then list their contents on the page. If you're doing research on a CVG article, then you use your browser search on that page to find instances of that game and then notify the user who has that magazine for scans of related articles. Its aim is to provide users with a base of offline materials to access. - Hahnchen 01:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could check your Sent Items folder? I think it's still in my Gmail inbox. I'll find it and e-mail it back to you - to the same e-mail address you used to send it to me (unless you want me to send it to a different e-mail address). The CVG magazine library is a good idea - it'd help with referencing. I'm currently only lurking on Wikipedia, and hardly editing. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No need to go rooting round your inboxes and disk drives, I've found myself the original hard copy again. - Hahnchen 04:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good for you. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just read your "in crisis" page, and I hope you manage to overcome some of the issues you mention there. In the past, I too have felt dis-spirited by the way it can be difficult to get people interested in collaboration or even responding to comments made at discussion and policy pages. Just give it time, and consider finding the right venue (some areas of Wikipedia are very quiet, others are much busier).

One thing I did want to respond to directly was your comment on references from experts: "Forcing them to add references for their contributions is insulting their intelligence. True experts write from their own knowledge, and don't need to refer to external sources. For example, a chess grandmaster does not think about doubled pawns or open files. He is thoroughly familiar with such concepts, and makes moves on instinct. Trust the experts, as long as they prove they are experts." - I play chess, and the analogy doesn't really work for me. Editing an encyclopedia is notthing like playing chess. I found it difficult to get to grips with the reference system at first, but once you know how it works, it really does feel good to be adding references that support what you wrote. It helps with planning the writing, and it helps to know that what you write will probably last longer because you've included references. If you need a hand with references, just drop me a line. Carcharoth 01:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks muchly for your feedback about figure skating. Yeah, I agree that the lack of sources is the biggest hurdle. It's a matter of someone(s) going to the library, methinks. :) Cheers. --Fang Aili ^talk 01:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're most welcome, Fang Ali. Perhaps you should go to the library. If you wrote the article, where did you get the information from? Once you've added sufficient references, do nominate Figure skating for Good Article status. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you active on WP:RFF again, I can relax now :) Yomangani^talk 13:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, don't relax too much. Besides the two of us, are there any other experienced users who are regularly giving feedback? Imoeng, Tangotango and Saxifrage don't seem to be responding to requests for feedback. Two experienced users I think would be interested in responding are Commander Keane and Richardshusr. I'm recovering from my crisis and feeling much better, so I think it's time I come back from my break. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 04:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that :) I'll look at the page when I have time. Cheers, Tangotango 15:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed their was some conflict concerning the Home run and Homerun (film) articles dealing with the redirects and disambigs and such. I was bold in changing the other uses template on the Homerun article (see). I thought this might settle some issues. Let me know what you think.--Joe Jklin (T C) 04:32, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with that arrangement. It was my second compromise offer when I opened a mediation case regarding the article. Hopefully there is consensus for this change. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 05:12, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not something I'd normally do, but alas, one needs a break when idiots ran rampant. We've all got work to do here, so I hope this allows you some space to continue. Your talk page isn't protected, so you'll still receive messages from anon's, which will still produce that yellow message bar we all know so well. Let me know if the vandalism goes on and I'll try deal with it for you in other more effective ways. You might want to look at archiving your talk page also, it's getting a tad long. Glad I could help. -- Longhair 10:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thanks for semi-protecting my user page. Now I can work in peace. If he attacks my talk page, I will request it be semi-protected too. I suggest you also block the vandal's IP (219.75.107.97). I'll think about archiving my talk page. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this process still running? Reviewers seems pretty thin on the ground. I'm going to shift back to mainly peer reviewing, as I don't feel guilty leaving somebody out over there. Let me know if you revive it. Yomangani^talk 23:57, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFF is still running. What we need is more Wikipedians who will respond to requests posted there. We are still receiving quite a lot of feedback requests. My end-year exams are in the first week of October, so I don't have as much time as I'd like to.

School review Contents

1 History

2 The Grounds

3 Enrollment

4 Boarding

5 Staff

6 Sue Cormack Hall

7 Exams

8 Musical Instruments

9 Sports and Activities

10 The Easter Earley Music Course

11 Barracudas Summer Camp

12 Young Leadership Camp

13 References

14 External links

This is how I originally had my Contents page set up until another user said the following remarks. The use of headings is overkill when the information under it is only a couple of lines. You could combine most of the information under two headings ("History" and "School Life" for example). Coupled with that you currently have information that has no connection to the headings placed below them. (e.g. "Exams ...Lady Davina Lewis and Lady Rose Windsor also attended the school" - what does that have to do with exams?) Cowarth 19:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO

Okay, I apologize for the caps, but why couldn't you have taken the time to explain the situation in more depth before instead of letting me get all pissed off? 69.167.100.155 12:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, "NETIQUITTE" is a cleaver term, did you coin it yourself?

69.167.100.155 12:58, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Netiquette it's been around for a while --WikiSlasher 11:45, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "NETIQUITTE" was probably just a typo of Netiquette. However, if you take it at face value, the idea of a word called "NETIQUITTE" is quite interesting. What would it mean if we were to coin such a word? Would it mean "quitting the Internet"? What would you call quitting Wikipedia? WikiQuitte? Just imagine some pissed-off editor putting the following on his user page in big bold font "I WIKIQUITTE!" Quite cute if you think about it.

--Richard 18:46, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi - by mistake u also removed my comments too. so i added them again.

also - what do you find so unwelcome about the comments. please explain

thanks in advance

orig post:

Please do not remove posts from your talk page because you don't like them. There is nothing unwelcome or vile about the following post. Please make clear to all what about it caused so much offense.

"i think you will find i was actually trying to contribute to the chelski FC article in a manner that presents all the facts relevant to the club. However, there have been many edits recently by other posters that have not equalled the quality of of my posts. It is these posters you should be asking to block. thank you."

I am waiting?

He hasn't made any edits for over 20 minutes, contrary to popular belief Wikipedia editors do not stare at the computer editing Wikipedia 24/7 :P BTW if anyone's wondering why I'm here I was on RC patrol and clicked hee, made a brief comment above about something and I always hit watch, so not a stalker - anyway, editor prob not here --WikiSlasher 13:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

thank you for your valuable insight.

You're welcome --WikiSlasher 06:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way, it is not considered a good idea to edit war on another user's talk page --WikiSlasher 10:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, let me clarify that this anonymous user was in an edit war with SteveO, and after two reverts by both sides (SteveO and 220.246.167.18), I reverted to SteveO's version, thrice, because I happened to be watching the article. The edit war occured because 220.246.167.18 kept adding "Chelski" to the Nicknames section of the infobox. Chelski is a derogatory nickname used by opposition fans to insult Chelsea, and suggest that their success is caused by their owner having money to spend. Therefore, 220.246.167.18's edits were a blatant POV violation, and this was why I reverted exactly thrice; however, since his edits were not "simple vandalism", I stopped after three reverts. In addition, I did not discuss with 220.246.167.18 because SteveO had already made attempts to do so, as can be seen from this talk page.

I have read User talk:220.246.167 and the relevant section of Talk:Chelsea F.C. as well as scanned the edit history of the article. What seems clear is that 220.246.167.18 is an enthusiastic, self-assured editor who thought that he was right. SteveO convinced him that he was wrong on Chelski and also on the "trophies not won" question. What 220 didn't know and nobody told him was the existence of the WP:3RR rule. As I stated elsewhere, there is no obligation to warn someone that they are at 3RR but it is a reasonable courtesy to extend, especially if you think the other editor might not be aware of the rule. This is especially the case with anonymous editors but also possible even with logged-in users.

If there isn't a Wikipedia guideline called "Be kind", there should be.

Actually, WP:BITE does a pretty good job of expressing the idea.

Insisting on enforcement of rules is more likely to drive away good editors than gently explaining the rules. 220's Chelski edits may have seemed to be POV but only if you assume he had some animus towards Chelsea. From an outsider's perspective, it looked like he was just trying to document a true fact (that many people called Chelsea "Chelski"). The discussion between SteveO and 220 convinced 220 that pejorative nicknames did not belong in the infobox and seemed to have ended amicably.

As for the brief edit war over 220's edits to the "successful... success" sentence, I actually think he was right. It's generally considered poor writing style to use the same word or variants of the same word in the same sentence. If it the same meaning can be expressed without the repetition, the result is far more mellifluous. I understand why you thought his edit was POV but it wasn't meant to be so. He was just trying to improve the writing.

Blocking 220 was an unnecessary enforcement of WP:3RR. Blocking should be used to stop edit warring, not as a punishment. (Although I admit many admins use it as a punishment.)

--Richard 17:50, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Konstable, I requested semi-protection not only because of the edit war. There were a few other anonymous vandals attacking the article. -- Comment made by Hildanknight on User talk:220.246.167.18

Semi-protection should be used to stop an edit war when all else fails or to counter a wave of ongoing vandalism. As mentioned before, 10-15 vandalisms in a 24-hour period is a good guideline. Looking at the edit history, Chelsea F.C. did not seem to be experiencing an unmanageable amount of vandalism. Not counting 220's edits, I see only about 3 or 4 incidents in a 24-hour period.

Whether you intended it to or not, your request for semi-protection could be perceived as an attempt to lock 220 (a non-vandal) out as a way of winning the edit war.

In general, I notice that you have asked for pages to be protected before when they don't need to be. Semi-protection and protection are about stopping current ongoing edit wars in which neither side will agree to stop and about stopping a string of continuous ]]vandalism (see above).

I know that anonymous editors aggravate you. However, Wikipedia policy is to encourage anonymous editing of pages. Learn to live with it.

--Richard 18:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am planning to write the Yahoo! Sports article, but I have a question. How do I add a license, or something to the image page? Once I get that information, I can immediately begin to work on it. --Kakashi Boy 01:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Kakashi Boy. When you upload the image, select a license from the drop-down list. The license will tell others about the image's copyright status. I'm not an expert in this area, so if you have any further questions, I suggest you direct them to Help desk or New contributors' help page --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck on your exams, Hildanknight. Your contributions as a Wikipedian are valued, and I hope to see you active again once they are over, but sometimes the real world has to come first, as you obviously are aware. Regards, Newyorkbrad 12:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement, Newyorkbrad. I will do my best for my exams, and continue to make valued contributions to Wikipedia after my exams. P.S. How did you stumble across my page? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I don't remember. I have over 1000 pages on my watchlist. I probably noticed something you'd written in connection with the anonymous editing debate, but I can't be sure at this point. Newyorkbrad 14:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, good luck on your exams! And about the contribution, I cannot guarantee anything as I'm pretty busy with Indonesian project and portal, and stuff related to Indonesia. I also have got a new toy called VandalProof, hehehe. But of course I will try my best to review some of the articles. Again, good luck! Cheers -- Imoeng 05:01, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please unblock 166.121.37.9.

Sometimes I don't have time to go home and edit Wikipedia (I have lots of extra classes), so I have to edit from school. However, if this IP is blocked, I can't edit from school.

I am trying to promote Wikipedia in my school, and recruit Wikipedia editors among my classmates. To do this, I may need to take my class to the computer lab (of course, with a teacher's permission) and ask them to create accounts and edit Wikipedia. If this IP is blocked, I can't do this.

If it's neccesary to block this IP because it is a suspected open proxy (which I don't think it is), please block only anonymous users, and allow account creation.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In 99% of cases schools (not tertiary institutions) should at the very least have no-anonymous editing and should block account creation. Get your classmates to register accounts elsewhere because if accounts can be created at your school as well then soon after you can expect non-anonymous editing to be disabled again. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 07:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, block account creation, but allow logged-in users to edit. This will allow me to edit from school. I will think of another way to promote Wikipedia to my friends. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked
You have been blocked for 1 week for creating inflammatory usernames and vandalising Microsoft-related articles, as confirmed by Checkuser. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock}} on this page, along with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so is also considered vandalism. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 09:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Hildanknight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

None of the actions which warranted this block were made under the username/account Hildanknight. If you unblock my account, I promise to immediately and permenantly cease all such actions, and continue contributing to Wikipedia under this account, which has a history of positive contributions (Google Groups, Homerun (film), WP:RFF, etc.) Unblocking me will also give me an oppurtunity to explain my actions

Decline reason:

You were caught red-handed by Checkuser for flagarantly disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Positive contributions from one account is not a blank cheque for causing mayhem with another. If you want to explain actions, do so here or emailing unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. --  Netsnipe  ►  11:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Hildanknight: I saw your note about your block above so I thought I would throw in my two cents. Please note that I am not an administrator - I'm just a random person who saw you arguing vigorously about something I-don't-remember-where and took a look at your page, and was impressed with how dedicated you seemed to be to Wikipedia - and then was very shocked and very disappointed when I was looking at the Requests for Checkuser page for something else a few days later, and saw the entry about your recent activities.

You should not make any attempt to justify what you have been doing. I know you feel strongly that anonymous editing is bad for Wikipedia. (I think you're completely wrong - if I hadn't been able to edit for a few days as an anon and find that I enjoyed it, I don't think I ever would have created an account - but that's not the point right now.) Having a strong opinion about vandalism doesn't allow you to protest vandalism by committing vandalism of your own. It's an almost classic example of the WP:POINT policy, which you should be familiar with by now. And you seem to have been a particularly disruptive vandal; I suspect it took other users and some administrators at least several hours to clean up the messes you made, which they certainly could have spent more usefully for the encyclopedia, not to mention the time required for the Checkuser to verify that all of the questioned users were really you.

You should consider yourself quite lucky that you are only blocked for a week. There was a discussion I saw on the Administrators' Noticeboard in which several of the admins suggested that you should be blocked indefinitely, meaning that you would not be allowed to edit here again. Instead, the blocking admin decided that you should take a week off from editing (and it's the week you should be studying for your exams anyway). If you want to go back to productive editing on your main account when the block expires, you're not going to do yourself any good by protesting against the block in the meantime. As I said, many people would probably say it was too lenient (and I won't even mention what usually happens to vandals in Singapore!). If you have anything to say for yourself, you can say it on this talk page (a blocked user can still edit his or her own talk page, unless the page is protected because the user abused the privilege), although I don't think any comments that aren't accompanied by unconditional apologies for your actions are going to be well-received.

I'm going to go out on a limb here: I think you've been a sincere contributor and really do care about Wikipedia. In fact, I think you care a little too much for your own good sometimes; Wikipedia policy disputes are not the sort of things that should be causing crises in people's lives. But I do think that if you can follow the rules and avoid ever doing again what got you blocked, and keep a sense of perspective about disputes, you can be a good editor again. Please don't prove me wrong. Newyorkbrad 21:52, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, Newyorkbrad. I will take a one-week break, and after my exams, I will return and contribute productively to Wikipedia. I hope to learn from my mistakes and develop into a great Wikipedia contributor. I will post my explanation for my actions shortly, but I will not contest my block. However, I will need Wikipedians who are familiar with policy and friendly to newcomers, to keep Wikipedia:Requests for feedback running and respond to feedback requests in my absence. I don't want to come back after my block has expired and see a huge backlog there. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 07:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand and acknowledge that what I did was wrong. I will not try to justify my actions, but I feel compelled to explain my actions. Hopefully you will understand why I did that, and gain some powerful insights. It's a long story, but I'll try to keep it short.

I am using an IP shared by 300,000 Singaporean Internet users. I often find myself blocked for the actions of some anonymous vandal. In addition, anonymous vandals often attack the articles I am woring on, disrupting my ability to contribute. As a result, I became strongly opposed to anonymous editing.

I tried various ways and means to seek help, but my attempts were in vain, and administrators even defended the anonymous vandals. I could do nothing except grit my teeth and hope for the best, while anonymous vandals continued to cause me increasing stress and frustration. After a conflict on 13 August 2006, I declared my Wikilife to be in crisis.

After declaring crisis, I logged out and started vandalising pages to relieve stress. One weekend, while surfing Wikipedia at my cousin's house, I had a "great" idea for an "original" method of vandalism. I tested my method to see whether it would work.

My method worked, so I kept vandalising. I tried communicating through unblock notices and even a post on the village pump, but the reactions from administrators (thinking I was a vandalbot) further incited me. The vandalism became a bad habit, and eventually, an addiction.

That basically sums up how I turned from a talented contributor into an anonymous vandal.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit late now that you're blocked, but here's a rant of mine:

At home I use AOL, at school I use a shared IP of most catholic high schools in the state, thus, I often find myself (or at least my IP) blocked. To keep editing, two methods work: a) Go on IRC and rave until somebody unblocks your IP to shut you up, b) ask an admin to undo the block, and then re-apply it as a soft block, which allows logged in users to edit, while anonymous users remain blocked.

Either way it is frustrating to see anonymous vandals destroy the encyclopædia (although they are failing at this point, thanks to the RC patrollers) — however, look at a well established page on wikipedia, one that isn't semi-protected, and you will see that anonymous contributors make up a lot of the content in those pages, they are, although not so dedicated to the project, of great importance. Minor spelling corrections and formatting tweaks, and often entire sections in articles come from anonymous editors, and if I hadn't have worked converting measurements and adding them to articles as an anon back in '05 then I'd have never endeavoured to register an account, and I'm sure most of our contributors today started as anons as well. The very convenience of fixing the articles is what draws in new editors (that, and the addictiveness), so, ... my advice is: don't do it again.  :-) Michael Billington (talk • contribs)

I agree with User:Newyorkbrad and User:MichaelBillington. I'm also sad and disappointed to read this. I agree that you should consider yourself to have been dealt with mercifully in getting a 1 week block instead of an indefinite one. A repeat occurrence of this kind of behavior could lead to a community ban.

I hope that this will become an incident of the past so that you will grow and develop into a valued Wikipedia contributor. --Richard 01:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I also agree with people above me, I am disappointed that you did such a shame thing to do. I mean, come on, you are the creator of WP:RFF and you've made a number of significant contributions. Also, I need to tell you again, that what you did is not worth it, because now the vandals won, maybe they are laughing now. Just take it as a lesson, and we can fight them in a fair way. I won't write any flame message or anything like that, you just need to think what you've done, but I am sure you've done that. Okay, take care -- Imoeng 09:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per our MSN discussion, the following section is a short summary of how to warn vandals. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Wikipedia!

Be sure to put warning tags on the vandal's user talk page (such as {{subst:test}}, {{subst:test2}}, {{subst:test3}}, {{subst:test4}}). Add each of these tags on the vandal's talk page, in sequential order, after each instance of vandalism. Adding warnings to the talk page assists administrators in determining whether or not the user should be blocked. If the user continues to vandalize pages after you add the {{subst:test4}} tag, request administrator assistance at Request for Intervention. Again, thank you for helping to make Wikipedia better.

Template usage notes Please refer to the index of test templates before using any template on user talk pages to warn a user. Applying the best template available for your purpose may help reduce confusion from the message you are sending. Please remember to substitute the template using {{subst:Hildanknight/Archive 3}} rather than {{Hildanknight/Archive 3}}.

Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did good warning the vandal. Except you should substitute the template with {{subst:bv}} and sign & date it with ~~~~. Hope that helps! TransUtopian 15:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll remember to substitute it and sign next time. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 23:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]