User talk:Hildanknight/Archive 4

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

Welcome to Esperanza!
Welcome, Hildanknight, to Esperanza! As you might know, all the Esperanzians share one important goal: the success of this encyclopedia. Within that, we then attempt to strengthen the community bonds, and be the "approachable" side of the project. All of our ideals are held in the Charter, the governing document of the association.

Now that you are a member you should read the guide to what to do now or you may be interested in some of our programs. A quite important program is Stressbusters, which seeks to support editors who have encountered any stress from their Wikipedia events, and are seeking to leave the project. So far, Esperanza can be credited with the support and retention of several users. We will send you newsletters to keep you up to date. Also, we have a calendar of special events, member birthdays, and other holidays that you can add to and follow.

In addition to these projects, several more missions of Esperanza are in development, and are currently being created at Esperanza/Proposals.

If you have any other questions, concerns, comments, or general ideas, Esperanzian or otherwise, know that you can always contact Natalya by email or talk page. Consider introducing yourself at the Esperanza talk page! Alternatively, you could communicate with fellow users via our IRC channel, #wikipedia-esperanza (which is also good for a fun chat or two :). If you're new to IRC, you may find help at an IRC tutorial. I thank you for joining Esperanza, and look forward to working with you in making Wikipedia a better place to work!

Sasuk e  -kun  27  02:41, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * What a quick welcome! Thanks - I'll check out the links! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:43, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * While you're at it, I suggest stopping by the Esperanza Coffee Lounge. It's really cool and is great for just hanging out on Wikipedia. Anyway, good luck on future contributions and, again, Welcome to Esperanza! Sasuk  e  -kun  27  02:53, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Happy Birthday!
¡Cumpleaños felices! Tienes 15 años. Anyway, let's just skip the Spanish. =) Have a great birthday!-- E dtalk c 03:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ed! The cake is delicious! Let's continue collaborating to make RuneScape a Good Article! --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I wish you a vey happy birth day. Al the best for all the days! --Bhadani 11:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

— E  ditor at L arge  ( speak )  00:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Moved discussion
Just to let you know, I've moved your proposed program discussion to the Esperanza/Proposals page, since that's the most appropriate place for it to be discussed. And happy birthday, that's very exciting! -- Nataly a 13:56, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Results
Ok, you asked me to see if you were doing it right, and for the most part, yes. one thing though: Maybe make your edit summaries not contain the word "vandal", I tend to use something like "Left warning template for anonymous user", to avoid anything that may scare off potential contributors. Still, nice job! If you ever don't know which template to use (it happens to me quite a lot) then take a look at the full list, hope this helps. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

IP flagging
Well, what we usually do with proposals is ask people to give feedback and reword the proposal to address their concerns. E.g. based on MERC's comments it may be worthwhile to add a line about schools on the guideline pages. The problem with a yes/no vote is that it makes it difficult to reach a compromise. For a guideline on Wikipdeia we'd simply repeat the feedback-and-reword process until most or (preferably) all concerns are addressed. There are sometimes a few dissenters-on-principle but in general most people have reasonable complaints that can be resolved (like we do on WP:FAC).

The devs work on a different level and are not at all swayed by a mass of support votes, and not really by consensus either. In fact, the devs are one of the few parties that can override a consensus with good reason (such as server load issues). To convince the Devs, you shouldn't try to point out that "100 people say this", but rather that "this is a good idea".

So it's not that I object to votes on principle, it's simply that a straw poll isn't going to help this issue, and may distract people from things that would help. What I think would be helpful is to streamline the proposal (it's a bit too long and verbose) and add a few examples that clearly indicate why this is a problem in practice (as opposed to in theory).

Hope that helps! Yours,  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
 * By the way I've added a note on the village pump asking for feedback.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

RfB With A Smile :)


Adventurequest
All you need to do is run the article through a spell checker (I did a bit of it) and use basic punctuation (like no "..." or exclamation points except for quotes) and it would be a world better. 69.209.105.235 13:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why did you revert an AdventureQuest image back to normal when I got rid of the unrequired Opera action bar? Emperor Jackal 15:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I regularly check the AdventureQuest article, removing fancruft and reverting vandalism. In the past, there have been several instances of the images I uploaded being replaced with images without fair-use rationale, some of which "advertised" their character. Sometimes I fail to double-check before reverting, and this was the case, since you're a new user (you don't have a userpage and your signature appears as a red link). Finally, the screenshots should be consistent (we don't want three screenshots taken under Opera 8.5, one taken under Opera 9.0 and two taken under Firefox 1.5). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Length
Your talk page is over 163 kilobytes long, with 100 subheadings. Shouldn't some sections be archived?
 * Wow, I didn't realize it was THAT long! I'll try and archive it; I hope I do it right! If I somehow mess up, please help clean up after me. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have archived all the comments prior to 5 July 2006. Could you help me check if I did it correctly? However, the comments from 25 July 2006 to present still take up over 100 kilobytes. I am thinking about a suitable date to split my talk page into a third archive. However, I do not want to give the impression that I am trying to cover up my controversy. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:38, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone can accuse you of trying to conceal anything as long as you include a clear link to the archives. Lots of people, including administrators, have each thread automatically archived after a few days. Newyorkbrad 13:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

A respond in protecting Everton F.C.
I saw the front page of an article, and someone added sprotected for the sake of an article. However, I cannot see a response in requests for page protection from someone, so I just want to let you know the news. In that way, you'll thank me for that. --Gh87 06:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The page was semi-protected by another admin, Gurch, at my request on IRC. However, they did not respond on RFP. You may wish to note that Grunch has already semi-protected the article. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Took a look at the edit history. There did seem to be a fair amount of vandalism going on there.  FWIW, WP:3RR does not apply to reverts of vandalism so you could have continued reverting the vandalism without worrying about violating 3RR.  On the other hand, semi-protection does seem to have been the right thing to do in this instance.  KUTGW.  --Richard 07:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your note
Hi HK, I tend to sidestep process when it gets too bogged down, and I see no point in moving requests that have been dealt with to special sections with special templates that keep changing. I simply note in the edit summary that it's dealt with and remove it. You're very welcome to put it back in its special section if you prefer it that way.

As for your wanting to get more involved in RfPP, by all means do. It would certainly help you with an RfA, and I see no reason that your RfA shouldn't be successful (although I haven't looked closely at your contribs). Certainly, any kind of administrative work that you get involved in will tend to boost your chances, although editing is important too. Speaking for myself, I don't like to vote for nominees who concentrate on janitorial tasks and don't edit the encyclopedia; others have different criteria, of course. Good luck anyway. :-) SlimVirgin (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't want to contradict SlimVirgin, who has 50 times the Wikipedia experience that I do, but I am afraid you will need to wait awhile before considering an RfA in light of recent events. Continue your strong work as an editor, develop experience in the other ways you can contribute as you are doing, and allow some distance in time from the mistakes you made. I know from your note to SV that you understand this and I hope you keep up your good work. Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for replying, SlimVirgin. I won't restore the request to its special section; I just pointed it out to you because I suspected you had made a mistake. I understand and appreciate your reasoning that process can sometimes get backlogged.
 * Newyorkbrad, I think SlimVirgin is not aware of the controversy that I have been involved in, hence her comments about my RFA. I have no plans to run an RFA in the near future. I will not try really hard to become admin material. Instead, I plan to carve out my own niche in Wikipedia: writing articles, using detailed edit summaries and developing ideas to improve Wikipedia. Based on my contributions since my return, do you think I've succeeded in this respect? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes. I hope I'm doing okay too. :) Regards, Newyorkbrad 14:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

something to think about...
Hi there, I saw your proposed program, and I thought I would tell you on your talk page that using phrases such as "my arch-nemesis, Chacor" contradict the spirit of Esperanza. If I were you, I wouldn't try to delete the phrase (it will be in the edit history anyway) but rather post an apology for your choice of words. I would suggest using something less confrontational, such as "a user I have had conflicts with in the past, Chacor", or something to that effect. Thank you, and I hope this doesn't hurt your feelings. -- Kyok o  15:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, Kyoko. My usage of the word "arch-nemesis" was not intended to be confrontational. I was simply trying to use my skills as a Literature student in a light-hearted manner. I hope nobody's feelings got hurt as a result.
 * Just some background information: One day in June, when I was extremely stressed and frustrated due to constantly being blocked as collateral damage, I violated WP:POINT and he blocked me for 24 hours. After my block expired, it seemed like he was repeatedly seeking oppurtunities to bite me. I opposed his RFA, partially for the above reasons, and partially because I believe he lacks personal accountability for his admin abuse. To explain "personal accountability", note that after being blocked, I quickly acknowledged that what I did was wrong, and explained why I did it.
 * I hope my idea won't get shot down merely because of one statement about Chacor.
 * --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So far, nobody else has commented on your choice of words. I still think that you should explain your wording on the Esperanza talk page, so as to avoid misunderstandings. You probably don't need to go in detail about the situation, just say that you have had disagreements or conflicts with Chacor in the past. Best of luck with your proposal. -- Kyok o  13:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hildanknight, I don't know what the "repeated opportunities to bite you" were but, as you know, the block was certainly justified. In any event, even if you do have a legitimate grievance against Chacor, Esperanza pages are the wrong place to air such grievances and a proposed program is even less so.  And, of course, you should be careful about words like "arch nemesis".  You may have meant it in a light-hearted way but one's "light-hearted tone" does not always come across well in e-mails and other Internet communications.  I don't mean to preach.  I myself got rebuked mildly for calling someone a "numbnuts" on the Esperanza Talk Page which, on reflection, was a rather sophomoric thing to do.  I meant it in a light-hearted way also but some people are more sensitive about these kinds of things than others.  --Richard 16:33, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have posted my clarification on the proposals page. Please feel free to comment on my proposal. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite surprised to post about giving warnings and find this. I think that was a gross misjudgement on your part, and would like an apology. – Chacor 09:13, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I apologize for and retract my usage of the word "arch-nemesis", and promise not to use my Literature-student skills on Wikipedia in future. To quote myself: "I hope nobody's feelings were hurt as a result".
 * As a side note, some time ago, Terence offered to facilitate mediation between the two of us, but you refused. I'm still open to the possibility, to resolve any misunderstandings between us. In addition, now you know why I opposed your RFA (I declined to reveal my reasons for fear of you biting me). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:52, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm disappointed that you would use a personal grievance over a block as a reason to oppose an RFA. However, apology accepted. – Chacor 09:58, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad to hear that this has been resolved. I'm open to mediate with you if you're willing. By the way, if you read carefully, I opposed you because I "believe you lacked personal accountability for your admin abuse" (although the block was a minor factor). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:17, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

New proposal
I just made a note on WT:RFF to suggest a few ways we could boost efficiency, and as the creator of WP:RFF, I'd value your input (message here). Cheers. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hello, Michael, and thanks for the note. I have responded on WT:RFF - please read my response there. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion
Next time you suggest an article for protection, try to keep it short and simple. Admins can investigate the changes for themselves, thank you. Ardo 04:54, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Is this in response to my post on Wikipedia talk:Requests for page protection? Or are you referring to the requests I have made so far, in general? --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning templates
A reminder that blatantvandal is only for blatant vandalism. This edit you reverted was the IP's first edit, neither was it blatant vandalism. WP:AGF, and WP:BITE. Please don't use the warning templates incorrectly. – Chacor 08:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of any guidelines about when to use blatantvandal. Generally, I use this template when the vandalism is non-trival or consists of adding insults or profanity to articles. I don't see how adding insults such as "MSN Messenger is shit" to an article could have been made in good faith. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 09:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * When that was an IP's first edit, it's likely someone trying out editing capabilities. Blatantvandal means exactly that - for use on blatant vandals, most commonly repeated vandalism (you'll notice that the other one you warned, regarding Yahoo, I left alone, because their prior edits were also obvious blatant vandalism). – Chacor 09:46, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Babel box
Have you considered including a Babel box on your userpage? It'd help with language barriers/need of editors that speak whatever language. ~ crazytal es  56297  O rly? 02:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I was planing to create a new userpage once I have established myself as a valued contributor. That new userpage would definitely contain a Babel box. For the curious, I'm a native speaker of English, and an advanced speaker of Chinese and Singlish. I have no knowledge of Malay or Tamil, the other two Singaporean languages. Unfortunately, due to problems in real life, it will be difficult for me to establish myself; I will edit less frequently and may vanish completely. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 10:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism reverts
Look, there is no need to specify what you've reverted in your edit summaries. They get old after a while, and are sometimes as inappropriate as the content that was reverted out. Most people just use "rvv", "rv POV", "rv spam" etc. There really is no need to say the exact details of what was reverted out - it gets irritating. – Chacor 09:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And yet, you still did this:
 * 20:48, November 6, 2006 (hist) (diff) Arsenal F.C. (Revert. 138.253.71.158 gave Arsenal another nickname: the "Gooners". I've never heard anyone refer to Arsenal this way, and since a goon is an idiot, this would be a perojative nickname.)
 * Please, stop it. – Chacor 06:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That's right. Please, there is no need for comments on summaries. Thank you.-- T dxi  an  g  10:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No real need to do this. This isn't against any policy. Sure, it's a bit annoying, but there is no policy against potentially annoying edit summaries. ~ crazytal es  56297  O rly? 13:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * For goodness sake, stop writing so long edit summaries as a whole, short and sweet. No need to write so much. If they are intrested, they will go and do it themselves, this is very annoying, especially for vandalism reverts. No need for such comments especially if you reverted vandalism. No policy at the moment, but please please stop. I feel irritated, seriously. --Ter e nce Ong (C 14:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that those who are objecting to your lengthy edit summaries should "get a life". However, they do have a point.  A summary should be short.  In Chacor's example above, it would have been sufficient to say "rv use of apparently pejorative nickname".  Then, if you feel that further explanation is necessary, leave a note on the Talk Page.  --Richard 16:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that your edit summaries in reverting vandalism should be shorter, for a slightly different reason than stated above. Take a look at WP:DENY which is an essay pointing out that a lot of vandals just want attention. Since you have focused on vandalism problems you know that, I'm sure. By taking the time to write a long edit summary about the vandalism, you are just giving them that attention and could wind up encouraging some of them to do it again, which I know is the last thing you want to do. For that reason, edit summaries in cases of clear vandalism should just be "revert vandalism" or "rvv". Of course this does not apply to good faith edits that need to be reverted for some reason - those contributors are entitled to a good explanation of why you are making the change, either in the edit summary or on talk. Hope this helps. Newyorkbrad 16:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Unlike certain people, I don't find long summaries so annoying that I must whine and bitch about it. However, summaries are made to be short and to the point. From reading your summaries, it appears to me that you are using the summary box as a place to present valid arguements to justify your reverts. In my opinion, you can still achieve this goal without being lengthy. Although I do not find this habit annoying, it is something you should look into. Keep in mind, some edits speak for themselves, and require no summary for justification nor explaination. And for those that do, they can allways be kept short, sweet, and to the point. Don't let the negative outlook of others discourage you. Just work a little on shortening your summaries and figuring out when they are needed. SnufStyle420 04:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with SnufStyle420 on this, edit summaries that don't take up more than one line don't annoy me in the slightest. A note however is that the edit summaries you've been using are in a number of cases longer than one line, and take time to read (and make the page history harder to navigate), so it's probably easier for us all (your typing and others reading) if you keep them short, sharp and to the point. Things that don't fit this may be better off on the talk page of the article, or on the user talk page of the person you reverted. How does that sound? --Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 08:45, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

And outside view for you all. I took a squizz at Hildanknight's edit summaries for his reversions, and I can see some of what people are saying. Usually "rvv" or an appropriate variation is just fine, but then, I have some problems with the criticism here: Folks, just let this go. At best, this discussion is counterproductive and hurtful; at worst, it's trolling. I strongly recommend that everyone take a moment out for a nice cup of tea and a sit down, right about now. Thanks. Daveydw ee b ( chat/patch ) 08:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Longer-than-necessary edit summaries can be a tad annoying, yes. On the other hand, on my personal list of "Things To Get Annoyed By" it is a very long way from the top -- it's probably somewhere between running out of milk, and that musty smell your clothes get when you leave them on the floor for too long. Seriously, this is absolutely not worth getting worked up about, let alone as aggressive as above.
 * 2) If you're annoyed by peoples' long edit summaries, you're working to a double standard. I can't say I've ever heard a complaint about edit summaries like this, and I see no difference between it and the example given above:
 * Revert to revision 83126445 dated 2006-10-23 02:18:13 by Tom Danson using popups
 * 1) Edit summaries are just that: a summary of your edit. Telling people to be less verbose in those summaries inherently contradicts the purpose of having an edit summary box in the first place.

Sorry to get involved, but what on Earth... there's a reason the box can fit 200 characters in it. When I look at a page history, I want to know what's gone on, especially if it's happened to my edit. I don't think Hildanknight's doing anything terribly wrong.

Besides, if your concern is clogging up page histories, is a long edit summary worse than not hitting the preview button once in a while? riana_dzasta 12:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

As an edit summary accompanies my every edit, I have refrained from editing since Tdxiang's post.

Unlike my school friends, who are familiar with my style, you don't know me well. I don't do things to please the crowd or because everyone is doing it. In my writing, I always emphasise good language use and comprehensiveness, and that's why I rank among the best writers in my school (according to my teachers).

From my first edit (creating the GTalkr article), I have used comprehensive edit summaries, both to explain my edits, and at times, to request someone look through them. My comprehensive edit summaries simply reflect my writing style. I try to provide as much useful information as possible in my edit summaries, for example, when correcting a spelling error, I specify the misspelt word and how it should be spelt. I believe doing so helps the RC patrollers, history patrollers, etc. In addition, it saves me a trip to the talk page.

Could you explain how my long edit summaries are annoying? If it is because I occasionally quote insults, such as "xx.xx.xx.xx wrote that Tottenham are shit" (an actual example), I can change it to "xx.xx.xx.xx added insults to article"? Comprehensive does not neccesarily mean long, and if my edit summaries are clogging up page histories, I'll try to shorten them while keeping them comprehensive and grammatically correct.

Ironically, in RFAs and many parts of Wikipedia, there is a great emphasis on edit summary usage. I am not aware of any editor who regularly uses edit summaries as comprehensive as mine or any controversies surrounding overly long edit summaries (if you are aware of any, please inform me), and I will close this discussion with result "no consensus", and continue using comprehensive edit summaries until Chacor and co. provide further explanation on why long edit summaries are annoying and should be avoided.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 08:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Many people use edit summaries to say exactly what they're adding. Those are fine. But if you're reverting vandalism that's just overkill. You could easily use "rv nonsense" for the example you provided. – Chacor 08:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Chacor here. Don't think long edit summaries are the end of the world, but yeah, for reversions you could just stick with a simple 'rv pov', 'rv insult', whatever. I think it's good to write what you have added, though. riana_dzasta 10:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

A good example would be this most recent one: "# 18:47, November 14, 2006 (hist) (diff) User:Saxifrage (Revert. 65.95.136.185 made edits linking Saxifrage to Nazism/facism.)" The edit could've been reverted with "rvv". Specifying what was reverted in an instance like this isn't helpful. Saxifrage obviously isn't linked to either, but there's no reason for you to SAY that was what was added, it's pretty much redundant - someone vandalises a userpage with "x", you revert with "y said x". If someone puts "you're a cunt fucker" on someone else's userpage, and you revert it, it'd be ridiculous to use that in your edit summary. Get what I mean? – Chacor 11:47, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks
 Thank you for participating in my RfA discussion! I appreciate you contributing your voice to the debate and its outcome. I hope how I wield the mop makes you proud. &mdash; Saxifrage

Meetup on 24 November
Hello, please confirm yourself for the meetup on the 24th by November 18. If you have any ideas or suggestions, please list them at the meetup page yourself. Thanks. --Ter e nce Ong (C 04:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is Chacor coming? If so, I'm not. Please don't misunderstand; I simply wish to avoid another conflict. If he's not coming, I'll consider. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 11:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hummmm... This doesn't sound healthy.


 * An in-person meeting could help smooth over past differences and disputes (or it might not).


 * I would suggest that you drop Chacor a message and ask if there's a way the two of you can "bury the hatchet". I haven't seen any evidence of a real reason for the two of you to be at odds with each other.  You don't have to become best friends but it should be possible for the two of you to be in the same room with each other without friction or conflict.  What did he do to you that was so injurious?  Feel free to provide diffs here or on my Talk Page.


 * I actually had no idea that Chacor resided in Singapore until I read the above.


 * --Richard 16:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * FYI this Chacor guy was NSLE.--203.124.2.7 04:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I knew that and I don't see how this is relevant. If anything, it is a positive fact.  NSLE was a respected admin who made a mistake  ArbCom felt had comitted a transgression that resulted in desysopping.  (NSLE/Chacor professed and maintain that he did not commit the transgression.)  There is reason to believe that Chacor will pass an RFA at some point in the future.


 * It did help me to re-read the NSLE desysopping record because it mentions SingTel and that would have tipped me off to the fact that NSLE/Chacor is Singaporean if I had bothered to remember that bit of trivia from the first time that I read the desysopping record.


 * In any event, my primary point is that NSLE's blocks of Hildanknight appear to have been justified and I have not seen evidence of harassment or stalking of Hildanknight by NSLE although Hildanknight seems to feel that NSLE did this.


 * I am urging both Chacor and Hildanknight to "bury the hatchet". If Hildanknight accepts that his behavior in the past has been problematic, I believe that Chacor will be willing to give him a second chance to redeem himself as a worthy Wikipedian.  The current meetup in Singapore has so few attendees that it seems silly for one or both of these worthy Wikipedians to stay away over a conflict that may not even have any real basis.


 * --Richard 17:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * When I first checked the block log after discovering I was blocked, I saw that I had been blocked indefinitely. When I continued reading Wikipedia after being unblocked, I discovered I had been unblocked after clicking on a red link. It was not until much later that I discovered the indefinite block was a mistake, and he wanted to block me for only 24 hours. By then, the damage had been done.
 * However, my grudge against NSLE/Chacor only started a long time after the block, when he repeatedly pointed out my mistakes in a manner that was slightly uncivil at times. I initially assumed good faith, but started to suspect him of repeatedly taking opportunities to bite me, and even stalk me. When I opposed his RFA, I noted several comments about his alleged biting of newcomers, backing up my concerns.
 * Do note that I once asked Terence Ong to help me arrange a mediation session with NSLE/Chacor, but NSLE/Chacor refused. According to Terence, NSLE/Chacor "regards me as a troll". I am willing to "bury the hatchet", as long as NSLE/Chacor is also willing. I admit that my behaviour has been problematic at times, and I hope that with the support of my peers, I will improve in that area.
 * --J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And this nonsense is exactly why I will not even bother with any attempt at mediation. Your continued portrayal of my legitimate actions as you are are ridiculous, baseless, and only serve to increase tensions. – Chacor 15:01, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Since the "(Chacor) regards (Hildanknight) as a troll" comment comes via Terence Ong, I will take that comment with a grain of salt until Chacor confirms it.

IMO, a troll is someone who intentionally acts in a troll-like way and refuses to stop when told that they are perceived as a troll. Sometimes people make troll-like edits and stop when advised that they are acting like a troll. I myself have accidentally fallen into this category. (Well, I didn't think I was being a troll but someone else did.) I think Hildanknight is also in this category and should rethink his position.

I would hope that Chacor would be a bit more willing to give Hildanknight a chance to redeem himself. Hildanknight has done plenty to help this project although he has made some mistakes (yes, even some big ones).

That said, the "evidence" provided by Hildanknight in the 4 links above does not convince me of his position. At best, one or two of the links are ambiguous (I don't have time to investigate the full history and context of the comments). Overall though, Chacor/NSLE's comments seem to be "on point" in each case cited by Hildanknight. There may be a bit of "biting of newcomers" in that Chacor/NSLE could have been gentler in the way the point was made but, ultimately, the points being made were justified.

I don't see the incidents cited by Hildanknight as Chacor stalking Hildanknight so much as Chacor correcting errors made by Hildanknight in the normal course of editing Wikipedia. Is it possible that Chacor "stalked" Hildanknight by checking his contributions? Maybe. On the other hand, it could have been coincidence. Since all of Chacor/NSLE's comments seem "on point", it's best to just assume good faith. After all, my involvement here comes from the fact that Hildanknight's Talk Page is on my watchlist. Is that stalking? Not necessarily.

IMO, it is time for Hildanknight to get over the perceived slights that he feels he has received from Chacor/NSLE. In other words, "you were wrong, Chacor/NSLE advised you of it although somewhat brusquely, get over it and get on with being a valued member of the Wikipedia team".

I would hope that Chacor will "extend an olive branch" and offer to "bury the hatchet" if Hildanknight will abandon the wounded "I've been bitten" posture.

--Richard 16:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC)