User talk:Mapalazoo

Hey!
That's understandable; Wikipedia can be a very confusing place :). So, in order: If you need any help with editing or finding things to do, I'm always happy to assist. Alternately, there's the Teahouse, a place for new editors to go, ask questions and meet the rest of our volunteers :). Ironholds (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Some people do add nonsense and junk to pages, but there are dedicated users who review edits and undo any that are vandalism.
 * An administrator is a user with the ability to block people, delete pages and do a whole host of other stuff :). There are around a thousand of us at the moment.
 * Wow, thank you for the really fast response! I just was clicking around and I saw a page that didn't look like it belonged here, so I put a db-a7 in {'s on it ... was that right? Can you please check? Mapalazoo (talk) 19:50, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Wow, you sure are learning fast. Keep up the good work, but next time if there is already a deletion template on the article, it's best to leave it as is. Sometimes, there are several templates that do the same job, like db-a7 does the same as db-person. I hope to see you around. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley  talk 20:02, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, oops! Is that what it meant by "edit conflict" at the top of the page? Sorry, I guess I should've checked first... I'm sorry. Mapalazoo (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, so it was an edit conflict. Don't even worry about it! No harm was done :) -- Cheers, Riley Huntley  talk 20:07, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback
Adding in "fake content" actually does happen on Wikipedia. But there are groups of active editors and automated programs that endeavor to combat vandalism. You can help out too, if you wish!

I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 03:56, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

&#160;

Administrators are trusted users who have access to powerful tools that the rest of us don't. For example, an administrator can delete an article, but it wouldn't be a good idea to entrust that power to everyone, since you'd have some vandal who would mass-delete as much as they could. If you have any further questions about how Wikipedia works or how to edit it, please let me know and I'd be happy to answer your questions. You'll soon realize that Wikipedia community is pretty awesome once you start interacting with groups of people, and proper editing can be extremely enjoyable. • Jesse V.(talk) 15:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, here are some pointers for you:


 * Learn wiki-syntax. It can be difficult at first, but with experience and copying syntax from other places you'll soon figure it out. It can make your writing look better.
 * Add interesting articles to your watchlist. Over the last year or so I've accumulated about a hundred articles on my watchlist. Some I'm watching because they're prone to vandalism and I want to ensure that they stay clean, while others I'm just interested in. To add an article, you can either press the little star in the upper right-hand corner of the screen, or you can check the "watch this page" checkbox right below the editing window.
 * Make sure you are familiar with the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. Verifiability is key; even if I know add something that I know to be true, it's far better to add a reference to a reliable source. Most Wikipedians aren't experts in their field, and even if they are they have to reference the works of others. This keeps Wikipedia encyclopedic and prevents it from turning into a soapbox. Its sort of odd, but I really feel demonstrating an ability to reference third-party material in a reliable and neutral way gains a person more respect in the community than if they tried to convince everyone that they are an expert.
 * Watch other editors and see how they edit. You can learn a lot from doing this. It's interesting to watch a small group of editors collaborate and work on an article together, but it's even better if you're part of the team!
 * You're welcome to talk to other people and ask questions. Obviously we don't want you to spam everyone, but it's been my experience that the community is very friendly.
 * Join a WikiProject. These are groups of editors who all collaborate to improve a particular set of articles in Wikipedia. For example, I find computer science really interesting, so I joined WikiProject Computer Science which is devoted to improving all articles related to computer science. Pick a few and help out! Editing is a lot more fun if you're actually interested in the subject. • Jesse V.(talk) 15:46, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips, Jesse! I'm busy right now, but I'll look into syntax stuff over the weekend.. Thank you! Mapalazoo (talk) 23:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Good luck! You might want to look at Help:Wiki markup. Not a big deal but when if you are replying to a comment that starts with a bullet point, it's generally better to use two colons instead of one. That way its easy to see the tabbing over. I added one more for you; see the difference? Just a tip. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 23:41, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, regarding your new article, did you know about Did you know? :) &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 00:02, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Good job cleaning up the Meandrusa article! Keep up the good work!

 Theo polisme  23:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC) 

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Mapalazoo for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. Ryan Vesey 21:54, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

RfA
I just closed your RfA as Not now. Also, It was quite obvious that you were aiming at deception about your being "new to Wikipedia." That is an incredibly moronic idea as your edits are embedded in your contributions history for the world to view. -- ceradon talk contribs   22:19, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Mapalazoo, thanks for volunteering to help out as an admin, sorry that tanked so spectacularly. I can appreciate what you might be feeling as my first RFA failed A partial explanation of why people were so cautious about an undisclosed former account is that we've had a similar scenario which ended rather badly, and parts of the community are a tad wary of a cleanstart candidate at RFA. So my advice for the future is that the normal unwritten rule of waiting at least three months between RFAs is insufficient here; Either reconsider the secrecy of the former account, in which case if you've been a Wikipedian since 2010 and you have an FA then unless your former account was problematic a run in four months or so might well succeed. Alternatively if you aren't willing to disclose your former account then I'd recommend not running until you can say that you haven't edited under your former account for at least 18 months (two years might be safer). Hope that helps  Ϣere  Spiel  Chequers  22:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's a suggestion — why don't you log into the other account and use it to send a Special:EmailUser email to one of the functionaries (or just a normal email to OTRS) saying "This is Mapalazoo's old account, but please don't make the connection public"? This way, your identity could be checked privately: among other things, my objection at the RFA related to WP:ADMINSOCK wouldn't be relevant, as the functionary could have gone to the RFA and said "I can confirm that Mapalazoo's old account isn't an admin currently and hasn't edited in X amount of time".  Resolving difficulties caused by confidentiality issues is a big reason why we have functionaries.  Nyttend (talk) 02:47, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

In fact, following on from the SPI listed above, I have blocked this account. If the editor would care to contact me privately, we can discuss the issue ablove. Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)