NOTE: The "Wikipedian world" and "real worlds" are different. In the Wikipedian world, we worry about having perfect and/or detailed userpages, having extra user "rights" to imply that we are "regulars". In the real word, we do not worry about all those weird stuff. In the real world, we can keep our user pages simple if we wish, and we don't need any the permissions other than the ones we already have (to show anything).
- 1 Userboxes
- 2 Points about this community
- 3 Compliments vs criticisms
- 4 Inflame vs Defuse
- 5 Maturity
- 6 Do not lie
- 7 Windows 7 vs Windows 8
- 8 Responsibility and responsibility disclaimer
- 9 Rights and hat collecting
- 10 Twinkle
- 11 My knowledge of wikis in MediaWiki
- 12 English Wikipedia and relation of other wikis
- 13 Social networking
- 14 About arguing
- 15 About what I've been learning in my course, and what I know about other wikis
Points about this community
- Wikipedia should not be strictly an encyclopedia - This is a wiki, although it's encyclopedia-oriented. The whole point is that not only just the article namespace can be edited, other namespaces also can. But if only the article namespace could be edited by contributors, then this would definitely be a strictly encyclopedia. Some users also like to edit wikis to do other work other than to build an encyclopedia. Stop counting the percentage of a user's total edits to namespace, but instead count how many edits they have to each namespace.
- Sometimes the rules do get broken here, like for example when a user is uncivil. Do you honestly think that you are civil when you are rude? One of the points is that if you think constructive criticism is by saying something like "Please do not do that, it is disruptive" is constructive critism, it is negative. What constructive critism is "Hi. I'd like you to know what you did was disruptive. Please do not do that in the future". I advise editors that are rude to watch their tones, and please say it more politely. In fact, rather than saying "be civil", I'd rather say "be polite". Thanks.
Like for example, there was a time I got blocked for 6 months, and I am actually quite curious to know what I did disruptive. Was that block really a precautionary measure in case I was going to be disruptive?
- Another point was that I dropped my goal for adminship, many editors said that the problems were coming from my (former) goal to becoming an administrator. And when I dropped that goal, I got more disruptive?
- Assume good faith - Seriously, if someone has good intentions, assume that they made a mistake or something. For example, spam is indeed inappropriate on the internet. But a user might be advertising about something, and they may not realize that they are advertising.
Compliments vs criticisms
Do not be fastidious - Why are you not able to see positive contributions of another editor, and only negative. I have been a long time wanting to know how I was not praiseworthy. I would suggest all those that are fastidious, please discontinue from being fastidious.
Inflame vs Defuse
And also, do not confront - basically if you're annoyed in a situation about something, tell the other person calmly about it. Please do not fight in any situation, and seriously please follow dispute resolution. (In my past wikilife, I got into many fights and conflicts with other editors, confronting them. But I realize I was doing it the wrong way, basically, I need to respond in a calm, serious manner. And as well I was younger, so I had no idea how to go about it.)
When situations get increased/inflamed or decreased/defused.
I go to college. And passed my certificate course. It would sure be helpful if you could say how I am being immature.
Do not lie
- Do not lie
Windows 7 vs Windows 8
I use Windows 8, and I prefer Windows 8 over Windows 7.
Responsibility and responsibility disclaimer
Please note that if someone tells you that you have been doing wrong, it's not you, it's entirely up to the one who said you have been doing wrong. Why? Because the one who said you are doing wrong did not say what you did wrong. It's not your fault you made the mistake, the other Wikipedian who said you were wrong should explain what you did.
So, if anyone who says I am causing problems -- it's not in any way my problem that I have been causing problems, the one who stated or claimed that I have been making problems should be the one to say it.
So, as in my 6-month block, the ones who were entirely responsible for the block was the members in the community who supported the block, not me. As I do not see what I did wrong. But I'm still wondering what I did wrong to be blocked for 6 months.
Because one of the things in real life, everyone does see the good in others -- meaning that if they are problematic in any way, they still see the "good", encouraging them to go the right way, etc. Here on Wikipedia, the community almost never sees the "good" in others, and treats them as if they are useless or "incompetent", or otherwise they can't do the thing what they want them to do. Also, in real life, there are ALWAYS "can-do" hopes of others, on Wikipedia there is almost no "can-do" hopes by other contributors assuming of others.
Rights and hat collecting
I thoroughly echo (and endorse) this comment and this comment. -- We should not be calling editors "incompetent", not by any means. And we shouldn't be saying that editors are "collecting too many hats". If users want rights, for darns sake, they're wanting the extra rights to help out in many ways.
Please note that I don't use Twinkle regularly. I only use it every-now-and-then, and only when I need to use it. And I don't have it enabled on my account, I only enable it through gadgets, and then disable it.
My knowledge of wikis in MediaWiki
Please note that I do know about how the admin, bureaucrat and oversight functions and tools work, because I own some MediaWiki wikis. (And I also know checkuser, because I was a member of a test wiki that had it, but I might have forgotten it.)
English Wikipedia and relation of other wikis
In my opinion, the English Wikipedia is the main wiki of all wikis on the internet. And it is likely that the English Wikipedia might have inspired other wikis to have conflicts in them from the English Wikipedia's conflicts.
In regards to social networking, I most certainly believe that Wikipedia isn't a social networking site. I only use Facebook/MySpace/YouTube/etc for social networking, because on those sites I have only my own friends. Here on Wikipedia, we edit with some other strangers that use this project, so that is why this is most certainly NOT a social networking site.
If I have to talk more about my beliefs of using Wikipedia (or any site) as social networking, I should probably discuss about it on Meta (the main wiki of Wikimedia Foundation wikis, in light with/contrast to WP:IGNOREMETA).
Please note that arguing is something that I loathe very much, as I have already stated. And other editors are alleging me as "arguing". Arguing is something that I hate and despise so much. And if someone argues with me, I try not to take the bait, and act normally and maturely. But I have zero tolerance on arguing.
In some cases arguing may be good or okay, but for me, it is unusual, so for me, I am not going to argue. Arguing isn't my type of thing, and I'd ask you to cease from arguing with me (or anybody).
About what I've been learning in my course, and what I know about other wikis
What I've been learning in school is about assertiveness -- the four behavioral responses: "passive", "aggressive", "indirect" and "assertive". I have now experience how to use assertiveness of all behavioral responses.
Note that in regards to the four behavioral responses, it is also called "handling conflicts". ("Handling conflicts" is not what I learned in school, but it is based on what I learned in school. Because, in my school I learned something about handling conflict, or at least, just "conflicts".)
I also know about constructive feedback and negative feedback, and I'd like others to use more constructive feedback. Example(s) are:
- Negative feedback: "You have been doing that very unwell, and you don't seem to be getting it no matter what."
- Constructive feedback: "Please try doing it like this from now on. It will help you become a better editor"
Note that there is a lot more examples of constructive and negative feedback, but I will only add this one example for now.
Also, negative feedback is more generalised, and, does not offer any solutions. While, constructive feedback, on the other hand, specifies the actual problem, offers the (possible) solutions, and basically free from all emotions.
But, the main thing is that: negative criticisms provides attack on the person's character rather than on their actual behavior, while constructive criticisms are more specific about behavior and the solutions.
Also, one more thing: there is a difference with warnings and reverts on English Wikipedia and other wikis, such as:
- Wikipedia: "Please stop doing that, or you will be blocked."
- Other wikis: "Please stop doing that. This is a formal warning."
And with reverts, English Wikipedia states "reverted edits by user", while other wikis don't have that, but only states the edit summary reason, not the "reverted" part in the edit summaries. (Imagine wikis that don't use MediaWiki like TV Tropes.)
Also, another thing: Wikipedia uses the word "restore", while other wikis use "re-add", I think both mean the same, but using "re-add" is the more useful term.
Also, I don't use the same user name on the internet anymore like I used to.