Wikipedia talk:Reach out/Archive 1

Archive 1

Utilization?

Can anyone please tell me how this is supposed to be utilized? _→AzaToth 19:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

This is the place to give (or receive) moral support to (from) Esperanzians when you're stressed or upset. Fetofs ^Hello! 23:10, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

But is it a place to try to rally support for RfCs or arbitration, or to rant about the evil admin cabal, etc.? This needs a bit more defining. Thanks. Harro5 03:52, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a place to rant about "the issues of life" :) Fetofs ^Hello! 12:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

That wouldn't be Wikipedia related! I think it's for if someone feels the entire community is conspiring against them, and wants to hear a helpful voice. Ashibaka tock 16:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Redirect this page to There Is No Cabal, or Wikipedia:Words of Wisdom. Fetofs ^Hello! 22:59, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

• Don't redirect this page anywhere. I created this page as a place for Esperanzans to come when they need a friendly word, or they're feeling ignored or trod upon. The last thing I want is for it to be located in some backwoods corner of Wikipedia where only the adventurers can find it. Neither of the two proposed redirect points have as their agenda providing assurance or comfort for those whose Wikipedia experience is or has been a negative one. Quite the contrary in the case of Wikipedia:Words of wisdom, which notes as its first statement that "the universe does not revolve around you". Well, in times of trial, it seems that it does, so let's cut our dear friends a little slack. I agree that this is not a place for "issues of life". If someone has an issue with their boss or a significant other, there are better places to seek help than Wikipedia. I envision this as what Ashibaka says. And yes, rants are appropriate here. Denni ☯ 01:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you didn't understand the joke... You should reach out for a while :) Fetofs ^Hello! 12:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, text humor does not translate so well. If you look at your comment again, you should be able to note that there are no humor-signalling words. Without a tone of voice to guide me, I could only take what you said seriously. Denni ☯ 00:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok. Let's try not to get too stressed about things, shall we? Fetofs ^Hello! 00:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, for some way to textually signal tone of voice. Unfortunately, emoticons don't cut it for me... Stress? What f**king stress? (Kidding!!) Denni ☯ 20:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Colignatus

I got this email today and promised to post it here:

Hi CelestialPower,

I've run into a problem, see e.g. my user talk page User_talk:Colignatus and this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Colignatus.

I found this reach-out program from Esperanza: "No one can know how we feel if we do not say. We cannot expect to get understanding if we do not ask for it. No one will dispute that sometimes life's issues are too much for one person. It is fair to say that sometimes Wikipedia's problems fall under the same heading. This is a place where you can bring the bruises that can sometimes be got on this project for attention."

My reasons to contact you are a bit diverse. You seem like a sympathetic person to talk to. We also seem to share some interests. You may appreciate my edit of the article on Sustainable national income. You may appreciate as well my edits that however got deleted in the problem that I referred to, see User_talk:Colignatus#List_of_removed_contributions. Also, I don't want any formal wikipedia process at this stage, just a sympathetic ear from someone who might give some advice. As you state that you are a student, you may be sensitive to the issue of the relation of students and their teachers, as well.

I am new at wikipedia since Feb 28 2006. Originally my edits on economics and risk were accepted, but I ran into a problem with someone on voting theory. This person didn't check the facts and didn't study my arguments, threw all kinds of links and procedures at me, created a RfC page, wrote a biased report, and got me blocked on March 11. Another user, Rhobite, then was inspired to remove also my edits on economics. Due to time limitations, I only could give my RfC reply on March 20th. However, the people listed there had given their position before that date. Since March 20th, nothing has happened. While being blocked indefinitely, it seems that I have to wait indefinitely ? PM. User Stifle is the only one who wrote me that he has read my reply, but I can't make much of his reply. In the mean time, wikipedia now contains a misleading page voting system (referred to on politics - while the pages on economics don't contain the solution to unemployment. Thus, I have to advice people not to use wikipedia, etcetera, which I feel is unfortunate given the potential of wikipedia.

I have been thinking that perhaps I should explain on meta-wiki that scientists already via their profession have the ethic that underlies much of wikipedia: NPOV, verifiability, civility, modesty with respect to autobiography, and the like. And that it is perfectly reasonable for scientists to contact each other in the real world. I had to laugh, reading Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(academics)#professorial_publishing_not_inherently_notable, but, my impression is that wikipedia could benefit from more scientists openly joining up - guarded of course by everybody else so that the writing remains readable. However, if I were to write such a meta-wiki article / proposal, I would not actually want the burden of this dispute on my behalf. It is one thing that this RfC shows that wikipedia is hostile to science, but it is another thing how to remedy that. I'd rather be free to discuss this relationship of wikipedia to science and scientists, without the burden of this RfC and this block.

My regards,

Thomas Cool / Thomas Colignatus

Anyone here think they could investigate and spread some Esperanzial love? --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I was going to, but someone seems to have blocked him! EvocativeIntrigue _{TALK | EMAIL}

Deep breaths

Two users are annoying me - User:Bling-chav and User:Piedras grandes. The former nominated me for adminship when I wasn't quite ready, for something as trivial as using the welcome template on his talk page, and the other puts templates in silly places. I've emailed them several times but no Luck. can anyone spread the love, not hate? I think both are people who are just in the wrong place at the wrong time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4836.03 (talk • contribs)

Both users have not been active for a while, one has been blocked indefinitely and the other has not edited since January 24. Whatever has gone on in the past, I doubt that you will run into them again. Sadly, in a big online community like Wikipedia, unpleasant things like these happen. Sometimes it's a result of 'bad faith', often it caused by problems in the communication causing misunderstandings. I believe that in this case, it's probably best to leave this episode behind you and go on, since these people are no longer active. From your contributions, it looks like you've found your way into the areas that you're interested in, it would probably be best to focus on that - it makes being around here more fun and less stressful! --JoanneB 09:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ooh, thanks. I have an Idea - perhaps, new users should not be allowed to take part in administrative processes. That way:

• The likes of Piedras grandes wouldn't be messing around with templates.
• The likes of Bling-chav wouldn't be messing up RfA
• We wouldn't be getting new users voting in RfA and VfD because someone in a forum told them to.

Or am I too radical and silly? --{{subst:user|4836.03}} 16:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Well at present, new users (those under 4 days) can't participate in Admin/VfD etc. Templates are often ingrained into articles (example being Pokémon and music infoboxes) so that's probs not a best idea. Hope this helps, Highway 14:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I hurt

The two articles I've written for Wikipedia in which I've taken the most pride (and I've written many) have been both in a single swoop voted for removal from featured article status. I have pretty much lived and breathed Wikipedia for the last two years. This kick in the stomach makes me wonder what I was doing with my time. I'm really questioning whether I want to be part of this any more. Denni ☯ 22:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about that. But don't give up hope yet! Weather lore and Crash test dummy are two of the three newest deletion candidates - just because there is no support for the articles yet does not mean it is not out there. Plus, the reasons for considering removal of FA status do not seem too hard to remedy, if they are valid. Your contributions are very important, even if a few people disagree! -- Natalya 22:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I too am sorry to hear that and I certainly congratulate you on Crash test dummy - it's fantastic! A few minor referencing issues but overall, a great article, well done! You're an asset to Wikipedia and I hope this doesn't drive you away! --Celestianpower ^háblame 10:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that. Don't worry, dude, things'll work out. Your other articles are good.--suit-n-tie 05:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that too. Featured article removal requests are essentially an avenue for your peers to express their suggestions on how you can make your article even better. Please don't consider it as a kick in the stomach, but rather, help.-- Selmo ^(talk) 04:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense articles

I am an administrator who spends a lot of time on NewPages patrol. I think it is a very important and understaffed task and it can actually be very entertaining and interesting sometimes. However, I am becoming very irritated with the amount of nonsense articles which are very similar, particularly ones where people attack their classmates, apparently because they are gay. I have deleted hundreds of these, and it is hard to imagine that hundreds of people feel the need to create such pages. Academic Challenger 04:56, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

The amount of hatred in the world sucks, there's no doubt about it. There are a lot of not very nice people out there, as you seem to run into with all the degrading articles. But just remember, for all the awful people, there are just as many (if not more!) nice people, who teach peace and acceptance. Try to concentrate on the goodness, not the badness. And you're helping loads by deleting all the garbage! -- Natalya 05:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the NewPages patrol is understaffed. Just as an experiment, I went to that page, read the list, and reloaded the page. Just in the space of a minute or two, nearly fifty pages had been added. I also sympathize with you that many of them are drek - this is one of the major drawbacks of an everyone-can-edit encyclopedia. If it will help you maintain perspective, there are about a million registered users of Wikipedia at this point - that only hundreds of them see the need to pile our plates with steaming heaps of shit is not too bad. Thanks for being in the front line of Wikipedia's tireless helper corps. Keep up the good work! Denni ☯ 00:18, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with you on this. I've even seen people at my own school doing it as well. I think they made one about me being gay once, as well. (Like that bothered me, I am gay) Well, the Newpages patrol is definately understaffed and I'm trying to put a little more time into it myself. I'm fed up of general vandalism on WP articles that put "<Whoever> is gay" as well, I mean these people seriously need to evaluate the way they spend their time. Beno1000 11:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza loveless?

On some of the channels, a few users I have seen were deflecting Esperanza. Many of whom I talked to said that there is no Wikilove in it. I had an idea to restore some of the Community back In Esp. I think we are losing our Wikilove as Wikipedians, and as Esperanzians. Some of the new policys I have to admit are a bit crazy, but it's what the community has become thats the problem. It has gotten so personal, that users attack editors who have other ideas. Well, our community has taken a fateful path known as Wikihate. We should consider the ideas of others, and try them out instead of kicking them off the channel for thinking otherwise. The moral is this: Esperanza was a good place to be, but now well...we are kicking people who are not members off #wikipedia-esperanza. I am having second thoughts to this project... Whopper 00:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

When I felt like I was being kicked heartily in the backside, I had Esperanzans come to my support. There are many super people here. I know it's hard to think of the good ones when you're beseiged with idiots, but they =are= here, and they do care. I hope you will stay on - the only way to combat the bad acts here is to remember your friends and to come here for support. There was a time when there was no Esperanza - I care not to go back to those times! Denni ☯ 00:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with Denni. Esperanza is still full of the same loving members, we just all need a bit of a respite in order to come back refreshed and awesome. -- Natalya 18:13, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Ten thousand edits

Yay for me - I've reached a big benchmark - 10000 edits and my 150th article almost simultaneously. Yes, I'm looking for pats on the back. If they only knew what I do at work... Denni ☯ 17:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Good job, Denni! I don't even know how many edits I have. What is your 150th article called, by the way?--Chili14^(T|C) 14:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah! You're good at this, dude! You've got way more than me at least! What's the article about, anyway? Now I'm interested, too! Keep up the good work!--suit-n-tie 05:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

HELP

My user page keeps getting vandalised - is there any way somebody could tweak it so that no-one - apart from myself - can edit it? Kingfisherswift 17:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I've warned the offending IP user about it, but with their past history of vandalising your page, if they continue, they'll be blocked. -- Natalya 17:36, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Copyvio this Copyvio that

When I was new, i didnt understand copyvio n all that, so I added some text that apparently wasn't sufficently different to the original, and was considered copyvio, it was removed, and I thought all was well. So I carried on working on the article, and put it up for FA, and now its failing, because the initial copyvio was handled poorly by the user who deleted and parts were left, and the article wasn't deleted or something, I dont know. But basically, I wrote almost all of this article FIFA World Rankings and I think they're threatening to delete it because of its history, and a single paragraph that remained after the copyvio was removed, and it most certainly wont pass it's FA now, because of all of this. Basically I am completely gutted and don't know what to do. Whats the point of putting all the effort in if some guy just goes trigger happy with copyvio templates and its all gone. Philc _T^E_C^I 17:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

What happened to you is wrong. I understand what it's like to be judged for things that are not your fault. Sadly, there is little you can do. However, there are several editors that have the power to mediate any disputes that come up. Check our member list for more help. Nezzadar 01:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. It sort of worked out in the end, though it failed its FA, it didnt get deleted, so its back to before I nominated it really. Philc _T^E_C^I 01:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ancient History

I've been trying really hard to get the article Controversy over racial characteristics of Ancient Egyptians to move in a new direction. It's basically one constant edit war. User:Jottce had a brilliant idea for forking the article (after I moved it to have a more neutral title) which I really think would work. But the people who have been editing the article keep on warring with each other and blowing off the comments of Jottce and me.

This article has the potential to grow into two good articles. But individual agendas prevent it from being anything more than a battleground with a POV tag. I almost said something nasty to one of the editors today, who I was trying to support when she basically told me I don't know what I'm talking about.

I don't want to get an admin involved. I hate when users get blocked. But I think the only other option is to give up on this article and take it off my watchlist.

... :( - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 21:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, bit late- is it sorted yet? My userpage photo got removed by an admin who'd seen it several times before and ignored it today, so not too happy myself at the moment. EVOCATIVEINTRIGUE TALKTOME | EMAILME | IMPROVEME 23:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I doubt it, but I more or less abandoned the article. - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 06:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Che Nuevara (great name!). Your difficulties are a bit like the going round in circles that I am experiencing on Dhimmi, where there has recently been a mediation and there is currently a RfA going on. I'm trying to sort it out by going back several steps and identifying which papers and which authors we can get a consensus about including. Your article is a bit different because you're writing about a controversy and can include authors who are notable for their point of view even if they don't meet WP:RS. But would it help to try and get agreement about all the books, papers and websites that are notable enough to be mentioned in the article? The post by Grenavitar on my talk page and mine on his might be interesting too. Itsmejudith 11:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for both the comment and the insight. The article, which is still on my watchlist, has been quiet for a few days. I'll consider going back to it and making some new suggestions in light of your comments. :) - CheNuevara 14:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hope it helps and let us know how you get on.Itsmejudith 15:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Desperately seeking mathophobes

This probably isn't the place for it, but at least I'm not going to get my head bitten off :-)

As respite from editing articles with massive POV problems I turned to maths. I jumped straight in and challenged the square root page for being too technical. And immediately they have improved it, put my suggestions in a to-do list and said thanks too. Now I have to keep my promise to get some non-mathematicians to have a look and see if the new wording makes any sense to them. So if you never learnt much or can't remember much about square roots, you would do me a great favour by casting an eye over the article, especially the first sentence. And if you could put a note on my talk page or on the article's talk page saying whether you felt enlightened by the article or not it would be much appreciated. If I could do a favour in return, just ask. Itsmejudith 15:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a good article - I'm not a mathematician, and I understood nearly all of it. It might be nice to see the proof for the irrationality of sqrt2 - that's elegant, and pretty simple. --David Mestel^(Talk) 06:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I'll pass the idea on to those who have been editing the page. And I'm sure they'll be pleased for the feedback. Itsmejudith 18:03, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Great work! bibliomaniac15 03:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Informal rfc

I'm currently in an edit dispute. The page in question has been protected, so at least now we can try to work on a consensus. There are two parties involved. I've put in a WP:3O request, but I'd appreciate more pairs of eyes on the matter. Or however many eyes you have. I don't know if it's reached the RfC state yet, but some input from others would be appreciated. The page in question is King County Metro. See my talk page and Justforasecond's talk page for other info on the dispute. Thanks very much in advance. -- stubblyhead | ^T/_c 20:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Lacatosias

Hi. I'm here regarding Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias. He's done some astounding works on philosophy articles. His article on Hilary Putnam was actually shown to Prof. Putnam by a journalist from the New Yorker; Putnam commented that it was very professional and better than the one in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. His comment was reprinted in the New Yorker article. Francesco then nominated it to be a featured article, and met with (in my opinion) unjustifiably harsh pedantry. People could've still provided the same input without hurting him as much. Anyways, it appears he's in the process of leaving Wikipedia: he blanked his user page and he replaced his talk page with his comment from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Hilary Putnam, which shows tremendous personal grief. I hope some Esperanzans can leave a message on his talk page appreciating his hard work and expressing some support and comfort. Ori.livneh 13:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Reached out! I also gave him a Barnstar for his efforts I hope it make him smile! Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I added a little something. But see below. Itsmejudith 22:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Feeling a little bruised

I've been doing more than is good for me on highly controversial topics. And now I'm getting my integrity challenged. It comes with the territory, but this time I'm taking it harder than I thought. It's so good to know that there is somewhere like this, where "be nice" is taken seriously. Thanks everyone. Itsmejudith 22:51, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

• Hey there, Judith! I'm so sorry to hear you're discovering the less friendly side of Wikipedia. Controversial topics are dangerous territory, in the real world and in the Wikiworld. You seem like a great editor and person to me. Sometimes editors let their rough side show and you can get scraped, but under nearly every hard shell is a soft and caring soul, just like yours. I'd suggest for the time being working on less controversial topics, just to give yourself a little break, although your contributions are very valuable. If you need a shoulder to lean on or a listening ear, I'll be right here and available on my talk page. I'll see if I can do anything about those less than friendly users, too. ;) Srose (talk) 20:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Feeling bruised Too, need some help

I'm attempting to expand a contentious page right now and there is this one user (Won't mention any names, that isn't a good way to go about things) with citation fever. They keep reverting any just about every sentence that isn't individually cited, even if it's just a continuation from the one above, I'm now having to cite the same source about 20 times just to be able to get a single section of the page through 24 hours without complete reversion.

What's worse, is that they keep demanding sources that are above and beyond WP:V (they want sorces that illistrate the existance of opinons and beliefs to be swapped for sources that prove these opionions and beliefs to be scientifically true).

I could do with somebody to gently remove them from the page (They haven't yet added anything to it themselves, just deleted or bashed what I have ben adding), and to help me to bring what I can up to WP:V and WP:RS etc. Some help from a bigger brother or sister sure would be appreciated.

perfectblue 18:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit thank you to everybody who dropped by with advice, I was really down and stuck in a rut, but now things are moving along thanks to all of the useful tips and help.

perfectblue 09:39, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Feeling a lot bruised

I as well. JBKramer 19:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi JBKramer. Hope you're feeling better. Having looked at the stuff you're into (complicated, important...), I would have thought people would appreciate your contributions. If you want to talk about it, we're here for you. I got some nice stuff from Esperanzans after my reach-out post, and a wikibreak has worked wonders too. Itsmejudith 19:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Something's Weird With the Blocking Rule

There's been a certain weird thing that's going on. Now before I begin, I'll say that this has to do a lot with my observations of User:Cute 1 4 u, User:Lindsay1980, and User:Bethicalyna. Now, these users were blocked with the rationale of "claiming to be an 11 year old [or whatever young age], similar writing style to other blocked editors who claimed to be 8 and 9 respectively." I was thinking, "What type of rationale is this?" On the blocking policy page, nowhere does it say that age impersonation was a reason to be blocked. How can you be sure of a Wikipedian's age if you don't know them personally? It's sort of puzzling to me. I'm not sure Esperanza is the right place to talk about this, but I'm hoping that my doubts will be dispelled. Also, User:The Anome, if you happen to come by this message, I hope you'll help me with a better rationale. bibliomaniac15 02:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I was involved in the discussion about Cute 1 4 u (I believe it is in the WP:AN/I archives; it was fairly recent but I don't know what archive it may be in). Cute 1 4 u wasn't blocked just because of her age (which we know because she professed it several times). She was blocked because she and several other young users formed a WikiProject to vandalize other Wikis. Currently, the Wikimedia Foundation is trying to come up with a solution for the safety of youngsters. According to Florida state law (Florida is the state in which the English Wikipedia's servers can be found), minors under 13 cannot communicate with strangers on the Internet. Cute 1 4 u and her friends may be unblocked after a lengthy block because of their WikiProject, but they will also have to hide their ages for their own safety and per legal issues. Srose (talk) 21:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. bibliomaniac15 22:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't mention it! I'm glad to be of help. :) Have a great day! Srose (talk) 23:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Needing guidance from a more experienced user

My edits on a specific page keep being reverted by another editor who keeps quoting general WP policies at me, but never gets down to telling me what exactly what was wrong, where it was wrong, or how to put it right (The delete everything and mumble WP:V or something similar).

However, they are a much longer term user than I am and they keep threatening me with the admin each time I try to justify my edits, or when I try to add said WP:V source.

I'm seeking a more experienced mentor who can explain sympatheticly what I'm doing wrong (if anything) and to help me to put it right, so that the other editor will get off of my back and I can have an edit that lasts more than 24 hours.

Appologies if this isn't the right place to put this (if not here, then where would be good?).

perfectblue 18:26, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Responded on user's talkpage. - CheNuevara 22:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Next time you see one, check it out! You might learn something new. bibliomaniac15 23:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Truly Ticked Off

There's this user, that won't stop putting up personal attacks and continuously vandalized my talk page earlier, could someone help me out? I'm truly ticked off.--Atomic-Super-Suit^{What Have I Done?!} 04:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

What kind of help do you require? I would like to do what I can. -SaturnYoshi ^{THE VOICES} 05:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of userpages is taken very seriously at Wikipedia, and you can report the user here. -- Selmo ^(talk) 22:56, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Ugh

I was discussing some recent edits to the D.C. ～Da Capo～ article with a fellow who might be Nikkei (Japanese-American—did a little 'research' on the guy), and I almost had a breakdown at the keyboard. The guy is intensely passionate about renai games (which the article is about), and almost seems to consider any edit outside of the game's canon as useless "nonsense". But to be blunt as he is, he simply isn't courteous on talk pages, nor does he write English in an encyclopedic style.

Unfortunately, I'm an anime fan, and D.C. (which the article also is about) is one of my favorite shows of all time. No, that's not the unfortunate part. The unfortunate part is that the anime is an adaptation of the game with the same title, with some details that are significantly different from the game that it's based on. So you might imagine my frustration when he culled a few anime-based details from the article. I tried to (with little success) calmly talk it over with him on the talk page, and he subtly insulted my intelligence and my own knowledge of Japanese. So I decided to do the hard thing and distance myself from that article, saving a copy from the history in case someone decides to split it.

I'm sure I'm in the ranks of guys who don't know a lick of Japanese but watch inaccurately-fansubbed anime and think they know a thing or three about nihongo in his eyes now. No matter that the truth is my parents are both Japanese, and I sacrificed many a Saturday taking Japanese school when I was younger. I know there are people like him in the world, but every time I get smacked around like this, well, it's just embittering.

Okay, rant over. Sorry if I sound overly judgmental or depressing. Magus Melchior 06:59, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel with you, man. There's always people out there who simply rufuse to be civil and courteous. If there's anything I can do to help, just let me know. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 16:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Bummed Out

I should have expected it eventually, but all the hard work I've put into the article about the band Sinai Beach is about to go to waste. Since they haven't really achieved mainstream success, they're not notable, which means the band, and the three related album articles are gone.

Such is the way of Wikipedia I guess... it doesn't help that I just had to go through an earthquake, either. --Limetom 20:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't lose hope! There may yet be valid reasons to keep it. -- Natalya 02:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. Everything'll be fine, so cheer up, pal. --ASNT^{Contributions} 02:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it's no big deal. Besides, there are more important things in life besides Wikipedia. -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 02:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the support. I went back and looked at it, and not only were there vaild reasons to keep it, as per the verifiability guidelines, the user who added the tag seems to have an agenda against Christian Metal in general. He even tried, unsuccesfully, to get the article on the genre its self deleted. Go figure. --Limetom 03:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

More important things than Wikipedia? WHAT? Blasphemy! Laurən^whisper 15:56, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't say anything. I knew this would happen one day

...but my user page had some inflammatory comment on it thanks to some vandal called Brainyshane640 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), before Metropolitan90 (talk · contribs · count) reverted it some time later. Hasn't "Shane" got anthing better to do? (I'd rather see my page get semi-protected here. A similar scenario happened at SIMPLE earlier in the year.) --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 19:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, vnadalism is something that is a result of Wikipedias open nature. It is something we will have to just put up with. But I'm sure the comments were not directed personally, but merely provided a few seconds of amusement for a rather sad individual. Philc _T^E_C^I 19:28, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

• • What phil said, but. Wikipedia is an easy way to create an account and start "expressing yourself." [wossi]

Sometimes I can't help thinking that Wikipedia should be a little less open, particularly when it comes to user pages. I know that protecting pages is a slippery sloap and there is no perfect answer... but the amount of vandalism and personal attacks that go on sometimes gets to all of us.

perfectblue 11:48, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Arg!

This happened a few days ago, but this really won't stop bugging me. Geez, some racist vandalized my user page, and I'm kinda steamed 'bout that.--SUIT^{What!? 42!} 06:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry! That's just mean. But don't let the vandals get to you, they're just silly. -- Natalya 14:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, vandals are silly, man. People like that just don't know what to do with themselves during their free time. My page was vandalized twice recently, both by the same person, I think (here and here). Just don't let it get to you! After all, sticks and stones, and all that :-) -- P.B. Pilhet / Talk 17:20, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You'd think that all vandals are childish schoolboys. bibliomaniac15 Review? 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Vandals are just trying to get on your nerves. Just ignore them and report them. They're just being childish. Hmrox 02:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

"The world is changed. I feel it in the water. I feel it in the earth. I smell it in the air."

I'm pretty stressed right now. After the deletion of many Esperanzian programs, this one is essentially the only one left to voice an opinion. But to get to the root of my struggle, I am frustrated that Esperanza does not fulfill its introduction.

"Esperanza is an association of Wikipedians dedicated to strengthening Wikipedia's sense of community. In order to accomplish this, Esperanza has a variety of programs that are designed to help editors feel more appreciated, combat stress, and generally lend support to the hard-working people here who need it. Esperanza also strives to be a friendly and approachable community, and Esperanzians are encouraged to be civil and helpful to all editors.

Like all Wikipedians, members of Esperanza are here to create an encyclopedia. Esperanza tries to improve the encyclopedia's community because that in turn decreases stress, increases positive reinforcement, and tends to keep editors happy, productive, and on the project. A stronger community means better retention of new and existing members, and greater interaction in building the encyclopedia as a whole. In short, Esperanza believes that if we make the community a better place to be, we are also helping to make the encyclopedia better."

Now, this introduction should be able to explain the presence of Esperanza and its activities. But it was listed for deletion. Ironically, the so-called "Fun Police," an anti-fun society, and the Association of Deletionist Wikipedians have not even been nominated once.

Also, the introduction technically guards against the "uncyclopedic" argument. As it states, making the community a better place is helping the encyclopedia, albeit indirectly. Unfortunately, most Wikipedians look at the direct "encyclopedic" help. And most unfortunately, stress and positive reinforcement are rampant with the recent MFDs. You can disprove me, but all I need is some Esperanzian stress relief right now. bibliomaniac15 00:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)