User talk:Heymid/2010 September

Proposed deletion of Niklas Lundström

The article Niklas Lundström has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has yet to play in Elitserien, and has only played one game in HockeyAllsvenskan to date. Therefore, he does not meet the notability requirements per WP:Athlete#Ice hockey.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Tooga - BØRK! 22:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Until he has played a game in a top professional ice hockey league, he's not notable. See WP:Athlete#Ice hockey. Tooga - BØRK! 22:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Niklas Lundström

I have nominated Niklas Lundström, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Niklas Lundström. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Tooga - BØRK! 22:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Using the word "trolling" in an edit summary is almost never acceptable. Please do not use that terminology again. If you have any concerns about any edits related to that page (or by the user involved), please contact an arbitrator or Arbcom via email at <arbcom-l@lists.wikimedia.org>. Risker (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see my reply to your second post in the section below. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit

[1] Why do the cats insist on toying with this? Rlevse placed an arbcom block with talk page block. Don't you think, perhaps, that if the picture was a big problem, AC or Rlevse would have done something about it then? Gimmetoo (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

You are right. But I believed that was nonsense, so I reverted it. Apparently, the edit summary in my revert was removed. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you routinely go about removing edits you consider "nonsense" from the talk pages of other users? Please tell me you don't. And perhaps your next action might be to remove that talk page from your watchlist; just a suggestion. Risker (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand you. But I don't have it in my watchlist; I went to his contributions page, and saw that his block had been modified to revoke talk page access. Because of that, I looked for something that could explain why the admin did that, and apparently I found out that today he made that edit, which I reverted. Wasn't it an excessive measure to remove my edit summary in that case? I don't believe it was so offensive, and even not at all. Also, why are you still watching that page? His talk page access is currently revoked, so there is no reason to watch it. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I am the arbitrator who made the initial block. And yes, an edit summary of "trolling" is almost always offensive, regardless of who the user is, particularly when there was nothing trolling about the edit you reverted. In fact, I don't understand why you redirected the page either, but I'm not going to undo it. Risker (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have seen other users reverting users' (constructive) edits with the inappropriate explanation "trolling", but their edit summaries have (most of the times) stayed visible. But I'm not surprised that you hided my edit summary, since you are an arbitrator and are/were therefore watching that user talk page. Also, I am really surprised it only took you two minutes to discover it, you really must be watching your watchlist very often. Anyway, feel free to revert back if you don't agree with my revert, but you say above that you're not going to do it anyway. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Users above asked you to stop meddling. Yet here you are again today, meddling? –xeno^talk 16:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I am meddling; I am saying the truth. Anyway, move on now. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Some friendly advice

Hello Heymid, when I looked in here to place the "talkback" template, I noted several instances of heated exchange above. As a friendly piece of advice, I think it might be a good idea to try to read through them again, and try to follow them. There are editors who leave complaints that can be ignored at other editor's talk pages (perhaps I belong in that category myself), but editors that are familiar with processes mostly leave advice that should be considered. If you're eager to contribute, why don't you for example focus for a while on improving stub-class articles related to Swedish sports teams and sports people? There are very many of those, where there should be room for expanding with referenced information or updating. In many cases, they should be possible to bring from stub- to start-class with a reasonable effort. This should be an area where you should be able to make constructive contributions with a relatively low risk of clashing with other editors. There are also other Sweden-related article categories where this would hold true, such as stub-class Swedish politicians (there are many one-line stubs on current and recent MPs), and Swedish government ministers from previous governments which don't have an article at all. These are of course just suggestions. Happy editing, Tomas e (talk) 12:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

Hello, there is a discussion at the administrators' incidents noticeboard regarding an incident with which you may be involved. Please note that this thread is not about you in particular, however you may be involved in the circumstances leading up to the event, so I figured it was wise to let you know of its presence. Please don't take this notice as any indication you have done something wrong. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Advice

Suggesting he may end up in front of arbcom and be de-sysoped is not very nice, almost a threat even. Really there was no need for you to get involved; certainly there was no reason to make that particular comment. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 19:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Blocked

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive636#Block review: Heymid.

Heymid, I've blocked you for a week. Despite mine and others' advice, you just won't stop meddling in matters that don't concern you and violating the letter and spirit of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Of course, you can appeal using {{unblock|your reason}}, but I suggest you take the time off and come back on a week to turn over a new leaf and utilise your very last chance to prove that your presence here is beneficial. It pains me to do this, Heymid, but you leave me with no choice after completely ignoring all the advice you've been given. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:59, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, please don't consider that comment offensive, a personal attack or threat. What I meant is that he may end up de-sysopped (although the risks may be very low). I agree that I was going a bit too hard at him – Right, but is such a behavior usually considered disruptive?

I feel myself getting more and more restrictive editing Wikipedia. I am in no way intending to harm or disrupt on Wikipedia. I know far worse users than me who are not indefinitely blocked. Blocking me for one or two comments shouldn't IMO lead to a block. I am at least glad for the fact that you didn't indef me.

Also, I still don't understand what "meddling" means. I tried using an online translator, but with no luck.

Last, but not least, thank you for the block. I believe it is needed, and I need to calm down. But I may be considering leaving Wikipedia; I am still young and I may be a better user in a few years. I also feel I am getting less and less welcome to the English Wikipedia (or any Wikipedia project at all). Thank you for your time. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, but is such a behavior usually considered disruptive? yes, I'm afraid so. HJ Mitchell is right - consider having a week off to mull over the comments being made. "Meddling" means getting involved in matters which don't really concern you. Commenting on Djsasso's talk page was not really needed - especially not in the way you did it. You are not being restricted in editing en.wiki, however you are being told to try and contribute to the Wiki and avoid getting too involved with the backroom matters because, in the past, that has not gone well. After all; we are here to write a wiki. I try my damnedest to try and maintain at least 60% article space edits every month for that reason! --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) FYI: Meddle, definitions 2 and 3. —DoRD (talk) 20:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At first, I probably misunderstood the situation, but I was notified of the ANI discussion, see the "Courtesy notice" section above. That triggered me to join the discussions regarding him.

Also, HJ Mitchell claims that I have totally ignored their advices brought to me, but I haven't. I have tried to do what I can in order to stop the meddling, but to no avail. Also, what means disruptive editing? /HeyMid (contributions) 20:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(After multiple ECs, replying to Heymid's first post) The problem is that you've been asked before to stay out of things that don't concern you, but you keep doing it. Things on WP generally have a way of sorting themselves out eventually, but when people make comments like those, it just increases the drama, which doesn't resolve the situation and generally makes people angry. I'm sorry to hear that you're considering leaving the project. I still believe that you can offer something constructive here if you follow the advice you're being given. You are welcome on the English Wikipedia for as long as your presence here is productive. You are young, but, in my experience, young people can mature and learn very quickly. Finally, don't think that people are out to get you, nor that you're unwelcome. I took on mentorship of User:Diego Grez and helped him turn around from a community banned editor, to someone who is now writing GAs. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Five more things:

1. You have numerous times cited "Diego Grez", I know his block history (I have read it very quickly). Also, he was not community banned, he was indefinitely blocked however.
2. The way I am being treated gives me the impression that I am not welcome to Wikipedia.
3. No one seems to appreciate my useful contributions here, and I have never been praised for them either.
4. I have been given the impression that everyone intentionally criticizes me by heart.
5. I will take a one-week break from Wikipedia, and consider coming back when the block has expired. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

With regard to #5, I think a week's break would be an excellent idea, and I look forward to seeing you at the end of it. (PS: people do appreciate your edits, thing is, it's generally readers who appreciate it, not always so much other writers ) Best wishes, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I feel a bit scary with the fact that the administrators (mainly HJ Mitchell and Djsasso) are watching me, even if I don't think they do.

Anyway, it's great to hear that at least you are appreciating my constructive edits. As I said above in number 5, I will take a one-week wiki-break and likely come back after that. I am not angry for the block; I understand why I have been blocked, but what I don't understand is why those messages by me were disruptive. I am going to bed now and I will be in school tomorrow, so I can't reply until somewhere in the afternoon, but still, feel free to reply to this message and the my reply in the section below. I also feel happy when there in fact are users willing to defend me! Thank you all! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heymid (talk • contribs) 20:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Review of this block is necessary

While I am not necessarily challenging this block, I think a review is necessary. As far as I understand there is nothing to prohibit any editor from commenting on anything, anywhere in all of Wikipedia, as long as the editor isn't violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:STALK (among others). I see the basis for this editor's blocking is listed as "violating the letter and spirit" of NPA and CIVIL, but also -interestingly- meddling in matters that don't concern you. While NPA and CIVIL are surely things that one can be blocked for, I am confused as how meddling can be justified. My request is thus- please provide WP:DIFFs to demonstrate the CIVIL and NPA violations and, hopefully, an explanation as to how and why a Wikipedia editor under no editing or interaction restrictions is prohibited from commenting on anything. Basket of Puppies 20:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Please read through the history of this talk page and its archives to understand the history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to admit, it's not my job to justify a block, but the job of the blocking admin to do so. I quickly read through the talk page but didn't see anything obvious. Again, I am only asking for a review of the blocking rationale, but not necessarily challenging it or demanding a lift. Basket of Puppies 20:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want a block review AN/I is the place to post it. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe the particular edit in question was [2], in which Heymid insinuated that an admin may lose their administrative privileges. Without casting opinion on the block, I imagine that it was felt that Heymid's comment violated WP:NPA as being a threat and as being an accusation about personal behavior that lacked evidence. "Serious accusations require serious evidence". WP:CIVIL also talks some what about ill considered accusations of impropriety. There's also been a pattern of disruption by Heymid (as Mitchell indicates above); this isn't exactly an isolated incident. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, a block for a week is justified? What major issue is this preventing that this editor has to be blocked for an entire week? Basket of Puppies 20:46, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Not saying I'm justifying it, just speculating on why it may have been made. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Right, that makes sense. I respectfully submit that a week long block is over-the-top. In fact, a block at all is likely too much. A strongly worded warning would have worked much better. Has that been tried? Basket of Puppies 20:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd need to check, but I'm fairly sure HJ warned Heymid when HJ lifted Decltype's last block of Heymid. The (un)block log references the possibility of an indef block. TFOWR 20:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I have already been warned earlier, but maybe those warnings weren't clear enough. As I've said earlier, I don't really understand why my comments were disruptive. As can be seen in the diffs below, I said he may end up being de-sysopped, but my suspicions are probably pretty weak. /HeyMid (contributions) 21:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

BoP, Heymid has been warned a number of times, by multiple admins and other editors. Please go through the history of this page before jumping to conclusions. Also, HJ has argued on behalf of Heymid to avoid them being blocked, so I'm confident that he didn't take this action lightly. —DoRD (talk) 21:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Accusing me of jumping to conclusions is WP:UNCIVIL and a violation of good faith. Basket of Puppies 21:08, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There are ongoing issues here which multiple people have eyes on - with the best will in the world, you need to read up on his talk page and the various AN/I threads that have been opened & he has contributed too in the past. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'm sorry, I certainly did not intend to WP:ABF, but I would also ask you to afford HJ the same good faith. —DoRD (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) I am the blocked user, and I can give you the two diffs here: [3] and [4]. Those were the diffs that caused this block. Also, HJ Mitchell claims that those comments by me effectively violate WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and cases of meddling. Also, I think that Djsasso currently feels satisfied that I am curently blocked now. Also, I can understand the fact that HJ Mitchell has blocked me. Finally, it seems that this block still is a bit controversial anyway? /HeyMid (contributions) 20:48, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

{{adminhelp}}

I would like a review of my block at WP:ANI, please. /HeyMid (contributions) 21:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the Djsasso remarks. It's the recent history of adding snide comments and remarks throughout the project and on user talk pages despite polite, politely stern, friendly, and finally stern remarks to avoid doing so. The user didn't, continued to do so, and is now blocked. Not just this issue. Jmlk17 21:16, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll request a review. If there's anything you want to say, I'll copy it over to ANI for you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Having observed Heymid's contributions on articles such as NHL series and NHL 11, I feel I should offer my opinion. Heymid, you have always come off as a little hostile, not in a malicious manner, but your tone always seem a little arrogant. When you first started editing, I recall modifying a number of your edits according to the Manual of Style and other policies. This can simply be attributed to the fact that English is not your first language, and I have absolutely no problem with that. You have helped a lot in reverting people added fake cover athletes, for example, and adding screenshots and updates, and it's much appreciated. I remember encouraging you to keep editing those articles, and you have done so.

On the other hand, on non-mainspace issues, you seem to misinterpret quite a bit. You have edited my talk page a couple of times, adding things such as userboxes and even an archiver, which I simply didn't want. To your credit, you did stop once I asked you to, and I was quite satisfied that I did not have to report someone whom I have worked with. I also noticed that you frequently modify other talk pages, not just mine, changing words and grammar, even though as talk pages, they should be kept as-is. There was also one incident in which you admonished a new user quite aggressively for an edit done in good faith, but I can't seem to find it.

I have been observing your talk page for a while, and I have to say that you are lucky that HJ Mitchell has been supporting you. I feel that most other editors, including me if I were an administrator, would have blocked you long ago, but HJ Mitchell has given you so many chances and such excellent advice that that fact that you have not followed that advice is quite astonishing. Again, even if there's no rule prohibiting you from editing non-mainspace articles, you should keep out of it for a while. Please, though, keep editing articles and take pride in what you've done, and worry not about what others do. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 21:20, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I will come up with a longer statement by myself later today in just a few hours, so please hang on during that time. /HeyMid (contributions) 10:32, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Adminhelp}}

Endorse HJ's block isn't incorrect at all; he has done everything he can in order to prevent further disruption from me. I wrote two bad messages yesterday which led to this block. The events that led to this block mean I will not accept, support, propose nor request an unblock.

Combining HJ's 2nd RFA and his prev contrib's log shows that HJ is probably an inexperienced administrator with little to no knowledge on how to handle problematic users like me. Therefore, it would be gladly appreciated with more feedback from more experienced administrators who have been at Wikipedia (and even an administrator here) for years. It would probably be greatly appreciated by HJ to recieve some good feedback on how to handle users like me in the future. Also some feedback regarding how I can solve my behavior would be gladly appreciated by me.

HJ, I would like to point out to you that I haven't ignored the advices you've written to me. I have read and tried to follow them. Like you (and other users) have adviced me, I have since completely ignored Tournesol and WP:SPI, which at least is a step forward.

Regarding my meddling with Djsasso, please note that Shirik somewhat triggered me to join the discussions regarding Djsasso, by (as seen in the diff) putting up a courtesy notice with the WP:ANI-discussion, because I was probably somewhat involved in the Djsasso case. When I wrote at his (Djsasso's) user talk page, I didn't understand that BoP was talking to him, not me. Thus, it became a case of misunderstanding each other. It's basically my history of messages that don't supply anything to the discussions that is the reason as to why I am currently blocked.

Probation terms

I have come to a few final points which I believe are worth covering. The terms are the following:

1. I am banned from editing any page in the user space, except for my own user page. However, IMO, this shouldn't include fixing of obvious typo errors. However, if I want to add or modify material or other sorts of controversial edits, which may be reverted, I have to be absolutely sure I have the permission to do so by asking for permission at the user in question's user talk page.
2. I am banned from adding or modifying material at user's user talk page. As written above, I have to ask for permission from the user in question before doing it.
3. I am not allowed to join discussions which I am not involved in anyhow. However, I think I should be allowed to post a message saying for example that the user in question has been blocked, etc. Basically, something that does supply something to the discussion.
4. I am not allowed to refactor (modify) someone else's comments.
5. Any violation of these probation terms and I'll be indefinitely blocked. Those probation terms will be instated immediately after the block has expired, and for an indefinite period.

If somebody says that they want too see more restrictions (such as a complete ban of editing any user page except for my own) I will accept it, if required. Finally, if someone decides to file in a report of me at WP:RESTRICT, I will not be angry. Thanks. /HeyMid (contributions) 14:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Please copy that over to WP:ANI#Block review: Heymid. Thanks. /HeyMid (contributions) 14:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done –xeno^talk 14:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

{{Adminhelp}} Please notify HJ Mitchell about this statement by me at WP:ANI, at preferably his user talk page. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done. TFOWR 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You could have used a regular {{helpme}} as well, though no harm done: it got done in the end ;-) TFOWR 16:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Heymid, I'm just letting you know I've seen your statement. I don't have time to reply properly at the minute (real life issues) but I'm not ignoring you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. /HeyMid (contributions) 16:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request

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).

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

---

Request reason:

Given my statement at WP:ANI (which also includes probation terms), I think it would be a good idea to unblock me. I will prove to you (the reviewing administrator) that if you unblock me, you have not made a mistake. I would like an uninvolved administrator (preferably an administrator who hasn't commented on any of my block discussions) to come over and review this unblock request. /HeyMid (contributions) 18:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

this and this are problematic. Talk page comments made by other users are, as far as the community is concerned, by default sacred due to their pivotal role in building consensus. Through those two edits, it seems to me you either are not aware of or simply do not practice the talk page and/or refactoring guidelines—especially when taken in concert with your last block. Additionally, you seem to be rigidly attempting to enforce things that you feel are important. You do seem to try to do what you think is right. On Wikipedia, however, there is a general ignore all rules policy when it comes to editing, and I worry that attempting to modify the behavior of others for what are otherwise minor issues seems to be causing harm where you assume it to be doing good, especially given the way you approach it. For example, this type of edit usually isn't the way to go, and can easily be seen as mockingly condescending. Finally, this edit would suggest that you might have understood this, but at the same time have yet to understand that you can't simply censor something you didn't mean to say. I'm not sure whether one week is enough to develop a think-before-submitting reflex, but for the now-remaining 6 days on the block, I would highly suggest that a genuine attempt be made to develop one in order to avoid future blocks for similar issues. --slakr^\ talk / 18:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

---

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.

I don't think I have the authority to unblock you without going through ANI, but I'm curious to hear what you think of the comments on ANI below your proposed probation/restrictions/whatever we're calling them, particularly TFOWR's. For example, de-watchlisting and disengaging from AN/ANI etc, no editing userpages without asking permission(you can edit mine if you want, everyone else seems to) etc. Now, I don't want to just restrict you, so what can I do (or what can be done if you don't want to work with me) to get you into the mainspace and becoming a more productive editor writing or reviewing articles? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

HJ, you first stated that you had real-life issues, but apparently it is the opposite. I also saw your private post at BoP's user talk page. I agree with you that this in no doubt your toughest block ever made as an admin at the English Wikipedia. Anyway, my intention is to only edit articles and comment on discussions where I am involved. If you don't want to accept nor decline this unblock request, you can replace the unblock template with "{{Unblock on hold|1=blocking administrator|2=original unblock reason|3=~~~~}}". /HeyMid (contributions) 18:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that comments like "If you don't want to accept nor decline this unblock request, you can replace the unblock template with "{{Unblock on hold|1=blocking administrator|2=original unblock reason|3=~~~~}}" are one of the big issues people are having with you, they are rude. Now maybe its because english isn't your first language and you don't realize. But telling a seasoned editor/admin how to do something (when they didn't ask you how to do it), is generally not helpful and in your case is likely only to make you look even worse to people. Also edits like "HJ, you first stated that you had real-life issues, but apparently it is the opposite." are also extremely rude, he is trying to help you and all you keep doing is throwing it in your face, based on the ANI thread and what I know of many admins, you would have been blocked long ago for your actions. You should be thankful people like HJ have tried to help you along the way. -DJSasso (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

See? That is absolutely ridiculous. What you do basically do in the above message is accusing me for every single statement I make. Seriously, I am questioning your reliability as an administrator, sorry. /HeyMid (contributions) 19:03, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

If you think my reliablility is no good then you need to check the reliability of everyone on the ANI thread, everyone who has commented on your talk page and in your archives and the admin who declined your request. Everyone has been saying the same thing to you, and you still do not take it to heart. Yes, almost everything in that one statement I was replying to was rude. If you fail to recognize that, then you will probably have a hard time here on English wikipedia. -DJSasso (talk) 19:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

So, you mean that I should take criticism by heart? Certainly not. By the way, the biggest issue I'm currently having with you is the fact that you seem to have a bad attitude, and I don't like it. Seriously, it's even more likely that you're getting me even angrier for comments such as the ones you write above. /HeyMid (contributions) 19:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between criticism, and someone being helpful and trying to point out to you a problem that exists. For example criticism is something like "Joe Blow you are a horrible editor and you everything you do is wrong.". Helpful advice on the other hand is like what I did above. For example. "Joe Blow that comment you made can make people upset because its rude." The two are very different things, again I don't know if its a misunderstanding thing, I know you have used translators in the past so maybe they aren't very good at getting the difference across to you. But yes, you should take helpful comments to heart. -DJSasso (talk) 19:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Right now, I am simply trying to understand what your purpose with your comments is, whether trying to disparage or understand and help me out. By the way DJSasso, when I looked at one of your comments again, I think I've learnt one more thing:

• Don't comment on things that are unnecessary and not related to the "main" topic/subject we are currently discussing/talking about. /HeyMid (contributions) 19:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Heymid, I can confirm that many statements you make (that I assume you think are innocuous, or neutral) could easily be interpreted as shockingly rude by native speakers. –xeno^talk 19:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I understand you. See my comment above your's for more information. /HeyMid (contributions) 19:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I should note that assuming good faith could easily be added to the laundry list of issues in my unblock decline rationale. we're not here to smack you down or in any way keep you from participating. We're not here to be jerks to you—if we were, we wouldn't even try. The reason we take the time to discuss this and block in the first place is because we actually do want you around. Taking a look at your contribs, you seem to frequently make great changes. That said, the most important thing to realize is that the people pointing out instances of what we/they feel are behavioral problems are only trying to help you stick around by hoping you learn the particular things that we feel are most likely to be causing others grief and therefore creating a turbulent editing and discussing environment. So, when we try to bring up issues, please try to see it as an attempt to help—not attack. --slakr^\ talk / 19:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully understand the fact that you have spent some extra time looking through my recent history of (mainly user) talk page comments, and I have to agree with you that my recent history does not reveal a positive story... /HeyMid (contributions) 19:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Heymid, right now I'm on my own saying I'd be happy for you to be unblocked, and if you don't take on board what's being said here that's likely to remain the case. Listen to what the (extremely experienced) editors have are saying - believe it or not, they are all on your side. They want to help you. They want you to understand what issue the community has with you, and they want you to develop as an editor. DJSasso's comments were helpful. HJ's comments have been helpful. Xeno's comment was helpful. These are all good faith, helpful editors. They're not here wanting to hurt, harm, restrict, banish or in any way slight you. Please be nice to them, please listen to what they're saying. You don't need to respond to comments right away - take your time, think about who said what, and why. TFOWR 19:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, at the same time, I am reading and taking care of the other users' advices. But my current frustration is the fact that I have a feeling saying that everyone (except for you and a few others) is against me (when it is not true at all). But I still understand that they are trying to help me learn, that's what the main thing is in this case. /HeyMid (contributions) 19:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, it's good that you realise that everyone is not out to get you (and I can relate to that feeling - some days it feels it's not just everyone out to get me, it's everyone and their dog, too!) However, you need to not respond as if you're being attacked. Take your time: one useful exercise is to think about how you'd reply if you had to say one nice thing and one bad thing (for example: "TFOWR, I respect your view on aardvarks, but your comment on zebras was way out of line"). If you get into the habit of assuming good faith, even when it's really difficult, it'll help a huge amount. But slow down! Take your time, think about what someone has said, and assume good faith. That's the best advice I've got right now ;-) TFOWR 19:46, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Even though some of this talking is nonsense, I am still able to learn. And we are human – we can only learn and be better users across the Internet. /HeyMid (contributions) 19:48, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, this is where things get ridiculous. Now you refer to some of this as "nonsense." I am extremely disturbed by the fact that you are very quick to agree with someone and their assessment of your behavior, only to discount their view shortly thereafter... sometimes within a matter of minutes. You make a good number of constructive edits, but I have to be honest in saying that I don't think that Wikipedia is right for you at this time. I have commented myself, and watched others comment, on your immature behavior. Unfortunately, you revert to these behaviors usually within a day or two of committing to correct them. I'm generally an optimistic person, but I have a hard time seeing this ending in anything except an indefinite ban. Not because of any single thing that you do, but rather because of a complete and protracted refusal to take the advice and instructions of users that are considerably older and more experienced than you are. I think that rather than argue the points present above ad nauseum, you should reread EVERYTHING that has been said about you and consider what changes need to be made if you wish to continue with this project. Trusilver 20:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, like you say, now may not be the right time for me... But I will definitely wait until this block expires, I will not try to make any more unblock requests during this block. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally, regarding WP:IAR, in which cases does that guideline apply, and in which cases doesn't it? /HeyMid (contributions) 20:15, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It may be best if you stick to the rules for now. However, Wikipedia:What "Ignore all rules" means may help. –xeno^talk 20:18, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

• Heymid, I hope you'll allow me to offer one small piece of advice. If the the circumstances were reversed, and I were on the receiving end of a block I acknowledged was not unjust, I would probably take a wikibreak. Even under "normal" circumstances, a few days away from WP can do you the world of good and you can come back refreshed. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

HJ, I just want to tell you that you haven't done anything wrong at all with the block. /HeyMid (contributions) 20:40, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason I told BoP it was the toughest block I've ever made is because I like you and I think you easily have the potential to be a great editor and valuable member of the community. I don't take any satisfaction from this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Heymid, from your posting and some comments you make I seem to gather you are quite young. This is a common "problem" in another community I hang out in - where younger contributors come in and have trouble "fitting" into a generally older/more mature community. That's not a problem in itself, however you do need to take deeply on board all the advice you are beign given.

• Editing anyone elses comment, even for spelling, is a huge no-no. It's almost an ingrained law here (as with most online communities). Even editing other peoples user pages is generally frowned on. So I recommend avoiding that religiously.
• A lot of your comments come across condescending, or as if you are looking for something negative to say about a person (take, for example, your comments about HJ Mitchell and his length of time as admin). As someone else noted this may be due to language difficulties, but I suspect it is more to do with age. Being young gives confidence and (in the nicest way possible) arrogance. At this stage I think it is important to accept that people commenting here are far more experienced and versed in Wikipedia etiquette and, so, their advice is what you should follow
• While I am loath to advise you to not comment on threads you are not involved in I think this is a good idea. Outside commentary is always important in threads but when you comment the problems I mention above make what you say seem negative and, possibly, disruptive. For example the comment you were blocked for is completely against the sort of etiquette encouraged here; hinting that someone's behaviour might be taken to arbcom and result in a de-sysop is just not a nice or constructive thing to say.
• The best advice you will ever get is never say anything you wouldn't say to their face. If you wouldn't say it to your parents, don't say it :) I have an absolute rule of my own which is that anything I type here I would say to my Mother, to her face. :)

I think that you have begun to take note of the advice being given - in my experience it will take a while now for it to really sink in, but this is, at least a step in the right direction. I recommend, though, that you sit out the block and come back with lots of energy. Removing the block now would be a bad lesson, I think. Your proposed restrictions are in great faith and are appreciated. Instead of them, though, I recommend you go and focus on content alone for a few months. Avoid threads you are not involved in and think several times before you comment (thing; could what I am saying come across as rude?). I agree with the others; you are going to be a great editor given time (and I think I have a good nose for this, the last editor I "saved" from a wiki-death turned into an awesome member! I'm confident you will go as far in time. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I have already told myself earlier to sit out the rest of the block and come back as a strong contributor. /HeyMid (contributions) 09:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, WP:CIR might be useful to read. /HeyMid (contributions) 09:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

I'd like to apologize to the whole community for all of my disruptive actions; I have completely understood why I am currently blocked and I am absolutely sure I already know how I'm going to resolve these problems. Also, please note that I've never requested an unblock; in fact, I Endorsed the block in the first word of my first statement. Thank you for your time. /HeyMid (contributions) 09:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Please copy that over to WP:ANI#Comments from Heymid. Thanks. /HeyMid (contributions) 09:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

 Done Bejinhan talks 10:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

So if you've never requested an unblock, whose edit was this? David Biddulph (talk) 13:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to give it at least one try. Also, I believe that requesting an unblock is a way of receiving more feedback from other editors. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:26, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Requesting an unblock and then saying "I've never requested an unblock" is not a good way of convincing us of your honesty. David Biddulph (talk) 14:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for having made you confused for a short while. What I really meant was that in my statement at WP:ANI (now archived; not my unblock request) I never stated that I wanted an unblock. I could've written it a bit more clear, if I thinked twice about my unblock request, before writing this. /HeyMid (contributions) 15:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Speaking from experience I am empathetic to Heymid's situation, when I was about his age I was slightly incapable of conversing without people miscontruing my message. It was hard, eventually I was able to get better at getting my messages across without them being miscontrued, I found that adding words such as "please" and "can" help people to get your intended message, having a flat out request often gives people the wrong impression of your message. Looking forward to seeing you soon. Kind regards, Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм | Champagne? 10:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Unblock request 2

{{Unblock|1=I was blocked five days ago for disruptive editing. Since then, I have been involved in great conversations and discussions and I have recently been in e-mail contact with blocking admin HJ. Since about one or two days after the block, I have calmed down and I just keep feeling better and better. Right now, I feel that further block time is a punishment against me and I keep understanding better and better as to why I am blocked. I have apologized to the whole community for my disruptive actions and I have understood what have been the disruptive parts of my messages. My current intentions are to:

1. stop writing messages related to the admins' administrative actions
2. stop threatening users with like ArbCom and/or de-sysopping, etc
3. stop refactoring other's comments
4. follow consensus, and seek consensus when needed, before making controversial edits
5. stop edit warring
6. continue improving articles (mainspace), and
7. only discuss things and write messages that are useful. /HeyMid (contributions) 10:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)}}

OK, Heymid, I'm willing to consider this, though I'll leave your request up in case any CAT:RFU patrollers has anything to add. Do you understand why you were blocked and why your actions were disruptive (even if you didn't intend them to be)? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand why I am blocked and why my comments were disruptive: threatening with things that can disparage and/or make the users angry. /HeyMid (contributions) 11:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As an regular unblock patroller, I have reviewed this case, and Heymid's mea culpa and proposed modifications to his own behavior, and I would have no problem if HJMitchell undid his block. --Jayron32 05:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been silently following this whole debacle as it has unfolded, and I agree with the above editors. HeyMid's intentions seem appropriate to remedy the problems at hand. I particularly support the intent to stop refactoring others' talk page comments. This unblock request shows evidence of levelheadedness, and the provided suggestions are constructive. I, too, would endorse HJ ending the block early (although it has almost expired anyway). A close eye should be kept on this user as he ventures back into editing, but I believe that he is ready now. — GorillaWarfare ^talk 06:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Heymid, remember that blocks are for prevention. If HJ unblocks you, and you do anything that requires additional preventative measures, you will quickly be back in the same position. I do mean quickly. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
• Heymid, I've unblocked you. Consider it a leap of faith and a gesture of good will. For fuck's sake don't let me down! Keep your head down, make yourself unambiguously useful and stay the fuck away from ANI and anything related to it. I'll do everything I can to make your experience here as positive as it can be and I'll help you do whatever you want to do, but if you blow it, you could end up blocked for a long time and I won't be able to help you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:26, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Stop editing User:Conversion script

The header says it all. You were not here when this happened, you do not have knowledge of how it happened, and your changes are incorrect. Thank you. Risker (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding my first edit, the statement "every article" was made before I modified it to "most of the articles". HeyMid (contributions) 16:30, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Heymid, this is exactly the kind of thing that keeps getting you into trouble. From now on, please, don't edit anybody's userpage without their permission (even if they're blocked). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

HJ, 1) It was the user page of a bot; 2) Risker is getting excessive; she reverted an edit I made which restored an earlier statement not originally made by me, so her reactions are definitely "over the top". Providing a diff is impossible in this case, because the page had been largely expanded before I restored that statement. HeyMid (contributions) 16:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify for any other readers, User:Conversion script documents a segment of Wikipedia history from 2002, when the basic software was changed and all the pages were converted to the MediaWiki software. It is the user page of the account that was used to make this change; I suspect the actual password is held by Brion Vibber, if he even remembers it. It's pretty clear that Heymid was not here during that conversion, nor does he have the site development history knowledge to be able to really add something to that page. If he can't resist adding something, a proposed edit on the talk page would be more appropriate, so that it is vetted for correctness by those who have the necessary knowledge. Risker (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please carefully compare edit 1 and 2. Search for the statement "every article" through both versions. Do you now understand that I restored an earlier statement not originally made by me? HeyMid (contributions) 17:02, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• I am reinserting the following edit: "I did not make a mistake, Heymid. You reinserted someone else's incorrect statement, and you did not know it because you do not know enough about the subject to be writing about it. Now please (1) stop editing that page and (2) stop holding this conversation on two separate pages. Risker (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)" Heymid, if you wish to remove this ENTIRE section from your talk page, please feel free, but you don't get to snip bits and pieces where someone criticizes something that you do, so that you get the last word and try to make someone else look bad. That is very poor wikiquette, particularly when it is your actions (carrying out the discussion on two separate pages) that necessitated my responding on both pages. Risker (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I just felt it was unnecessary to write the same message at both pages. Although I removed it here, I did read it. HeyMid (contributions) 17:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't want to bring it up, but I see there are still issues. Heymid, yesterday (today?) you removed a passage from my talk page. While it was a mostly redundant section, there is still no reason for you to do so. I did not even notice you did it, until I happened to accidentally click on my history, which I never do. There may have been something slightly different but very important there. I can see you've been contributing to the SEL recently, which is quite commendable, given that our articles on European leagues are sorely lacking. Please focus your efforts there instead of worrying about the style of my talk page. –Schmloof (talk · contribs) 20:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. By the way, I see you didn't revert it. HeyMid (contributions) 20:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Why are you working on that bots talk page and Wikipedia:UuU? There is no particular need to - better to stick to article editing. --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am already done there. Going to sleep now. HeyMid (contributions) 21:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

BTW why did you create these templates: {{Twinkle_rollback}}? You should just pop them into the code on the page you wanted them - the template namespace is for repetitive content. (just a FYI) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 21:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so I see you are watching my edits... BTW, I created those for future use, so it doesn't become messy and it saves page size. HeyMid (contributions) 21:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Heymid, this is very worrying. When HJ unblocked you, you had committed to stop refactoring other's comments. Removing another editor's post from another editor's talkpage - that's refactoring comments. You mustn't do it. You promised not to do it.

And you say to Errant "Oh, so I see you are watching my edits" - damn right people are watching your edits! I'm watching your edits - HJ is watching your edits - other editors are watching your edits! We need you to avoid the behaviour that got you into trouble in the past. A number of editors have staked a great deal on you not causing problems. If you do cause problems it reflects very badly on us - on those editors who have bent over backwards to convince the community that you're an asset. HJ unblocked you and has repeatedly argued on your behalf. I've argued on your behalf. Please - please - do not let us down. I told you before - if you have any questions, if you're at all unsure whether what you're about to do is OK or not - then ask someone. Editors should not be having to complain about problems that you've already promised to avoid creating. Please read what you committed to when you made your unblock request, and don't let any of us see you breaking those promises. Please don't let us down. TFOWR 21:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, I'm back at step 1. But yes, I do listen and try to read all the guidance and advices I recieve from other's. HeyMid (contributions) 21:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Conversion script

No, Conversion script didn't remove the line breaks. They weren't there to start with, as you can see at the Nostalgia Wikipedia. The line breaks must have been added by the script that imported the old edits into Wikipedia in September 2002. Graham87 03:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Diego Grez's retirement

Hello Heymid. You recently removed Diego Grez restriction from WP:RESTRICT. I urge you to restore it, since retirements have a tendency to be temporary, and the restriction can't be undone without a community action. WP:RESTRICT is only an index to where restrictions were enacted, and your removal of the entry just makes it harder for the discussion of the restriction to be found by admins or others who are looking for it in the future. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 16:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it now. HeyMid (contributions) 16:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

TW-B-398

You are making assumptions saying my browser is not allowing pop-ups. Of course I know pop-ups have to be enabled. Pop-ups worked in the same browser before I reported that bug, they are working now and I made no changes to the settings in the interventing times. This is no longer a problem, as I have already noted on the bug report, so is probably academic, but you are incorrect to blame it on me or my browser. Something definitely happened to Twinkle during that period as is shown by a number of similar reports at the same time. The problem may be solved but it was not invalid. SpinningSpark 16:22, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Invalid means that either the bug report was at first invalid (the TW behavior was completely normal), or that no action was taken to fix the issue. HeyMid (contributions) 16:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the edit to User:Graham87/Page history observations. It is OK to say something like "deleted then undeleted", but IMO the sentence sounds better with an "and" in there. Graham87 14:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI discussion on User:Protector of Wiki

I noticed that on the ANI discussion on Protector of Wiki you wrote that he attempted to spam his own talk page with a giant smiley face. Well actually that was me, I was trying to get his attention that his editing if just as disruptive as putting full sized pictures on a talk page. diff. I just wanted to make you aware of this. Best, --Alpha Quadrant ^talk 22:22, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. Well, the reason as to why I believed he put the smiley face, was the fact that he increased the pic size to 1000px. :) HeyMid (contributions) 06:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

PoW's talk page note

Sorry, but I reverted your recent reversion to PoW's talk page; a user removed a note left there by the user on their own talk page, and without good reason, and Pedro rightly reverted it. If the user doesn't want it there they can remove it tomorrow (or whenever), but it shouldn't be removed by anyone else. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 21:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Please do not do that again, particularly with edit summaries such as "unnecessary". Ta. Pedro :  Chat  21:21, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering notes like that are part of why he was blocked, then I don't see an issue with removing it. But its not worth battling over guys. -DJSasso (talk) 21:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is "battling" over this to be honest. Pedro :  Chat  22:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

At least I did provide a better edit summary than the first reverter. HeyMid (contributions) 21:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that, but we don't play "Ah but Sir, Williams did it first". It's not a big issue though. Best wishes. Pedro :  Chat  22:07, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Date ranges

Hi Heymid, I saw you did some work for POW, that was very kind of you (I thought it was a shame that POW got blocked - it was inevitable, but I kept hoping that they'd start to take on board the advice they were being given).

However, I've got a quick comment about date ranges. I don't think that the date of birth/date of death was part of POW's request? Regardless, you should take a look at the manual of style, as I don't think the change you made to the date of birth/date of death was correct. Couple of reasons: firstly, for a subject who's dead, the format is "date of birth &ndash; date of death" (23 April 1814 – 6 May 1825). Secondly, the original date format was "D MMM YYYY" (23 April 1814), which is the usual format for non-US subjects. The two formats you'll see on en.wiki are "D MMM YYYY" and "MMM D, YYYY" (23 April 1814 and April 23, 1814) - if you're not sure which one is correct it's best to leave it as it is. Obviously other date formats should be fixed - 23/4/1814 should be changed, for example. I hate dates like that as with some dates, like 1/2/2010, it becomes impossible to know what the editor who added it intended - did they mean 2 January 2010, or did they mean 1 February 2010? Spelling out the month makes it obvious.

Oh, and you'll also sometimes see dates like this: YYYY-MM-DD (1814-04-23). I like that format, but in general it's intended for bots and scripts, and shouldn't be used in articles where readers might see them - you'll mostly see them in refs, where the MediaWiki software can format them for the reader. TFOWR 14:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Three short things:

1. Based on PoW's recent behavior, I currently endorse the block. However, if you want him unblocked, then sure, either go ahead and immediately unblock him or start an unblock proposal discussion at the (on-going) discussion.
2. I did it for him because I wanted to give him some sort of a gift, as a response to his suspicion saying that I wanted him blocked and the block itself. I also (as you wrote above) did it in a very 'kindy' way.
3. Fixed it now.

/HeyMid (contributions) 14:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: I simply misunderstood TFOWR; he meant that it was unfortunate that PoW was blocked, not that he opposed the block. I simply misunderstood the "inevitable" part. See TFOWR's reply below for clarification. HeyMid (contributions) 15:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, you are right; as I wrote in my "Done" reply at PoW's talkpage, I did some minor tweakings to his initial article posted at his talkpage. HeyMid (contributions) 15:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me - I agree with Peter's block. I think it's unfortunate - if POW had started paying attention to the advice many editors were giving them then they could easily have avoided a block. I posted on Peter's talkpage after the initial block to show my support, and my concern that if POW continued they were going to have their talkpage access revoked (which has now happened).

I fully agree with you about your motivation for helping POW - it was a very kind thing to do. I saw you'd fixed up the article - thanks for that! I didn't mean to criticise you, it was just a little pointer. US and non-US dates trip most people up at some point, and the manual of style is far too big for anyone to know it all ;-) TFOWR 14:45, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, "inevitable" = important/necessary. ;-) HeyMid (contributions) 14:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Unavoidable", rather. Amalthea 14:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, almost the same thing... HeyMid (contributions) 14:54, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at Peter's talkpage. HeyMid (contributions) 15:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Removing thread from ANI

Perhaps you could explain this? Your removal of the thread has been reverted, but perhaps you could explain your logic? Maybe this warning when you were unblocked slipped your memory? David Biddulph (talk) 13:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

In this case, it's hard to come up with a truthful explanation. Anyway, the reason as to why I removed that thread was that it was an unnecessary banning discussion of Protector of Wiki, and at the time it has only been two days since the initial block. HeyMid (contributions) 13:44, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Twice in two days I've had to revert your 'administrative' actions [5] [6] - please do not 'act' as an administrator, because you don't seem to have a good grasp of how things work around here. –xeno^talk 13:47, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Those were not administrative actions. However, WP:TPO means I am not allowed to remove anyone else's comments, as long as I don't have the permission. HeyMid (contributions) 13:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hence the 'scare quotes'. They're edits or actions that an administrator might take, but you're doing it wrong. –xeno^talk 13:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct :) HeyMid (contributions) 13:55, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to be correct, it's only one day. HeyMid (contributions) 13:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, twice in 24 hours to be exact. Two different UTC days. This is very much beside the point. –xeno^talk 13:54, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

What is your time zone? Mine is UTC+2. HeyMid (contributions) 14:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

UTC-4/-5. –xeno^talk 14:02, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Given my (somewhat) 'administrative' actions, I don't really believe that WP:BOLD is an issue here... HeyMid (contributions) 14:05, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Heymid, you're throwing around various policy and guideline pages links but what you are missing is that it is usually a really bad idea to remove or alter other people's comments. If they are on your talkpage, you are free to remove them per WP:TPO guidelines. If they are on ANI, you really need to have a good reason (removing edits by blocked vandals per WP:RBI). As you may have seen, even administrators removing comments on ANI often end up reverted unless its an RBI situation. I think thats the point that these other users are trying to get across. Syrthiss (talk) 14:10, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not intending to confuse others, but I understand your post above. What I mean with WP:BOLD is that I am (mostly) doing things non-administrators wouldn't usually do, usually resulting in messages and warnings at this talkpage. HeyMid (contributions) 14:17, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Regardless of this current issue, in general if an admin says "what you're doing is wrong" it's a good idea to pay attention. If Xeno told me what I was doing was wrong, I'd stop, ask, and listen to anything Xeno told me. TFOWR 14:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, I am usually trying to listen to others' advices and guidelines; the problem is just my reasonings, which do not clearly indicate that I am listening. HeyMid (contributions) 14:21, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
    • So when HJMitchell said, at the time of your unblocking, "Keep your head down, make yourself unambiguously useful and stay the fuck away from ANI and anything related to it.", and you then did this, we are supposed to believe that you are listening? If you don't understand enough English to be able to receive advice as clear as that, then perhaps the English Wikipedia isn't the place for you? David Biddulph (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
      • As I said, from now on I will not be removing somebody else's comments everywhere, except for my talkpage and comments by vandals, when necessary. HeyMid (contributions) 14:33, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
        • Concentrate on making your own positive contributions to Wikipedia, and leave other people to decide what is vandalism. Your assurances here will be read in the light of your previous assurances. David Biddulph (talk) 14:52, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: Two things

1. I'm trying to take a Wikibreak. In fact, I'm trying to edit Wikipedia as less as I can, there are things I want to do on my real life, Wikipedia does not help me, but I still can't let the "bad habit of editing Wikipedia" go.
2. No, of course not. I've been working on Wikinews since January, as I always hoped that I could comeback to Wikipedia for good. I requested my renaming just because I was renamed on Wikinews from MisterWiki, and because my former username was used on German Wikipedia, which I also edit sporadically. I renamed there because I, as an accredited reporter, thought using my real name would be better.

Hope that responds your questions, which you removed later. --Diego Grez (talk) 17:33, 30 September 2010 (UTC)