Hildanknight ( talk · contribs)
Copied from my RFC as per consensus.
As my user page says: "I'm Hildanknight, a.k.a. J.L.W.S. The Special One, a 15-year-old Singaporean Chinese boy. My friends consider me intelligent, humorous and ecccentric. My passions are computers, chess and writing. I'm also a huge fan of Jack Neo movies and Chelsea F.C."
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I'm among the best writers in my school. Compositions I write regularly feature in school publications and represent my school in national competitions. Although I have not won a prize at a national competition (yet), one of my compositions has featured in a national compilation, and I have been interviewed by several magazines (I won't name them, to protect my privacy).
However, the writing assignments I did in school bored me. I wanted to write something different, something that would have a greater impact. Hence, in early 2006, I was looking for an online writing community. Wikipedia seemed the perfect choice: a project to create a free encyclopedia was something I'd never done before; articles I contributed to a website millions read daily would be likely to have some impact; a unique community where I could meet and befriend other writers with similar interests.
I joined Wikipedia in February 2006, and since then, I have accumulated over 2,000 edits.
I have written five articles: Google Groups, Homerun (film), Money No Enough, I Not Stupid, The Best Bet and AdventureQuest. Money No Enough was one of the Did You Know? articles for 27 December 2006, a day after I Not Stupid's GA nomination failed, while The Best Bet was one of the Did you know? articles for 5 April 2007.
When not writing articles, I regularly participate in discussions, mostly on the village pump, SGpedians' notice board and the talk page of Esperanza (I joined Esperanza in October 2006, and remained an Esperanzan until the organisation was deleted). I also founded Requests for feedback, a process for (usually new) users to seek feedback on articles they have written, which is finally starting to take off.
In addition, I revert vandalism to articles on my watchlist, and since October 2006, have always warned the vandals with appropriate templates. When I spot repeated or severe vandalism, I will file a report at AIV or RFP.
Why I believe I can be an asset to Wikipedia:
- Most administrators and established contributors focus on minor edits, maintenance tasks and people politics. In contrast, information is usually added by newcomers, who are unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. For more information, you may be interested in a blog post by Aaron Swartz entitled Who Writes Wikipedia? Wikipedia needs more established contributors who write articles and are familiar with policy and process. This will result in articles being of higher quality, and ensure that the opinions of article writers are well-represented in discussions and processes. I am a contributor who can reverse this trend - although I focus on writing articles, I don't mind participating in discussions, fighting vandalism and clearing backlogs.
- I believe in being meticulous and thorough. Since my first edit, I have used detailed edit summaries, although this has attracted some criticism. Before saving an edit, I will preview and check it for language and formatting issues. Moreover, when participating in discussions, I always endeavour to include relevant wikilinks in my posts.
- Being a Singaporean, my contributions to articles on Singaporean topics help fight systemic bias. In my progress report issued by my school at the end of 2006, one of the comments was that I am "good at...politely providing alternative views". Therefore, I could help fight groupthink, another form of systemic bias.
- A frequent participant in discussions on VPR, I have developed and posted some of my own ideas, which have been met with varying levels of success. My most successful idea has to be Requests for feedback, which is finally starting to take off.
During my first few months as a Wikipedian, when the blocking policy proposal had not yet been implemented, I was regularly blocked as collateral damage, because my IP address is shared by 300,000 Singaporeans. This frustrated me considerably, and I raised this issue at various locations, but to no avail. On 3 June 2006, I blew up, and made personal attacks. NSLE blocked me indefinitely (later reduced to 24 hours), but within half an hour, Khaosworks unblocked me, due to - ironically - collateral damage. [1]
On 5 July 2006, I decided to leave Wikipedia, but subsequently changed my mind after Richardshusr encouraged me to stay. In August, I was considerably stressed by a couple of edit wars involving anonymous users. I continued contributing under my main account, but started vandalising anonymously (some admins may remember me as the “Microsoft vandalbot”). After I was caught by CheckUser and blocked for a week by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh, I resolved to turn over a new leaf. It took me some time, but I successfully overcame my vandalism addiction.
Everything went well until 26 December 2006, when I Not Stupid's GA nomination failed, and Dev920 nominated Esperanza for deletion. I had a little fight with Dev920, which started when I opposed her RFA. After the RFA failed, I left a comment on her talkpage, which I admit was slightly incivil. She responded by removing the comment with an even more incivil edit summary, accusing me of "spewing bile".
Furthermore, my strongest pursuit - writing articles - has been hindered by:
- The verifiability policy. Due to systemic bias, there is a lack of available references on Singaporean topics. At times, I have compromised the quality of my prose to ensure it meets verifiability requirements.
- Anonymous vandals. Reverting them drains me of the energy I need to write. Unfortunately, I can't avoid them - they're rampant, and if they attack an article I'm working on, edit conflicts result. Before the implementation of the blocking policy proposal, many edits I saved were lost because I was blocked as collateral damage (this is no longer an issue). Therefore, I strongly oppose anonymous editing.
I would appreciate:
- General comments on my contributions and conduct.
- Advice on how to handle conflicts better, and not let the verifiability policy affect my ability to write.
- Advice on which areas of Wikipedia to focus on, and which areas to avoid.
- Perhaps Wikipedia may not be the right writing community for me. Do you think so? Please explain your answer, and if you think Wikipedia's not suitable for me, please recommend a better writing community. If the consensus is that I'm not compatible with Wikipedia, once I find a better writing community, I will leave Wikipedia of my own accord, in the best interests of both myself and Wikipedia.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Reviews
- You have acquired 2127 edits in a year, which I think it a little low for an editor; this, however, should never be used as a factor to your ability to edit well.. You have edited in many namespaces, which is excellent!
- Resolving conflicts can be such a pain and can sometimes cause stress towards an editor. Here's what you have to remember: take a step back from your debate, and see if your arguements can be backed up by logic, reason, and policy. Also remember this: if you definitely know that you are 100% correct in your logic, continue on with the debate. Go request dispute resolution if necessary!
- Verifiability is a non-negotiable requirement in all articles. If you feel that there is something ambiguous in the policy, you can always begin discussion on it. In addition, if and only if necessary, you can use WP:IAR after discussing the situation with other editors! You will need a consensus to do so.
- I cannot say whether you are the "right person" to be on Wikipedia. Sometimes, people realize that Wikipedia just isn't for them. On the other hand, people can get so addicted to Wikipedia that they stay on for a few years! (this is very rare...)
The question you have to ask yourself is: Do you like to write on Wikipedia? You are obviously a good writer, but that is not the only thing a true Wikipedian is. The true Wikipedian has a passion of writing, is patient in compiling information, has plenty of time to submit quality edits, works tirelessly to improve the encyclopedia, and is willing to perform volunteer work in order to provide a collection of human knowledge for everybody around the world. Now ask yourself: do you follow these aspects of a true Wikipedian? If yes, then great! If no, then ask yourself: are you capable of reaching these goals? This will determine whether Wikipedia is right for you.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The best piece of advice I can give you? Learn to let go. Whatever your personal views on my actions, leaving taunting comments on my talkpage is not good, and pursuing your vendetta gainst on someone else's ANI two months after my RfA reflects very badly on you. I would imagine that you take a similar attitude to other events and editors on Wikipedia, and if you want to stick around for the long haul you need to get over that. If you don't learn to move on from conflicts it will only eat you up inside and leaves you embittered, ultimately ruining your experience and ability to contribute. Editing Wikipedia should be a pleasure, not a trial - admittedly abiding hatred of other editors can get in the way of that, but letting them get to you only results in making you miserable, they don't care. Don't let yourself be driven insane by someone you will never meet.
In terms of where to edit, edit in areas you enjoy and know about. I started out as a copyeditor but found myself irristably drifting towards religious and LGBT topics, which are areas I am interested in offline. Consider what you actually like to edit, maybe join (or start) a WikiProject for it. If you want to avoid edit wars, find yourself a nice obscure article that no-one has touched for months and work on it. If you do get into an edit war, consider whether you are entering a fight because the encyclopedia needs it or because you want personal victory. If the former, be civil but firm, if the latter, it is best to just walk away, it's not worth it.
Are you right for Wikipedia? I don't know. I suggest you stick around for a bit and see how it works out. Don't edit while you are angry, depressed or upset. Take time off, do things that make you happy, feel better and come back. Otherwise, as I well know, you can end up writing something you regret - and diffs are forever. Good luck. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen you around on Wikipedia a number of times. One of the things I notice is that you spend a lot of your time trying to improve pages about films, online games, and other modern/popular topics. Unlike articles about (for example) ancient civilisation, the pages you edit tend to attract a lot of vandalism, misguided additions and fancruft. (Mainly from schools I might add) Editing articles like this can be stressful. If you spend too much of your article-writing time on them, it can make your time at Wikipedia less and less desirable.
Dev920 does offer some good advice, and I agree. Something completely stress-free is what you should aim for in my opinion. WikiProjects about things in your local area may interest you, we also have WikiProjects on films, systemic bias, and gaming. Once you can find a topic that you like to write about, unwatch any pages which you've been fed up with in the past, and just pretend that they don't exist for a while. If anonymous vandalism to articles you edit annoys you, then encourage editors to watchlist the pages. (I still have Google groups on my watchlist by the way) Also, it helps to have faith in the RC patrollers, who will (hopefully) catch the obvious stuff. It may also be a good idea to leave a note on the relevant wikiproject's talk page to ask for assistance reverting if vandalism picks up. To sum this up in a sentence "Remember that you are only human, and that Wikipedia is only a hobby". I hope that this can help you to become a better editor. Cheers. -- Michael Billington ( talk) 09:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- From regularly losing temper due to collateral damage to a reformation which changed the blocking policy, especially that towards ISP-wide shared IPs, I believe your tolerance and knowledge about policies is already quite up to standard. Adminship in the near future looks unlikely, because anybody with blocking records within a year are likely frowned upon. By the way, I can see much of myself in you - starting an interest in Wikipedia from article-writing, got more than frustrated because of collateral damage, left and came back for a few times, but still decided to pursuit. It's just that I can't write as well as you do, and that my account was never specifically blocked. Never give up! -- Der yck C. 10:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Really, I just wouldn't look back: ignore the past conflict, forget about them, kiss and make up: you'll find that most people want to kiss and make up. You aren't a bad or a broken editor. Dev920 has said most of what I would have said, so I won't bother repeating. One piece of advice: sometimes when I'm floating and can't think of anything to write, I turn off the computer, take a piece of A4 paper, and write down what articles I would like to improve, to what status they should be improved, and how they can be improved. That gives me something to do for a couple of months. If you get sick of articles, you can always play process wonk at XfD, RfA, RFAR. ANI, DRV, DR channels, etc. I veer between the two. But you're a good editor, and it would be nice if you stuck around. Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 13:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I endorse all of the above except for the characterization of 2127 edits in a year as "low". Such a characterization depends in part on whether the edits were minor grammatical changes or large contributions of content. Your edit count averages to about 175 a month. There certainly are editors who contribute more than this but "low" is a relative term. I wouldn't take such a comment too much too heart. -- Richard 16:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- Your answer here
- Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- Your answer here
To Hildanknight, a.k.a. J.L.W.S.... I added a few comments to the talk page as per your Requests for feedback. I hope they are of some help. Good luck! Keep up the good work! SriMesh | talk 05:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Hildanknight ( talk · contribs)
Copied from my RFC as per consensus.
As my user page says: "I'm Hildanknight, a.k.a. J.L.W.S. The Special One, a 15-year-old Singaporean Chinese boy. My friends consider me intelligent, humorous and ecccentric. My passions are computers, chess and writing. I'm also a huge fan of Jack Neo movies and Chelsea F.C."
At the risk of sounding arrogant, I'm among the best writers in my school. Compositions I write regularly feature in school publications and represent my school in national competitions. Although I have not won a prize at a national competition (yet), one of my compositions has featured in a national compilation, and I have been interviewed by several magazines (I won't name them, to protect my privacy).
However, the writing assignments I did in school bored me. I wanted to write something different, something that would have a greater impact. Hence, in early 2006, I was looking for an online writing community. Wikipedia seemed the perfect choice: a project to create a free encyclopedia was something I'd never done before; articles I contributed to a website millions read daily would be likely to have some impact; a unique community where I could meet and befriend other writers with similar interests.
I joined Wikipedia in February 2006, and since then, I have accumulated over 2,000 edits.
I have written five articles: Google Groups, Homerun (film), Money No Enough, I Not Stupid, The Best Bet and AdventureQuest. Money No Enough was one of the Did You Know? articles for 27 December 2006, a day after I Not Stupid's GA nomination failed, while The Best Bet was one of the Did you know? articles for 5 April 2007.
When not writing articles, I regularly participate in discussions, mostly on the village pump, SGpedians' notice board and the talk page of Esperanza (I joined Esperanza in October 2006, and remained an Esperanzan until the organisation was deleted). I also founded Requests for feedback, a process for (usually new) users to seek feedback on articles they have written, which is finally starting to take off.
In addition, I revert vandalism to articles on my watchlist, and since October 2006, have always warned the vandals with appropriate templates. When I spot repeated or severe vandalism, I will file a report at AIV or RFP.
Why I believe I can be an asset to Wikipedia:
- Most administrators and established contributors focus on minor edits, maintenance tasks and people politics. In contrast, information is usually added by newcomers, who are unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works. For more information, you may be interested in a blog post by Aaron Swartz entitled Who Writes Wikipedia? Wikipedia needs more established contributors who write articles and are familiar with policy and process. This will result in articles being of higher quality, and ensure that the opinions of article writers are well-represented in discussions and processes. I am a contributor who can reverse this trend - although I focus on writing articles, I don't mind participating in discussions, fighting vandalism and clearing backlogs.
- I believe in being meticulous and thorough. Since my first edit, I have used detailed edit summaries, although this has attracted some criticism. Before saving an edit, I will preview and check it for language and formatting issues. Moreover, when participating in discussions, I always endeavour to include relevant wikilinks in my posts.
- Being a Singaporean, my contributions to articles on Singaporean topics help fight systemic bias. In my progress report issued by my school at the end of 2006, one of the comments was that I am "good at...politely providing alternative views". Therefore, I could help fight groupthink, another form of systemic bias.
- A frequent participant in discussions on VPR, I have developed and posted some of my own ideas, which have been met with varying levels of success. My most successful idea has to be Requests for feedback, which is finally starting to take off.
During my first few months as a Wikipedian, when the blocking policy proposal had not yet been implemented, I was regularly blocked as collateral damage, because my IP address is shared by 300,000 Singaporeans. This frustrated me considerably, and I raised this issue at various locations, but to no avail. On 3 June 2006, I blew up, and made personal attacks. NSLE blocked me indefinitely (later reduced to 24 hours), but within half an hour, Khaosworks unblocked me, due to - ironically - collateral damage. [1]
On 5 July 2006, I decided to leave Wikipedia, but subsequently changed my mind after Richardshusr encouraged me to stay. In August, I was considerably stressed by a couple of edit wars involving anonymous users. I continued contributing under my main account, but started vandalising anonymously (some admins may remember me as the “Microsoft vandalbot”). After I was caught by CheckUser and blocked for a week by Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh, I resolved to turn over a new leaf. It took me some time, but I successfully overcame my vandalism addiction.
Everything went well until 26 December 2006, when I Not Stupid's GA nomination failed, and Dev920 nominated Esperanza for deletion. I had a little fight with Dev920, which started when I opposed her RFA. After the RFA failed, I left a comment on her talkpage, which I admit was slightly incivil. She responded by removing the comment with an even more incivil edit summary, accusing me of "spewing bile".
Furthermore, my strongest pursuit - writing articles - has been hindered by:
- The verifiability policy. Due to systemic bias, there is a lack of available references on Singaporean topics. At times, I have compromised the quality of my prose to ensure it meets verifiability requirements.
- Anonymous vandals. Reverting them drains me of the energy I need to write. Unfortunately, I can't avoid them - they're rampant, and if they attack an article I'm working on, edit conflicts result. Before the implementation of the blocking policy proposal, many edits I saved were lost because I was blocked as collateral damage (this is no longer an issue). Therefore, I strongly oppose anonymous editing.
I would appreciate:
- General comments on my contributions and conduct.
- Advice on how to handle conflicts better, and not let the verifiability policy affect my ability to write.
- Advice on which areas of Wikipedia to focus on, and which areas to avoid.
- Perhaps Wikipedia may not be the right writing community for me. Do you think so? Please explain your answer, and if you think Wikipedia's not suitable for me, please recommend a better writing community. If the consensus is that I'm not compatible with Wikipedia, once I find a better writing community, I will leave Wikipedia of my own accord, in the best interests of both myself and Wikipedia.
-- J.L.W.S. The Special One 14:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Reviews
- You have acquired 2127 edits in a year, which I think it a little low for an editor; this, however, should never be used as a factor to your ability to edit well.. You have edited in many namespaces, which is excellent!
- Resolving conflicts can be such a pain and can sometimes cause stress towards an editor. Here's what you have to remember: take a step back from your debate, and see if your arguements can be backed up by logic, reason, and policy. Also remember this: if you definitely know that you are 100% correct in your logic, continue on with the debate. Go request dispute resolution if necessary!
- Verifiability is a non-negotiable requirement in all articles. If you feel that there is something ambiguous in the policy, you can always begin discussion on it. In addition, if and only if necessary, you can use WP:IAR after discussing the situation with other editors! You will need a consensus to do so.
- I cannot say whether you are the "right person" to be on Wikipedia. Sometimes, people realize that Wikipedia just isn't for them. On the other hand, people can get so addicted to Wikipedia that they stay on for a few years! (this is very rare...)
The question you have to ask yourself is: Do you like to write on Wikipedia? You are obviously a good writer, but that is not the only thing a true Wikipedian is. The true Wikipedian has a passion of writing, is patient in compiling information, has plenty of time to submit quality edits, works tirelessly to improve the encyclopedia, and is willing to perform volunteer work in order to provide a collection of human knowledge for everybody around the world. Now ask yourself: do you follow these aspects of a true Wikipedian? If yes, then great! If no, then ask yourself: are you capable of reaching these goals? This will determine whether Wikipedia is right for you.-- Ed ¿Cómo estás? 03:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
The best piece of advice I can give you? Learn to let go. Whatever your personal views on my actions, leaving taunting comments on my talkpage is not good, and pursuing your vendetta gainst on someone else's ANI two months after my RfA reflects very badly on you. I would imagine that you take a similar attitude to other events and editors on Wikipedia, and if you want to stick around for the long haul you need to get over that. If you don't learn to move on from conflicts it will only eat you up inside and leaves you embittered, ultimately ruining your experience and ability to contribute. Editing Wikipedia should be a pleasure, not a trial - admittedly abiding hatred of other editors can get in the way of that, but letting them get to you only results in making you miserable, they don't care. Don't let yourself be driven insane by someone you will never meet.
In terms of where to edit, edit in areas you enjoy and know about. I started out as a copyeditor but found myself irristably drifting towards religious and LGBT topics, which are areas I am interested in offline. Consider what you actually like to edit, maybe join (or start) a WikiProject for it. If you want to avoid edit wars, find yourself a nice obscure article that no-one has touched for months and work on it. If you do get into an edit war, consider whether you are entering a fight because the encyclopedia needs it or because you want personal victory. If the former, be civil but firm, if the latter, it is best to just walk away, it's not worth it.
Are you right for Wikipedia? I don't know. I suggest you stick around for a bit and see how it works out. Don't edit while you are angry, depressed or upset. Take time off, do things that make you happy, feel better and come back. Otherwise, as I well know, you can end up writing something you regret - and diffs are forever. Good luck. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 03:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
- I've seen you around on Wikipedia a number of times. One of the things I notice is that you spend a lot of your time trying to improve pages about films, online games, and other modern/popular topics. Unlike articles about (for example) ancient civilisation, the pages you edit tend to attract a lot of vandalism, misguided additions and fancruft. (Mainly from schools I might add) Editing articles like this can be stressful. If you spend too much of your article-writing time on them, it can make your time at Wikipedia less and less desirable.
Dev920 does offer some good advice, and I agree. Something completely stress-free is what you should aim for in my opinion. WikiProjects about things in your local area may interest you, we also have WikiProjects on films, systemic bias, and gaming. Once you can find a topic that you like to write about, unwatch any pages which you've been fed up with in the past, and just pretend that they don't exist for a while. If anonymous vandalism to articles you edit annoys you, then encourage editors to watchlist the pages. (I still have Google groups on my watchlist by the way) Also, it helps to have faith in the RC patrollers, who will (hopefully) catch the obvious stuff. It may also be a good idea to leave a note on the relevant wikiproject's talk page to ask for assistance reverting if vandalism picks up. To sum this up in a sentence "Remember that you are only human, and that Wikipedia is only a hobby". I hope that this can help you to become a better editor. Cheers. -- Michael Billington ( talk) 09:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
- From regularly losing temper due to collateral damage to a reformation which changed the blocking policy, especially that towards ISP-wide shared IPs, I believe your tolerance and knowledge about policies is already quite up to standard. Adminship in the near future looks unlikely, because anybody with blocking records within a year are likely frowned upon. By the way, I can see much of myself in you - starting an interest in Wikipedia from article-writing, got more than frustrated because of collateral damage, left and came back for a few times, but still decided to pursuit. It's just that I can't write as well as you do, and that my account was never specifically blocked. Never give up! -- Der yck C. 10:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- Really, I just wouldn't look back: ignore the past conflict, forget about them, kiss and make up: you'll find that most people want to kiss and make up. You aren't a bad or a broken editor. Dev920 has said most of what I would have said, so I won't bother repeating. One piece of advice: sometimes when I'm floating and can't think of anything to write, I turn off the computer, take a piece of A4 paper, and write down what articles I would like to improve, to what status they should be improved, and how they can be improved. That gives me something to do for a couple of months. If you get sick of articles, you can always play process wonk at XfD, RfA, RFAR. ANI, DRV, DR channels, etc. I veer between the two. But you're a good editor, and it would be nice if you stuck around. Cheers, Moreschi Want some help? Ask! 13:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
- I endorse all of the above except for the characterization of 2127 edits in a year as "low". Such a characterization depends in part on whether the edits were minor grammatical changes or large contributions of content. Your edit count averages to about 175 a month. There certainly are editors who contribute more than this but "low" is a relative term. I wouldn't take such a comment too much too heart. -- Richard 16:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Comments
- View this user's edit count using Interiot's 'Wannabe Kate' Tool.
Questions
- Of your contributions to Wikipedia, are there any about which you are particularly pleased, and why?
- Your answer here
- Have you been in any conflicts over editing in the past or do you feel other users have caused you stress? How have you dealt with it and how will you deal with it in the future?
- Your answer here
To Hildanknight, a.k.a. J.L.W.S.... I added a few comments to the talk page as per your Requests for feedback. I hope they are of some help. Good luck! Keep up the good work! SriMesh | talk 05:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)