User talk:Light of Shadow
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] I can fix it
The problem with your talk page becoming part of the stub cat, I can fix that easily, I'll restore it fixed for you and you can remove if you like. DoomsDay349 23:30, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sergei Zavorotko
Hello,
Thank you for your stub submission. You may wish to note that it is preferable to use a stub template from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types instead of using simply {{stub}}, if you can.
Thanks! Vox Causa 01:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Of course, thats understandable. If you ever come across the need of a stub category, I would highly reccommend Category:Stub categories. It has the full list, and its what I use when stub sorting. By the way, the "video game stub" tag is cvg-stub, for future reference. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!--Vox Causa 01:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The irony
Out of all things...your message to RickK was so inspiring [1] that I added it to user page [2] (to which you responded [3]), but now, you declare victory for the trolls? i've never affiliated myself with Esperenza or anything, I didn't see it harmful, but if many long-term users and members of Esperenza are also declaring it dead and voting to delete or mark it as historical - well, I think that says something mounmental about ESP as a whole. This is hardly, i think, the trolls winning. Anyway, i just wanted ot say something because it was a lone IP address that sparked much inspiration... Hbdragon88 01:09, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] wha?
I can't believe you gave up..... Well knowing you, you must have had a good reason to give up.... right? GeorgeMoney (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] In response to [4]
There are times where Wikipedia seems terribly mechanical. Apparently to some editors process is important to the point where common sense and human nature go out the window. But your message at your old user page attempts to look at Wikipedia as a whole, which is impossible to do. The statement "Wikipedia is dying" and the idea that the "trolls are winning" is based on a fraction of the encyclopedia that you see on any given day.
Bits of Wikipedia are depressing to look at — a user that seems to act in good faith is blocked, an article is shot down without being given a chance — and sometimes you forget the other bits, the bits with personality and the bits that actually care about the individual instead of Rules, Rules, Rules. These are the pages and words and actions that drive Wikipedia as much as mindless process does. It's a balance, really, between the world of rules and process and the world of inventiveness and personality. And as with any balance, sometimes it gets tipped a little too far one way or another.
By abandoning your post as one who is not a heartless process freak, you're not helping that balance. As 69.145.123.171 you destroyed the all-too-common idea for some that all anon editors must be vandals. You've already gone against a commonly held belief. So it can be done.
There is no imaginary war between the vandals and the editors, because a vandalized article lasts for seconds but a constructive edit lasts forever. There's no comparison. And of course people bicker over stupid things and don't use common sense — they'll do that when they get emotional, they're human. People do stupid things when they become angered, like disrupt Wikipedia, or make personal attacks, or leave the site forever in an attempt to make a statement, or just leave it out of frustration.
You have the ability to contribute to Wikipedia, just like everyone else. Stopping because you don't agree with certain parts of it isn't fair to other contributors that are willing to hear what you have to say or side with you in your opinions. Leaving a blank user page does nothing but collect dust — it doesn't inspire anyone, it just makes them feel hopeless. By throwing in the towel you might be destroying the morale of an editor that wants to make a difference, to go against the norm, to ignore all rules and bring in common sense when it's most needed. If it's broke, you don't shout at it and hope it gets fixed itself — a mistake I see sometimes on talk pages where people are too fearful to be bold and think that some special Process has to be carried through to execute a simple change. If it's broke, at least pitch in and help fix it. Statements alone go nowhere.
I'm off to go patrol Recent Changes.
