Thanks for your encouraging reply. I added you on MSN Messenger. Your MSN Messenger account is tdxiang6@hotmail.com, isn't it? Terence knows my MSN Messenger account. Get it from him. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides, anti-vandalism is still good. Just accumulate your edits little by little, like I do.--Tdxiang 10:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind editing vandalism. However, I prefer to contribute information to articles. When my reverting vandalism is causing me to stop contributing information, that's a bad sign. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews accepts original reporting. Perhaps try there? Anyhow, WP:V and WP:NOR often doesn't come into play that often with Singaporean articles, especially since they can be correlated. And I wouldn't advise suggesting deletion on notable articles you create, since there's no ownership on them. Once an editor, always an editor, so just edit when you can, and don't edit when you need to do other things. ;-) Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 14:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I will contribute articles about Singapore TV shows. Such information can be difficult to verify. I hope that, as you said, WP:V and WP:NOR will not come into play too much with these articles. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"My idea of a Google group was ridiculed."

Comment Hmmm... too bad it was "ridiculed". Perhaps those making comments on your proposal were too strong in their criticism. Can you provide a link to the place where the discussion took place?

I think I understand your motivation. However, let me explain what I think the pros and cons are for creating a Google group for Wikipedia.

It's not a terrible idea although it doesn't strike me as a wonderful idea. The reason that I might not support creating a Google group is that the Talk Pages constitute a kind of collaborative forum similar to some of the functionality of Google or Yahoo groups. Moreover, there are tens of thousands Wikipedia editors who most likely would interact in one or more Talk Pages. Thus, creating one Google Group would not work well because it either would only get a tiny percentage of Wikipedia editors or would get overwhelmed by having too many.

Now, the best argument FOR creating a Google group is that Wikipedia rules specifically say that "Wikipedia is not a social forum".

I would suggest that you consider creating a Google group for some subset of Wikipedians to join in a social forum about Wikipedia.

If you give the group a focus like "Singaporean teenage Wikipedia editors", you may find some kindred spirits with whom you share similar interests.

Good luck.

--Richard 13:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't. Blanking an article is considered vandalism unless you are the ONLY editor who has contributed to that article. Just because you were the original editor doesn't mean that you have the right to blank an article that has since been edited by others.

In theory, you don't even own the original text that you contributed (as others have pointed out above). However, even if you have the right to revert your own text, it should be obvious that blanking an article that others have contributed to is a serious act of vandalism. That kind of stuff can get you blocked.

As a general comment about the attitude and motivation that makes you even think about blanking these pages, I will say this as gently as I can but it is something you should think about and take to heart:

Grow up. You should concentrate on being proud of the work that you did rather than feeling that your leaving Wikipedia means that you should trash all the good work that you did in a fit of petulance (aka "taking your marbles and going home").

Now, let's look at the articles that you mentioned as candidates for blanking:

Google Groups - a great article with lots of contributions from a number of editors. This article should be nominated for GA status and, with a bit of work, could easily reach FA status. Why not help improve it to being a featured article? Wouldn't it feel great to have an article that you created and worked on featured on the front page of Wikipedia?

WP:RFF - another great contribution which has been used by a number of editors. It doesn't seem to be well-advertised, though. This is the first that I've heard of it. Maybe you could investigate how to get it advertised on the Community Portal.

Homerun - This article appears to be the same as Homerun (film). I can't easily determine how much of the article is your work as there have been a bunch of editors recorded in the history of Homerun (film). Regardless, this is a great article that should be nominated for WP:GA. With some work, it could also easily reach FA status. Once again, here's a project for you to take on.

One of the criteria used by some RFA voters for passing an RFA candidate is having worked on a Featured Article. You have two articles that are within striking distance of being FA. Consider taking them the rest of the way.

Why leave now? You've done some great work and have the potential to do more. I would suggest that you are suffering from WikiStress and need the support of some Wikipedians. Consider joining WP:ESPERANZA. You are already listed on the stress alerts page there. I will try to muster some support and encouragement for you there among fellow Esperanza members.

--Richard 17:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On reviewing the history of the Homerun article, I think you misunderstood what User:Themindset did and therefore misrepresented the situation at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) and, as a result of the misrepresentation, got some bad advice from User:Herostratus.

User:Themindset did NOT blank the Homerun article. He/she MOVED it to Homerun(film) and documenting what he/she was doing with this edit comment "(moved Homerun to Homerun (film): Homerun is commonly used in english to refer to a Home run, not this movie.)"

After having done this, he/she redirected Homerun to Home run which covers the most commonly used meaning of the phrase "home run". Note that the Home run article has a disambiguation link at the top which points to the Home run (disambiguation) page which includes a link to Homerun (film) article.

This is a perfectly defensible arrangement and is pretty much in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

None of your work was destroyed, blanked or deleted. It was just moved to a different name in order to comply with the Wikipedia policy that the most common use of a phrase be the one that Wikipedia readers see first.

Now, there is some room for arguing that Homerun should redirect to the Homerun (film) and that the Homerun (film) article should have a disambiguation link at the top. I wouldn't support that argument but it is one that you could make and discuss with other editors if you wished.

The bottom line, though, is that, through your understandable but unfortunate confusion, you have created a mess in that there are now two articles with exactly the same content Homerun and Homerun (film). I have cleaned up this mess by reverting to User:Themindset's redirect of Homerun to Home run. If you do not agree with this arrangement of article titles, feel free to open a discussion on Talk:Home run.

--Richard 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I want to leave is that I think I am failing as a Wikipedian.

As mentioned, I joined to contribute information to articles on websites and Singapore TV shows. I would revert vandalism occasionally, if I spotted it. Recently, however, most of my edits are reverting vandalism (a couple daily), and this is draining me from contributing information.

In addition, I have failed to make friends here, and am instead getting into stressful conflicts/

I want to continue contributing information to articles on websites and Singapore TV shows. In addition, I want to make friends with similar interests, so we can collaborate on articles on our interests.

I think finding appropriate WikiProjects would help me continue contributing information. In addition, the participants in the WikiProject are potential Wikifriends, as they are likely to be people with common interests, editing the same articles as I do.

Once I join a couple of appropriate WikiProjects, and continue contributing information, and make several Wikifriends, I will definitely decide to stay!

In addition, I hope I can resolve several issues and conflicts that are causing Wikistress, most notably the blocks to User:202.156.6.54 that are locking out me and many legimate Singaporean Wikipedians. Over time, my knowledge of wiki markup and process will improve, and after a successful editor review, I may become an established and respected contributor to the project. There'll be no more reason to lack confidence then! Hopefully we can also do something about my failed attempts to promote Wikipedia as well.

--J.L.W.S. The Special One 06:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Wikipedia will be better off without you". I think Wikipedia will be the poorer for your leaving. Of course, Wikipedia will continue right on without you but I think both you and Wikipedia will be the porrer for it.

That said, we aren't going to beg you to stay or jump through hoops to meet the conditions you set to keep you here. We can try to help you find ways to contribute and forums which will help you enjoy the experience more. But, ultimately, what you get out of being a member here is your responsibility, not ours.

You appear to have found some avenues to investigate as documented on Village pump (assistance). I hope one or more of those work out for you. Good luck.

--Richard 18:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]