My archives can be found here. It's important that you sign all your messages here with four tildes (~~~~), or else, the archiver bot will not be able to archive them later. Please feel free to message me below! You can do it by clicking .
Regarding your edit to this archive, please bear in mind that a checkuser has already asked you to stay away from SPI. Making an unneeded aesthetic changes to the archive of this case is not appreciated, particularly in light of the CU request that you avoid SPI. Kindest regards. SpitfireTally-ho! 12:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
- OK. I didn't know it should be that way as it was from the beginning when it was archived. I have reverted it now. Thanks for notifying me. /HeyMid (contributions) 13:00, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
vandal ip
I don't like it when I go on recent changes and I try to revert and someone done it before me, so I help them out and warn the user. Solar Rocker|Talk to me! 14:47, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
NPP
Just pointing out that your CSD to Mac OS 11 is really a G3 (hoax or misinformation); The article is of course very silly silly, but it's not gibberish. Not that it matters much and it will get deleted anyway.--Kudpung (talk) 22:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
A few random thoughts on WP:SPI
Hi Heymid, I noticed you've had some recent and controversial involvement with WP:SPI and I thought it might help if I shared my experiences with SPI (and WP:SSP, which preceded it).
During my RfA I promised the community that I'd help out at SPI if I became an admin. The reason for that was that I've been filing reports at SPI (and at "Suspected SockPuppets" before SPI came into existence), and (a) I wanted to "pay back" for all the help I've received there, and (b) I feel that my previous experience with SSP/SPI could be useful.
To date I've not got more involved with SPI. I've filed a few reports, but I'm still very much a "customer", rather than an SPI "employee". This is because I've had a whole lot of other stuff to learn about, and SPI is surprisingly complex.
SPI is complex because it deals with a number of different areas, all complex in their own right. For example, privacy: users have an expectation and a legal right to privacy, and this means that SPI folk have to consider a whole range of difficult issues around privacy. You've probably noticed that SPI clerks and checkusers tend to be very "terse" - they say very little. (as an SPI "customer", I find this quite frustrating!)
Another issue is the technical side - checkusers are expected to be very confident with networking issues like IP ranges.
However, one area of complexity that isn't necessarily obvious is "controversy". Editors get reported to SPI for all kinds of reasons - some good, some bad. Malicious editors may report another editor in an attempt to malign them, for example. Good faith editors may report another editor with whom they're involved - again, this is potentially controversial. Either way, editors who either report or are reported at SPI expect to deal with very, very experienced SPI people. That's the real reason I've not yet got involved with SPI. I'd want to have a lot of spare time to dedicate to getting familiar with the processes. Even then I'd want to have an experienced SPI "regular" to mentor me, and I'd expect to be doing only what I was told to do.
You seem to me to be very enthusiastic - and that's excellent. Don't take criticism to heart - it's an inevitable part of working collaboratively. If you want, I can show you recent examples of editors criticising me - and how I've dealt with it. I make mistakes. I'm going to continue to make mistakes. Everyone makes mistakes - we're all human, after all! The important thing is to use criticism to develop as an editor. Above all, don't be discouraged, keep asking for advice and help, and keep working in those areas you know you're good at.
If you want, you can follow this up with me either at my talkpage or privately by by email.
Happy editing! TFOWR 09:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)