User talk:Pr3st0n/Archived1

Welcome!

Hello, Pr3st0n, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

One Hit Wonders

 Alterations made to article
Thanks for the info. On consideration that they are different songs then yes, you're right and I've removed them from the list. I've also replied on the Talk:One-hit wonders in the United Kingdom page as well. Cheers. --Tuzapicabit (talk) 10:17, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Linking Dates

 no further action
Hi Pr3st0n. I reverted the edits you made to the June 25 article where you bracketed all the dates. It's a style policy on those pages that only the first mention of a year is wikilinked. No big deal, I just wanted to let you know why I changed what you'd just done. Joyous! | Talk 03:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

OK not to worry - I thought an error had occurred and that someone forgot to link some of the dates. (Pr3st0n (talk) 05:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC))

Re: Apology

 Transferred barnstar to main user page
You don't appear to have received a barnstar yet, I think this would make a good first one:

		Civility Award
		For stepping out and apologising to help resolve a dispute. It is easier to demand an apology than to deliver one. Well done on helping make Wikipedia a more peaceful place. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to add this to your userpage. Camaron · Christopher · talk 10:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

List of channels on Virgin TV

 read
Hello, Pr3st0n. You are correct about Hallmark Channel +1 moving to the L pack but BBC HD and Channel 4 HD are a part of the M pack. [1] The ESPN promotion is included in the Future channels & Events section. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 23:35, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Virgin Channels

 read
I suggest you get test for dsylexica as i am personal dsylexic and you are misreading the poress release, the channels BBC HD and 4HD are in medium package and will remain there forever as there freeview channels, but because ther eon m package they will also be on xl package. i am not trying offend you but trying to help you as you could have a readin gproblem liek me--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: User Talk Pages

 Conflict resolved
Hi! I'd normally reply on my own talk page, but it seems in this case to make more sense to do it here.

The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:User page.

Snippets include:

• "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred."
• "As a tradition, Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit."

Far from proscribing archiving, the guideline encourages it. There are limits to what you do with your talk page, but they're pretty broad (don't be a racist, don't use fair-use images, etc).

I don't know the background here, but off-hand it looks like you're fine.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:25, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you can pretty much do what you want on your user and user talk pages while following the above guidelines. Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A thought does, however, occur to me - how often are you archiving? If it's every few minutes I'd be a wee bit concerned - but once a week or longer and you'd be fine. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

No what we said is you should not be archiving thing just basically qafter someone leaves you a message, we never said hwo you should operstet it only that you do not own it but have to follow policies. you also should not be looking for ways to get yourself out of the fact you have been abusive it works two ways.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not question your archiving process or right to archive (I do it myself), I questioned your denial of a complete deletion of a section (which you archived today [2] after deleting it on 30/08/09 [3]). All of this is against your claim of archiving only after 3 weeks have passed. 3 weeks did not pass between the date of the comment (28/08/09), the date that you claim to have archived it (30/08/09) or even today. At any rate this was only a part of my larger argument that you have been ignoring facts and essentially making things up. Consensus went against you on Talk:List of channels on Virgin TV#Correction to List of Virgin Media Channels and you claimed that you did not wish to request comment. Yet you continue to post on various user talk pages complaining about your treatment even though Chocobogamer suggested that you draw a line under this discussion, told you that your edits were disruptive and to stop pretending. For that you awarded them a barnstar. You have taken issue with anyone explaining that you are wrong and have insulted both myself and Andrew from the start (e.g. speaking in an ignorant manner) and I would appreciate it if you no longer contacted me regarding this issue. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In response to your (Pr3st0n) query on my talk page: I don't know all the details for the topic at hand, so I can't help out much on the content dispute. Though I can say the entire issue seems to have become excessively personal, and all sides do indeed need to calm down. I think there has been rather a lot of confusion over this archiving of user talk pages, per WP:USERPAGE, archiving is encouraged but is not compulsory. A long time ago warnings and blocks were given for removing talk page content without archiving, this however has long since been stopped on the grounds that is wasn't helping Wikipedia and giving users the civil liberty to remove comments from their own talk page was not unreasonable.

I have now read the discussion fully, and I can conclude that multiple users have crossed the line of incivility. I don't think any admin action would be helpful at this time though, I would just urge discussion at Talk:List of channels on Virgin TV to stick to being about the article, not other users. Camaron · Christopher · talk 18:31, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

A BIG "Thank You" to User:TFOWR, Grk1011/Stephen, and User:Camaron for your much appreciated help throughout this monotonous charade. A lot of what you have pointed out has indeed help to clear up some loose ends. I agree with you too User:Camaron about multiple users who have clearly crossed the line of incivility regarding this matter, and who also have clearly forgotten the fact of the main article discussion at hand, and reverted to the use of personal attacks. To be called a "liar" by one user is clearly an unproductive way to resolve any disputes. It also discourages users from offering any help to future articles. Once again, many, many warm thank you's to the 3 of you. (Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 09:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

Thank you

 no further action
Thank you for the barnstar, it was greatly appreciated :) Grk1011/Stephen (talk) 17:10, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome - was hard to find a barnstar that suited best - the peace one covered majority of it ;-) Pr3st0n (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Apogoly

 Conflict resolved - issued barnstar as a token of thanks to User:Andrewcrawford
I would like ot apogilse for anything i have siad that was offense to you i certainly never did it itenally :( but if i have said something pffense i apogolise for it :) also i only suggest about the dsylexica because i am dsylexica and i misread things a lot :( but the hd issue i know about ti in other ways why i know its on medium :)--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 17:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Just because you felt that someone may have read something wrong, you shouldn't really just to assumptions that they may be dyslexic, just because you are also. Pointing out something like that could be deemed as very hurtful to a user. It only needs for a user to have underlining mental problems and a comment like that could push them over the edge and even perhaps have serious consequences where they end their own life. It has been known to happen in the past - and I just want to prevent anything like that happening in the future. I have bipolar disorder which is bad enough to cope with as it is. So to have someone throw insults can cause a person with bipolar disorder to go off on the rails. Hope you are able to understand this Andrew. (Pr3st0n (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC))

I can assure you i understand and it because i know that i rather help someone if i can, due to why i understand i cant say much, but it based off bipolar disorder and assciaotion with aspberger and adhd.--Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 18:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lostock Hall

 no further action
Hi Pr3st0n/Archived1, I noticed your message at WT:UKGEO about Lostock Hall, and thought you may wish to notify the new WP:LANCS project. Infact, you may even wish to join it! It's a usergroup set up this week dealing with the improvement of all things Lancashire and Cumbria. Hope that helps, --Jza84 |  Talk  16:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Jza84 - I wasn't aware of the new WP:LANCS group. I will let them know. Much appreciated. (Pr3st0n (talk) 16:42, 16 September 2009 (UTC))

Good luck with your nomination of this article as a GAC. I speak from experience: don't worry too much if you get a lot of critical comments. The reviewers can be quite intimidating and demanding. Don't get upset if they do - most of them are trying to be helpful and working to maintain the necessary high standards of Wikipedia (it is, after all, an encyclopedia, and we are in some respects privileged to be able to contribute to it). Most of all, look upon it as a learning experience. I have learnt a lot from my nominations (sometimes it has felt a bit painful, too), and after something like 14 successful GAs (and some failures) I am still learning. Best wishes, and thanks for your enthusiasm in the new L&C project. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the good luck wishes. This is my first major project, not to mention first ever GA nomination request. I live in Lostock Hall, and was horrified when I saw only a 2-lead paragraph about the place, so I worked my ass off to get it looking something more inviting. Hopefully the work as paid off, a GA approval will confirm my work has paid off LOL. Pr3st0n (talk) 22:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I had a similar feeling when I first saw the article on my home time of Runcorn; it was mainly a list of chip shops and other take-aways. I eventually, with a struggle, got it to GA standard (but found the FA too high a hurdle). Even if you're not successful this time, keep at it; it's the way to become a good editor, and to get a lot of pleasure and satisfaction in the process. Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Copying this here just in case you're not watching my talk page

 no further action
I don't think I've ever edited Lostock Hall Gareth, so you couldn't have clashed with any changes I'd made. Anyway, the current lead looks pretty close to the version you've copied above, and the personal voice I was complaining about has gone. I'd make two comments about the lead as it stands now though. The first is that there's way too much information on present-day boundaries; surely that can be summarised? The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article, but there nothing in it about Lostock's Hall for instance, which forms about half of the present article, or anything about Lostock Hall's industries. You might well find it easier to write the lead last, once the rest of the article is a little more fleshed out. The second thing that strikes me about the lead is the opening of the second paragraph: "Lostock Hall has an identity of its own but in common with other small areas in modern times it is being taken over by new housing estates and a reduction in 'community spirit'." This seems once again like a personal opinion; everywhere "has an identity of its own", and I'm really unclear as to how anywhere could be "taken over by ... a reduction in 'community spirit'." It's difficult to write dispassionately on a subject you're passionate about, but it's essential to producing a well-balanced encyclopedia article. As a rule of thumb, don't include anything in the article that you can't provide a citation for to a published reliable source, such as books, newspapers, journals, and web sites. What we're striving for here is verifiability, not "truth".

I don't mean my comments to be negative, I'm only making them now because I think it's in the long-run easier to set out on the right path now, rather than have the article ultimately fail when/if you present it at GA. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Pr3s0n! Thanks for the message. Yes, we had what's called an "edit conflict" (both of us were editting the same article at the same time), but it's ok, that's no problem really.

You're clearly very passionate about your place of residence. That's great - that's how I started on Wikipedia a few years back when I was disappointed at the Shaw and Crompton article when I was doing a bi of research. It's now a featured article-one of Wikipedia's best articles, which I'm really proud about. That said, Malleus Faturorum gives good advice - try not to write the article from your own point of view, but rather present facts about the place as you find them in good, reliable, published sources (e.g. a local history book). This is to keep Wikipedia's content verifiable and neutral and stop spurious commentary appearing. In short, one has to be quite unemotional about the content they write and back it up at all times with references (it does put alot of users off from Wikipedia, but it's not difficult and can be thrilling).

I've done a tiny bit of work to the article, but will assure you I'll leave it at that so you have time and space to do as you see fit. The work I've done is avaliable to view here, and is based on our style guide at WP:UKTOWNS. Of course it's not a definitive lead section, just a point in the right direction. Hope that's OK, --Jza84 |  Talk  22:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Jza84 and Mallius. Thank you for some well pointed out tips and advice. Mallius, your comments are in no way negative, in fact they are the opposite and I take them in a positive manner. This is my first ever attempt at writing an article from scratch. The original lead paragraphs were all there was of the article. I started to add more and more information from everything I know about the village, and the access to local history/information. When I wrote the part about boundaries in the lead, I had thought about moving them to the "Geography" section, but only when I was able to find a suitable way to word a new lead section. However, I like the version that has now been changed - thank you for that Jza84. The opening of the 2nd paragraph in the old lead "Lostock Hall has an identity of its own but in common with other small areas in modern times it is being taken over by new housing estates and a reduction in 'community spirit'." wasn't my wording. That was part of the original text prior to my work on the article. I didn't like that line either, and was struggling to think of something to replace it. Hence why I left it there for the time being until I could find something positive. I was in the process of asking locals in the town to describe Lostock Hall in a positive and passionate way, and hope to use their words in a new lead, without it sounding like personal opinions. I'm doing some research into Lostock Hall's industries over the years, and will include it into the article in due course. I enjoy working on this article, and feel personally that my local knowledge as a resident of Lostock Hall, can pay off in its advantages of creating a superb article with the hopes of it gaining GA or FA status. Once again, my sincere thanks to you both. Regards, Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Penguins in the ESC 2010

 no further action
Don't tempt me :) -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Haha, thought you might like that one! Pr3st0n (talk) 19:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi

 no further action
I replied at my talk page, if you don't mind moseying on over there. ;) ceranthor 20:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

GAN

 no further action
Hello! In response to your query, anyone can review nominations over at WP:GAN, although it would help if you hadn't edited or contributed to an article prior to reviewing, as this could lead to a conflict of interest. To start reviewing, pick any nomination at WP:GAN (preferably one nearer the top of its category), and follow the instructions at the top of that page. The GA criteria can be found here, and a helpful review guide can be found here. Don't hesitate to contact me if you want anything else, and happy reviewing! - weebiloobil (talk) 17:29, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

RfA

 case closed; no further action

I hope you won't be too discouraged by the response at your RfA. I have over 3000 edits, and I'm not close to ready yet. There are a lot of policies that require understanding. I seem to run across a new one everyday. Good luck with your GA, I haven't had the courage to try for that yet.--SPhilbrickT 14:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I would take the high proportion of opposes as a sign of encouragement, because it shows that people are taking your RfA seriously. Truly clueless candidates usually get softly worded "don't feel bad, but ..." kinds of votes, and I don't see any of those here. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 16:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

:Since your RfA is closed, please do not continue to answer questions or edit the page. Your edits are preserved as part of the history and you can use them later in a new RfA if you wish.  Frank  |  talk  19:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA

 case closed; no further action

Hello there. I have closed your RfA as unsuccessful per WP:NOTNOW.

Please don't take this personally — many of our best administrators have failed RfA at one point or another. This close simply means that at this point in time, your RfA was all but assured of not passing. You may wish to consider applying for an evaluation by other Wikipedia editors for feedback on how to obtain the necessary experience. Once you are ready to request adminship again, there is an admin coaching program available, as well as a guide to requests for adminship.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me on my talk page. Thanks, — neuro^(talk) 16:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Done and done. Forgive me if I seemed hasty, but the RfA did (and does) seem very one sided. I may !vote later. Hope you're having a good day. :) — neuro^(talk) 19:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

So I'm having a good day, despite having this God forsaken swine flu, but I'm not letting it deter me from accessing the internet. Pr3st0n (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Swine flu? Ack. That's no good. Hope you get well soon. — neuro^(talk) 21:50, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Alesha Dixon GA

 GA review passed

Thank you for the review of the Alesha Dixon article. I think I have made improvements to the failed points and it is now amended. Please could you check the article and see if it fills the requirements? --Patyo1994 (talk) 16:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

RFA Support

Sure thing. Do you know that you can change your signature setting so that you can automatically sign as that? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm aware of that - but I prefer it as it is User:Pr3st0n. I only tell the people on here that I trust, what my real name is by signing my posts as "Gareth aka User:Pr3st0n", although if some users were clever enough, they would notice my name is also on my main user page LOL, but not everyone is as eagle-eyed as us ;-) Gareth aka Pr3st0n (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

True. I could probably put up my credit card information along with my social security number up here and I doubt that it would be hacked within the first year, as long as I didn't advertise it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I guess I'm making a maximum assumption of good faith. But you would have an excellent chance later, in my opinion, if it doesn't work out now. :) --candle•wicke 02:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

re RfA question.

 case closed; no further action

I would suggest getting an admin coach or mentor, stepping back from this RfA, and then taking a few months to focus on the areas where you lack experience. Then, after some time has passed, this advisor will know you a bit better and could say something about you in a later nomination. Cirt (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it be OK if I were to ask you to be my admin coach/mentor? Pr3st0n (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm pretty busy IRL and getting busier, not sure I can help out right now in that capacity - but I'd certainly be willing to give you some advice and/or reevaulate in a few months. Cirt (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

RFA and Barn

 Barnstar moved to User:Pr3st0n/My Barnstars

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your lovely comment at my talk page, (it brightened my day I can tell you!) and for you considered and valuable comments at your RFA, not many people have communication skills like you, I know I dont! :D AtheWeatherman 20:58, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you sincerely, for this barnstar - I don't get many! In fact, this is my 3rd. I appreciate it so, so much! Pr3st0n (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

RfA

 case closed; no further action

I've closed your RfA again as you wrote that you wanted it closed immediately. I'm curious, though: did you mean to oppose yourself? (see the 25th oppose, which reads more like a reply than a vote). It's no big deal, but if you didn't mean to do that you can go back and indent it properly. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I did not mean to oppose myself, it was a reply to a comment, but an edit conflict happened, and I forgot to indent my statement. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just making sure. By the way, I know RfA can be stressful, but if you enjoy Wikipedia you should try not to let the drama of RfA get you down. Try to just move on and go back to doing the things you enjoy doing. I do hope you decide to stay here. Thanks, also, for the barnstars. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I will take time out to reflect and think about it - and I mean seriously think about it. At this present time, there is nothing convincing me to stay on wikipedia for the near future, unless some sort of action, or informal warning is issued to the person who blatantly worded their comment in my RfA (#26 to be precise), to be in a hurtful and misdemeanant way. Once that case has been dealt with, I will reconsider my decision to leave for good. I hope you understand. People like that shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. It is people like that who will destroy this wiki-community, and action needs to be taken and FAST!. I do actually recall reading something in ANI about that user a few days ago, a complaint against them based on similar ground on the way they were vicious to others. Pr3st0n (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC) P.S. If its ok with you, I would like to remain in contact, as you are a sincere person. If this is ok with you, then you may add your name to my list of wiki-friend via User:Pr3st0n/Wiki-Friends.

That's a very common reaction to rejection at RfA, which is obviously hurtful. RfA seems to have been designed to be humiliating, and you're just its latest victim. We're not here to be administrators though, we're here to write a free encyclopedia. Nothing else matters. Pick yourself up, dust yourself down, and get on with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I've lost all motivation and enthusiasm now. I even have 2 article that I'm in the middle of GA review, and after the biggest hurtful attack of words ever thrown at me in my entire 30 years of life, I just can't be arsed doing anything right now - I'm going to sit down, smoke a cigarette, drink some coffee, and watch Most Haunted on TV. I might even go on MSn and see who's out there to cheer things up a little. (;_;) v(^_^)v Pr3st0n (talk) 02:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You seem to think that you're unique. I've been spat out twice at RfA, and will no doubt be spat out again in November when I go for my third. Who gives a fuck what anyone else thinks anyway? Why is that important to you? You went for RfA far too soon, knowing next to nothing about wikipedia. That's the truth. Live with it. --Malleus Fatuorum 02:18, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

You got me wrong, I don't think I'm unique - nobody is perfect, not even me, we all have flaws. It's just... urgh I don't know! Something was said which just triggered off something in my memory, and has put be back into a state that took me months to get out of. Right now, I need to just relax, sleep on things, and get back to what I do best, and that is making people happy, working polite and helpful to others, and more importantly, keeping positive. Thanks for that mini-cyber-boot-up-my-butt in your comment above btw. Pr3st0n (talk) 02:23, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Gareth - Like others, I understand that your RfA has likely been stressful to you. I want to point out to you a couple of very relevant things. First of all, your request was closed early because a number of experienced members of the community judged what the response was already and was highly likely to continue to be, and you insisted you wanted more time. Out of respect for your wishes, the RfA was re-opened. You were warned (by me) that some of the negative effects of continuing might begin to show up, which in fact they did. I personally could not understand why neither you nor anyone associated with the Lostock Hall article failed to see the apparent copyright violation in the article, which still remains. Finally, the comment you are reacting so vehemently against is not at all what you are making it out to be. A list of possibilities was presented; "lying" was only one of them, and if it doesn't fit you, then there's no reason to get upset about it. I read four different possibilities, and the point that was actually being made is that it doesn't matter which of the four possibilities is the correct one...what matters is that the copyright violation remains, and you don't see it. Copyright law in a particular place is not the only thing that matters here; what matters most is what Wikipedia does and does not find acceptable. This is not to say the material cannot remain; if the copyright status is cleared up, it may be able to remain. But the fact is that policy around here says that it is a violation, pure and simple, and if you don't know that and/or are unable to determine where to find out what policy applies, then your suitability for adminship is in serious doubt. That's all I took the comment to mean, and you could have easily avoided it if you'd accepted the judgment of long-standing editors on the project much earlier. My oppose was number 4; the one that really got you going was number 26 (25 if you exclude your own previous comment listed as an oppose)...there was a long road between the two. That long road included this comment which alerted you that you were overreacting to a previous, more mild comment. I think if you spent some quality time around WP:RFA and gave it some serious introspection, you'd see that your RfA was actually quite tame, and that the direction it took has been mapped out before.  Frank  |  talk  14:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done, Frank. Gareth, if you're feeling down, then ignore this question until you're feeling better: what do you mean when you say you're bipolar? I will absolutely respect your wishes if you don't want to talk about it, but there's a whole spectrum of "bipolar", and what I'm seeing in your RFA and on your talk page is the mildest form ... it sounds like you identify immediately what's going on, you exert significant control over how you want to feel, and you make the "up" periods work in your favor, as many great thinkers have done. - Dank (push to talk) 14:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't going to be easy to reply, as there are 2 people that have left messages since I logged out hours ago... so I will do this in two sections, if I may.

Reply to Dank's statement

 case closed; no further action
I was feeling down initially, as anyone would after the stress of that - its human nature. I can't understand your question though when you ask "What do you mean when you say you're bipolar?". I take it you are not aware of the bipolar disorder? Bipolar disorder, is a category of mood disorders defined by the presence of one or more episodes of abnormal elevated moods. Anyone who experience manic episodes also commonly experience depressive symptoms, or mixed episodes which features of both mania and depression at the same time. These are usually separated by periods of normal mood, but in some, depression and mania may rapidly alternate, known as rapid cycling. Basically, majority of the time a person can be as normal as the rest, but it takes even the minuscule of scenario to happen for the bipolar to be triggered, and thus a sudden and erratic change in mood. In this case, I was fine, being my normal polite and caring self - the comments about lack of edits did not trigger the bipolar - however the statement of calling someone a liar did. When anyone with bipolar gets such a very negative comment put towards them, it triggers the bipolar, causing depression to kick in, and the feel of self-worthlessness. I have made sure that people are aware of my disorder, which is why it is in my babel, and my main user page in the "about me" section. It is only fair that I pre-warn people if a sudden mood change happens, and thus they know that given time situations calm down, and I get back to normality. People with bipolar need to be treated with extreme sensitivity. Bipolar is also recognised as a disability. I hope I've been able to help there explain the disorder to you. Pr3st0n (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a health professional, but I've known many bipolar people, and I am sometimes hypomanic myself. Thanks for explaining; I wanted to know where you see yourself on the bipolar spectrum, and that's helpful. - Dank (push to talk) 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)