User talk:Thepoliticalmaster/Archive1

Talkback

Hello, Thepoliticalmaster. You have new messages at Steven Zhang's talk page.
Message added 23:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Adoption

Sure I'll adopt you ;) If you have any questions just holler on my talk page :-) --Addihockey10 ^e-mail 04:09, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe you can be trusted to use rollback correctly, and for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

One note, however: be careful when reverting edits that blank a section or page, such as this one (which you reverted). That was actually a good edit, as the IP was removing an unsourced section from the article. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 16:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Thepoliticalmaster. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Autopatrolled#User:Thepoliticalmaster.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I responded at User talk:Sadads, Sadads (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

General note

Please refrain from removing requests for permissions that have been marked as "not done". They get archived for a reason. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 20:52, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Please explain

Hello. Could you kindly please explain why you made this edit, as it is not something you could've done by simply blanking a section, you would have actually had to click this and saved the revision. If it happened a different way I'll be happy to hear your explanation, and while I don't own my talk page, I do use it to keep track of discussions, so would appreciate that those discussions are not fiddled about by others. I live in Australia, so if messages on my talk page are removed before I can see them, and removing them makes it difficult for me. I've also replied to your messages on my talk page, but will still like a reply as to the above edits. Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 23:57, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Disclosure of our chat on IRC channel
Sorry, unreserved apology, don't know how it could have happened.
--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Rollback rights

I have removed your rollback rights. Edits such as [1], [2], [3] and [4] indicate that you're still pretty unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and I have concerns that you don't quite understand vandalism yet, based on your responses at User_talk:Steven Zhang#The answers for Vandalism from Adoption. Please work with Steven some more before requesting rollback again. Furthermore, [5] makes it appear that you're rights shopping. Please keep in mind that user rights are given to those who need them to make their work on Wikipedia easier. They are not awards, and often give little information about a user's experience level. See WP:GOLDENTICKET. Cheers. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 06:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi GorillaWarfare, I'd have appreciated greatly if you could have spoken to me before just removing the rollback. You'll find that after I was granted them, it was just 14 hours later that you removed them. I could have understood if I was abusing the rights etc., e.g. using them to an advantage but that wasn't the case. Actually I had only used Huggle (as I said I would when I requested them) for an an ~ hour. Also for the edits above, the Kurseong one, the granting admin pointed out not to do that. I can understand how you thought I was right shopping but that wasn't the case, I thought that the Autopatrolled rights were to help further with the vandalism-fighting and I therefore took the steps to understand that afterwards, also whilst I was making the edit, I thought it may be dodgy so I removed the request once but then I thought that afterwards it may look as if I am constantly editing so I just put it back. In fact I guess I made the request to find out more about what it was. Please consider what I have said to you. Thanks :-). --Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 09:40, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

• I'm not going to restore rollback rights (that'd be wheel warring, and nobody likes that) but I completely disagree with their removal. "You've misused rollback, I'm taking it away", sure, but the logic of "you've tagged a CSDd page incorrectly" doesn't quite parse, in my mind. GorillaWarfare, would you mind examining this again or clarifying? Ironholds (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Zhang, your mentor, contacted me with concerns over your use of rollback. After looking through your edits, I agreed with his concerns. As I said above, I think it wouldn't hurt for you to do a little more work with him before beginning to Huggle. Ironholds, regarding the CSD example, I was not using it necessarily as an example of poor judgment specifically with rollback, but as an example of general unfamiliarity with the project. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 20:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you able to tell me exactly what he said by any chance please?--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not, no, partly because I don't log my IRC discussions. I've left him a message to join this conversation, however. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 21:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope that it's alright with you, I'll respond tomorrow now, where I am GMT, it's 2230 hrs. Did Stephen Zhang contact you today about rollback or yesterday? Sorry about that. --Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 21:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

He contacted me a bit before I left the original message, so around 06:54 UTC. That's fine; I'll keep watching the page. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 22:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I did approach GorillaWarfare off wiki, not to hide the fact, but to not stir up drama on ANI, as I discussed with you off-wiki. I thought we discussed this already and came to an agreement, that it might be better for you to get a bit more experience (a few weeks) in doing recent changes patrol using Twinkle (after all, rollback itself and Twinkle can do the same thing) and after you've shown you understand fully when rollback should and shouldn't be used, or edits removed as vandalism or not vandalism, then rollback would be added to your account. It's not my call to make whether you should have rollback or not, but remember that rollback is a tool to assist in reverting vandalism, not a status. If you wish to persist in obtaining rollback it is your decision, but I feel it would be better in the circumstances to have a read over the links I provided you, and do a little work on that. You did approach me on my talk page asking to be adopted and for my advice, so that's what I'm doing. In the long run, it'd look a lot better for you if you were to go from here, use twinkle for a few weeks, demonstrate your good work in recent changes patrolling, and then have rollback added after that, as opposed to asking for it repeatedly before doing that. But it's your call. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

On a slightly related note, the user in question removed the autopatrolled request for reasons unknown, as seen in this diff. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 05:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

On another more related note, previous concerns about rollback rights for the user in question were raised here. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 05:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Also only slightly related, but another user declined to give Thepoliticalmaster access to VandalSniper just a few hours before I removed rollback. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 05:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Thepoliticalmaster, your removal of Σ's comment does not do much to demonstrate your understanding. Though it is acceptable to remove comments on your talk page under some circumstances, removing a relevant enough comment in the middle of an active discussion is not helpful. It's generally best to leave comments intact until the discussion is finished, at which point archiving is preferable. Clearly if the message was a personal attack, vandalism, or the like, it should be removed. However, Σ's comment is at least marginally related, and as such, should be kept. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 07:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The point had already been made.--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 08:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this wheel warring?--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 08:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

"When another administrator has already reversed an administrative action, there is very rarely any valid reason for the original or another administrator to reinstate the same or similar action again without clear discussion leading to a consensus decision." I have reversed the administrative action, and this is the clear discussion leading to consensus. No wheel warring has taken place. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 09:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, this has become a bit more controversial than I initially foresaw. Thepoliticalmaster has told me that apparently there are some uninvolved users taking various stands on this whole matter, some of whom are waiting for a response from me before commenting here. At this point I feel like I've responded to anything here that requires a response, and am waiting for Thepoliticalone Thepoliticalmaster to respond to Steven Zhang's and my comments above. Furthermore, I feel like there's a lot of "he said, she said" going on here, which I'm finding to be a bit frustrating. Basically what I'd like is for discussion regarding the matter to be centralized here, rather than relayed to me through Thepoliticalone via IRC. As for the decision itself, I'm perfectly happy to reverse it if there appears to be a consensus that my decision was poorly made. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 09:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Who is Thepoliticalone?--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 09:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, fixed. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 15:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the decision was "poorly made". There are sufficient concerns about the editor's understanding to make rollback unsafe. Rather than waste more time arguing about this, I suggest that the best way forward is for the user to continue editing, and, after a few weeks, ask whether there is enough evidence of learning, so that such concerns may be put aside. If the answer is "yes" then presumably everybody will be happy for rollback to be restored, and there will be no problem. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

How about giving him rollback rights but deleting and salting his huggle.css? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 21:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Σ, see below. Thepoliticalmaster was blocked indefinitely, which makes the whole rollback rights question a moot point. – GorillaWarfare ^{talk • contribs} 22:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

to be clear

You are welcome to blank the page, but it isn't likely that you will convince us to delete it unless you do indeed leave the project. You can say that you are leaving the project and have us delete the page, but if you return in a couple days we'll just have to undelete it. We don't want this to be any kind of badge of shame, but at the same time we want people who aren't admins to be able to see the content in the history. Syrthiss (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Steven Zhang

Stop messing with things in his userspace, please. Further disruption may result in a block without further warning. Thanks.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  12:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Blocked: Disruptive editing

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for disruptive editing. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. PeterSymonds (talk) 12:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Thepoliticalmaster (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I would like to apologise for my actions a few days ago, where I went on a spree of disruptive editing and I can understand that I needed blocking because I was wasting admin's time and that I wasn't contributing to Wikipedia as I am meant to and that was the only way to end it. Also my rollback right arguments were a waste of admin's time and I'm sure that I must have some sort of record for having the most admin's commenting on a user talk of a non-experienced person in a day.

If I am unblocked, I will look to focus more on contributing to Wikipedia through articles and also by taking on a mentor, as I read at WP:Mentor to help me. I will also stay away from rollback rights etc. and if I want to revert vandalism to use UNDO. I realise that from going from not having rollback to not having access to contribute to Wikipedia that I should have appreciate what I already had, which I now think I do. Also, I hope that I can take on the adoption again with Steven, :-@ and I will finish that before mainstreamly contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks for your time and consideration. --Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 14:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I'm willing to unblock you for this second chance, as you seem to know what you've done wrong. Please honour the promises you're making below, or the next request isn't likely to be treated so kindly. Thanks, and best of luck.  狐 Déan rolla bairille!  14:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Just a note here. Thepoliticalmaster came to the unblock channel on IRC earlier to appeal; while I wasn't involved in that discussion, it's my understanding that the admin who received the appeal will be in touch with Peter soon regarding how to proceed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:32, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't there to appeal at that moment, I was there to ask whether it was written properly and to ask whether it would be Peter who does review it, which was my expectation.

I have reviewed the block and am disinclined to grant the unblock request at this point. The primary reason for this is that edits such as this are grossly disruptive. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and we expect our contributors to edit with professionalism—not to post "UNDO DELETE PLEASE. AT USER PAGE - ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ" on another editor's talk page. Among your other changes that preceded Peter's block, you posted in this edit that you are on a "break from Wikipedia, it'd be appreciated that with all your bureaucracy you do not change this page", which is hardly indicative of a user who functions well in a community-based project. Moreover, you made that edit in all capitals, which compounds my general worry that you are becoming increasingly destabilised. The Wikipedia community has historically been sympathetic to users who are experiencing real-life stress or are reacting poorly to a one-off on-wiki incident; if this is the case, then you should let an administrator know privately, or say so here if you prefer. But in my view, we have no place for a new contributor who abuses the rollback tool, edits in a disruptive and concerning way, and as a result is indefinitely blocked after only 20 days of editing the project. Everybody is entitled to have a bad day, make a newbie mistake, or even go off the rails a little at the beginning of their time with Wikipedia. However, on balance, I regretfully think that there is too much here for us to deal with, and would decline this unblock request. I will defer action until Peter comments, although another administrator is welcome to respond definitively to this request in the interim. AGK [•] 16:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to my request. May I please ask:

• You pointed this out, may I say that was after all these long, long discussions on my user talk and also was feeling off that day, of course my action was not appropriate and for that I apologise but I believe it is about what I am going to do now that matters not a few although extremely disruptive things that I did over half an hour
• You also pointed this out, that was a message that I posted, you will realise that immediately afterwards it was soon removed as I was stupid to post and was just "off-on-one" at that time, for which I apologise although what is on there now is in capital letters as well although if you find it offensive I will remove it
• Please would you explain to me how I abused rollback, I can understand my unneeded and unnecessary persistance but where was it ever misused considering I had it for ~14 hours and used it for ~30 mins for the reason I had given with Huggle
• I am also guessing from what you have written that Peter will just decline this straight off, it would be appreciated if I could be given a second chance, I have also now found myself a Mentor being Steven Zhang, he has accepted when I spoke to him on IRC and said that I must follow two main rules of his, no use of Twinkle, must complete his adoption before doing anything else
• Please may I apologise as my actions leading up to the disruptive editing block were inappropriate, whatever be your decision I hope that some time in the future that I will be able to contribute again to Wikipedia

--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I've been asked to comment but I agree completely with AGK. When this block was first imposed, I was questioned by TPM and I advised him to take a break away from Wikipedia. If he's serious about reform, he shouldn't mind waiting until he's calmed down. As such I'm opposed to any mentoring for the next few weeks/months at least. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to leave some comments here as I have been in discussions with politicalmaster over the past few days, and feel it would be appropriate to add my views here. It's undeniable that politicalmaster caused disruption, thats not up for debate. He has shown poor judgment. I feel that this block might havr been a wake up call. I say that from experience, reflecting on the incident I was involved in in 2008. It was a stupid thing to do, and a serious lack of judgment, but something I learned from and would not repeat. Due to the passing of time and my work since then, I feel i've gained back some of the trust I squandered. In this situation here, the issue is whether disruption is likely to occur again. I don't think it's likely. But there's always the possibility. That said, I'm still of the opinion that politicalmaster seems remorseful, and wants to prove himself. Blocks are cheap, and takes about 10 seconds to click block, select indef from the drop down, type reason, and submit, but it can be difficult to find new editors that have a passion for editing Wikipedia, and deep down I think this user has the potential to do good. But because there are underlying issues that need to be addressed to ensure they do not reoccur, I have proposed the following conditions of his unblock.

1. Until further notice, he is only to edit his subpages of User:Steven Zhang/Adoption, as well as my user talk page, except when the requirements of a lesson require actual editing. He must complete this adoption program before he can fully edit the mainspace.
2. He is not to use any automated tools for the time being, including but not limited to Twinkle and Huggle, without the permission of myself or an administrator.
3. He will be under mentorship by myself indefinitely, until he can demonstrate it is no longer required, with violations of his terms of unblock as listed above, as well as causing further disruption to the project, to be remedied by blocks.

While I feel it is unconventional for a non-administrator to formally mentor a user, I understand that there's concerns about an unblock here, so I'm willing to take responsibility for observing their return to editing. He seems to be apologetic and wants to do some good, and blocks are easy to do, so I don't see an issue in giving him a second chance. If he blows it, that'd be it. If he doesn't, then we've gained another productive editor. As I'm not an administrator, at the end of the day my opinion means not a lot, but please consider this when reviewing the unblock. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 14:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I able to remove content from my userpage, e.g. my block stuff and rollback stuff?--Thepoliticalmaster (talk) 14:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I have blacklisted you from using Twinkle so that you don't get in trouble by accidentally using it, please clear your browser cache to update the changes. Thanks, The Helpful One 15:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

It's better to archive it, click on User talk:Thepoliticalmaster/Archive 1 and cut the content from this page you want to arcnive, and paste there. As for this block/unblock discussion, no, it needs to stay here for a while. I am in the process of actioning parts of your agreement, namely the restriction to editing adoption pages and my talk page as well as your own talk page, and restriction from using twinkle. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Hello, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Help pages
• Style guide
• Inclusion policy

You may be interested in participating in

• Proofread of the Month
• Collaboration of the Week
• Requested texts

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

— billinghurst sDrewth 13:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Getting back on track.

Remember the terms of your unblock, and abide by them. Fox, THO and myself have taken actions to enforce the conditions of your unblock, namely barring use of twinkle and adding a script to your monobook file that will warn you if you edit a page outside of user or user talk, remember tne condition however is edit adoption pages, my talk and your talk. As it's late here, I'm heading to bed, but please, when you are ready, read User:Steven Zhang/Adoption/Policies, carefully and slowly and post a few paragraphs on my talk page as tomyour understanding of it, in a new section. I'd also like to know a bit about yourself, your interests, amd what you want to contribute to Wikipedia, so we can figure out what you can do on here. You've been given a second chance here, don't waste it. I'll see any discussions both here and on my talk page in the morning, but would like to see a start made on at explaining what you want to achieve here, on my talk page please, but take your time. I hope you realise that Wikipedia isn't a race here, so take it slow. Will hear from you in the morning. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 15:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

STOP

Stop PMing me on IRC! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Understood.-- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 15:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Stop PMing me on IRC!!!!

• [16:22] <politicalmaster> Anna_Frodesiak
• [16:23] <Anna_Frodesiak> i told you not to pm me
• [16:23] <politicalmaster> Yeah that was then

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Anna

Why not just leave Anna alone? She quite clearly does not want any involvement with you and unless there is a policy/guideline situation I see no reason why you need to comment on her talk page or IRC etc. Sometimes it is better just to let things lie, and for this reason I reverted your last contribution to her page. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

July 2011

This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. You are hereby directed to leave User:Anna Frodesiak alone, If you contact her again by any means you will be blocked for harrassment. ZooPro 12:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC) ZooPro 12:43, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit restrictions

I believe you may be exceeding the limits of your unblock [6]. Note that User:Steven Zhang specifies that you may only edit his designated adoption pages and his user talk page unless the adoption tasks require more (he doesn't even include your talk page but that is presumed to be allowed to ensure you can communicate with other editors to avoid disputes. I would also note that, although not a formal restriction, he recommends you archive your talk page rather than simply removing messages. Finally, this edit is refactoring (because it leave the other editors comments standing alone without context) and it also violates the spirit of user talk pages - although anyone (except one under an edit restriction) may edit another editor's talk page, removing material, even that you put there yourself is not really for you to do but for the person whose talk page it is. Your edits on User talk:Anna Frodesiak have appeared to be harassing and at best are unwanted by that user. They are improper in their own right but considering your editing restrictions they are very disconcerting. If you have an content dispute with another editor or feel another editor is being uncivil, I suggest you discuss it with your mentor and either ask him for guidance or ask him to intercede to try to defuse things. Because you are under an adoption that was arranged to lift a block and involves the enforcement through technical means of edit restrictions, I will notify your mentor of this issue as well.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 13:24, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

IRC chatlogs

I just read your post at User_talk:ZooPro.

I would like your permission to publish the IRC chatlogs. Do you have any objections? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 15:54, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes I do object, primarily because you were not interested in talking to me in the first place, now that I am leaving you alone, you can't resist to annoy me, the reason I was speaking to ZooPro and Doug is so that any contact to be made would be through them. As I also said please do not contact me directly contact my mentor. Also I may consider if you tell me which ones these are. May I have your permission to speak to you on IRC? Also if you had just put me on /ignore then it would have saved this whole row. -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 15:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

On archiving, etc.

1. Regarding archiving, the normal practice is to provide a link on your talk page and not to archive ongoing conversations. Although users are generally free to do otherwise, your editing restrictions, etc. would suggest you should be particularly careful. As it is, it appears like you are trying to hide posts that criticize you.
2. I have no idea what off-wiki drama is going on and I don't want to
3. I don't know User:Anna Frodesiak, I don't believe either of us has ever posted on the other's talk page, IRC, or e-mailed. I mention this because of your comment at User_talk:Steven_Zhang#Your_adoptee.2Fmentee that it seems that Anna has gathered up her experienced user and admin friends to go against me and as far as I know, I'm the only admin who's been recently involved, though maybe I'm mistaken.
4. I sincerely hope you listen to your mentor and find a way to work with or avoid Anna.

--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 19:04, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

To me they weren't ongoing, they had finished. -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 19:08, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Restrictions

I've read over the discussions on both my talk page and other user talk pages, and I'm not too impressed. Your initial restrictions did include the condition that you were to only to edit the talk page of myself, and while not explicitly mentioned, the ability to edit your own talk page is also something you are permitted to do. I've allowed you to edit other user talk pages because up until now it has not been an issue, but it is evident now that it has become an issue. While in the long term you will be better off, in the short term to diffuse the situation I see no choice but to modify your restrictions. Please read them carefully.

1. Until further notice, the only pages you are permitted to edit are subpages of User:Steven Zhang/Adoption, my talk page as well as your talk page. When issues arise that require edits to other user talk pages, you are to raise these issues on my talk page, and I'll look into it. When the requirements of a lesson require actual editing, you would need this from me. You must fully complete the adoption program before you can fully edit the mainspace.
2. You are placed under an indefinite interaction ban from Anna Frodesiak (talk · contribs). This extends to on-wiki as well as off-wiki.
3. You are not to use automated tools for the time being, including but not limited to Huggle and Twinkle, without the permission of myself or an administrator.
4. Your mentorship will continue until such time that it is evident that it is no longer required. Violations of these restrictions, as well as causing further disruption to the project, can be remedied by blocks, starting at 24 hours. After 5 blocks, the maximum duration will be indefinite.

While I realise these restrictions are not easy to swallow, I do see issues here that the initial restrictions are not addressing. There's more we need to go through so you understand what's right and what isn't, but until that time these restrictions are needed. If you don't understand these restrictions, or if you require clarification, please let me know. The best way forward here might be to pick an article that interests you but needs improvement (say a very short article), copy the content of the article to a subpage of yours, and work on it to make it better. Sounds reasonable? Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 22:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Great minds think alike Steve :P I was just about to inform this user that I was going act on a topic ban from Anna, However I see you have taken action so I am happy for this to be left in your capable hands. If you require anything please dont hesitate to ask. Kindest regards ZooPro 07:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

By the way Steve, good to see another Aussie on here mate :) ZooPro 07:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there are too few aussies on here :) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 07:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

IRC

I've noticed several times in the past week that you have attempted to contact me on IRC. I am not ignoring you. I am frequently logged in while editing, eating supper, etc. This is particularly likely when it says Doug|afk, otherwise I am usually listed as BewareofDoug, though I may be away even when it doesn't say so. You'll just have to keep trying. I'm glad to see that you now have a registered account on IRC. Now you need to talk to your mentor about helping you with getting a cloak (that will hide your IP and more importantly link your IRC account to your wikipedia account so that everyone knows you are one in the same. I don't know what you are trying to reach me about, but I suggest you ask most questions of your mentor. I'm always glad to help anyone however I can, but I don't want to get in the way of your mentor's instruction.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 20:54, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource

I'm not sure where or how to answer your question from IRC or your user page on Wikisource. You have posted a help template that is supposed to say what you want help with and you have redirected your talk page here. It's not a big problem, I just I recommend you change both of those. Ask your questions on your talk page on Wikisource and simply note at the top of the page that if someone leaves you a message you may not see it right away and they might want to post a note here to tell you there's a message. Check out Wikisource Help (though it has a lot of issues with clarity) and let me know or post on your talk page what your questions are. There is a lot to do over there. You really need to try to learn one project at a time though, I don't recommend trying to learn Wikipedia and Wikisource at the same time, they are quite different in both scope and the way they run.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 21:44, 15 July 2011 (UTC)