Welcome to Wikipedia, LordPiratez! I am Mysdaao and have been editing Wikipedia for quite some time. I just wanted to say hi and welcome you to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page or by typing {{helpme}} at the bottom of this page. I love to help new users, so don't be afraid to leave a message! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Mysdaao ^talk 16:51, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add {{featured article}} to articles like International recognition of Kosovo and St. Paul's Church, George Street, Nottingham. Adding that template does not make an article a featured article. Articles have to be nominated at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and then reviewed before they are given featured article status. Please let me know if there are any questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao ^talk 16:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uh...I don't understand. I thought that on Wikipedia we're just supposed to make articles featured. I'm so sorry. I'll stop and not come back again.

Nobody's trying to make you leave Wikipedia. There is just a process for making an article featured that most new users don't know about. You can read Wikipedia:Featured article candidates and follow the instructions to nominate an article to be featured on the main page. Please let me know if there are any more questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao ^talk 17:55, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't understand. How do I patrol the recent changes and new pages? On your userpage, you have this:

This user is a recent changes patroller.

Thank you for your reply! LordPiratez (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the left side of a Wikipedia page, you'll see a link that says Recent changes. By clicking on that link, you can see the most recent edits made to pages on Wikipedia. I look at the most recent changes look for vandalism to Wikipedia and other bad edits, revert them, and warn the user who made the edit. There are also various tools and scripts that can be used to help. If you'd like to do this too to help out, please read Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol for more information, and let me know if you need me to answer any more questions for you. Thanks! --Mysdaao ^talk 00:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that you copied what's on my userpage (User:Mysdaao) to yours (User:LordPiratez) and changed my username to yours. This is not explicitly forbidden, and I don't mind if you copy some of the elements, but it's not a good idea to do what you did. Your user page should be about your activities on Wikipedia, and what's there right now is not about you. You didn't create the articles listed, you're not a member of the projects listed, and you didn't receive barnstars from those users, and I believe they would have a problem with you pretending that they did. I can help you change your user page to be about you, if you'd like my help. But please change User:LordPiratez to remove the inaccurate and incorrect information. Wikipedia:User page has information on what a user page on Wikipedia is designed for. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! --Mysdaao ^talk 01:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep harassing me! Please discontinue your unwelcome trolling. Adiós! LordPiratez (talk) 19:02, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to help you learn the ways of editing of Wikipedia, but I will leave you alone as you wish. Just so you're aware, I have removed the false claims that were on your user page after you copied the content from mine. Please don't put them back. I will not send you any more messages after this one, but if you change your mind, I am always willing to help, so feel free to send me a message on my talk page any time. Happy editing. --Mysdaao ^talk 20:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I did not expect to see that when I logged in today. Thank you so much for the honor of this nomination, which I humbly accept. I will spend some time considering and writing answers to the questions on Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Mysdaao, and then I will formally accept it and add it to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship. Again, thank you for your trust in me! --Mysdaao ^talk 14:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. You are truly a responsible editor that will use administrator tools wisely. Good luck, and take all the support! LordPiratez (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered the questions and formally accepted the nomination. --Mysdaao ^talk 20:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize that's not working out. But I hope it does not discourage you from Wikipedia.

We're an encyclopedia-building project, but we're also a community and culture that take some time to learn.

Many of us stumble to some degree when we start here. It's not that you, and newcomers, aren't welcome at Wikipedia. It's that many of us doubt that you know either Mysdaao or Wikipedia well enough yet to vouch for his suitability as an admin.

Like any group, we have a range of people with a range of views and so forth. I hope this situation does not define Wikipedia and your experience here.

Take care. Maurreen (talk) 06:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assumption of good faith. LordPiratez (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be discouraged by all of that drama. As you continue to edit here, you will realize that what goes on behind the scenes is drama. Some of the actions between you two are a bit weird, but I didn't really mean to hurt your standing in the community there with my statement. I really think that you will someday become a productive editor and I look forward to working with you someday as we have a few overlapping interests. A good word of advice is to be bold when doing things here. In a way, your nomination did just that. Don't feel ashamed of nominating him as any editor can do so. The fact that you guys quarreled and then made up is also a sign that all is not lost on this project. I would encourage you to remove your strikethrough and be proud of the fact that you had the honor of nominating an editor as experienced as Mysdaao. That says a lot that he accepted a nomination from somebody like you, a virtual unknown in the community. If you ever need anything, don't hesitate to ask. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you too for your assumption of good faith. LordPiratez (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I don't understand is why you accused me of being a sockpuppet of Mysdaao. He said so himself that he was thinking of nominating himself. Why would he need a random new account like me to help him rise to the occasion? He could have nominated himself just as well. LordPiratez (talk) 07:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad judgement perhaps. I'm trying hard to AGF, but seriously, that can only go so far. I'm sorry, but I'll say now that I'm tempted to open up a SPI case on you. If you really are a sockpuppet of Mysdaao, please consider confessing now. You'll save yourself shame and a block in the long run. Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will confess to no such thing. I do not understand how I will "save [myself] shame and a block in the long run." If I confess to be a sockpuppet of Mysdaao, I will not get blocked? I've read that any sockpuppet is bound to get blocked. But I assure you, I am not. Think whatever you want, but keep it to yourself. LordPiratez (talk) 07:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you probably won't. This example somewhat relates: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chzz. I am curious though, how did you manage to learn Wikipedia so fast? You created several fairly well sourced stub-class articles (you assessed them correctly too) articles over the span of 24 hours, not two days after you created your account. Shortly afterwards, you used the {{RfA}} template correctly, which new users rarely use and transclude correctly. This, coupled with the well-written nomination, simply leaves me at a loss. I hate to badger, and especially so if you are legitimately an enthusiastic user, and if so, I am sorry. But I really would like to see a convincing response - because I still am tempted to open up a SPI case. Regards, FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 07:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The articles I created were a piece of cake. Using Wikipedia:Requested articles, I got to the education list. The first entry was McAllen Memorial High School, which I created. I created it using Dayton High School (Oregon), which was the next entry. I replaced each piece of information with the applicable information taken from my sources. I assessed them the same way the person assessed Dayton High School (Oregon), except I changed the state. The {{RfA}} template also was easy. I went to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Nominate#To nominate someone else, where I entered Mysdaao's name into the box. It brought me to a page containing this: {{subst:RfA|User=Mysdaao|Description=YOUR DESCRIPTION OF THE USER ~~~~}}. It was a quite simple process. My nomination was well-written – so? A newcomer isn't stupid and unable to explicate his thoughts. One does not have to be an experienced editor to write well. I hope this answers your questions and casts out any suspicion. For now, good night. LordPiratez (talk) 08:16, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That answer doesn't do it for me either... I'm quite doubtful that you actually are a new user to this site for various reasons. One of them being the fact that you know so much about the site already. That just isn't something you learn in a few hours, nor are half the things you have said... including the fact that you keep calling yourself a newcomer. Either you were an anonymous reader who ventured into the Wikipedia space, or you're a sock. I would open an SPI case, except that I don't go over there very often... I would see cause for Fastily to open one though. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 09:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why exactly "[t]hat answer doesn't do it for [you]"? "[H]alf the things [I] have said" "isn't something [I] learn in a few hours"? I explained them quite simply. I don't understand how a newcomer could not figure out what I figured out and do the same thing. LordPiratez (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never did accuse you of being one, I just felt a little suspicious. I almost filed an SPI, but I didn't have enough solid evidence to do anything. From what you have said, I believe that you are telling the truth. If not, then you will be caught eventually. Personally, I really like the fact that you have learned that quickly is the sign of an editor destined for greatness if you continue here. Who knows, maybe you'll be an administrator someday. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Guys, this is getting kind of ugly. May I suggest that you either file the SPI or let this go? He's clearly stated he is not a sock. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assumption of good faith. LordPiratez (talk) 15:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new user learning quickly and being bold should be what we all want. All those making accusations are coming close to biting the newcomer. If you truly believe LordPiratez is a sockpuppet of me, start an SPI case. I know any such case will be closed with no action taken. Otherwise, this is unproductive. --Mysdaao ^talk 16:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assumption of good faith. LordPiratez (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Beeblebrox and Mysdaao. It's time to get off the fence. Maurreen (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assumption of good faith. LordPiratez (talk) 15:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mind telling me what the hell you think you're doing here? – iridescent 19:53, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am doing exactly what I claimed I was doing. I "[f]ixed egregious grammar and spelling errors on behalf of user's request". Is it not simple enough? Next time you have a problem with me, please do not use such a tone as you have above. LordPiratez (talk) 19:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits? They were improving the article. You just restored mistakes like "4 June, 1944" when the comma should not be there. LordPiratez (talk) 20:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me for butting in, but Iridescent appears to be over-reacting to what might be a misunderstanding regarding LordPiratez's edit summary.

It appears that LordPiratez was intending to correct some language errors that LordPiratez attributed to the editor immediately before Iridescent. There were language errors, I don't know or care who made them.

Even if Iridescent found it necessary to revert LordPiratez, LordPiratez deserves a better edit summary to justify the reversion. And LordPiratez does not deserve to be sworn at. Maurreen (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

:::But Iridescent might be expecting a response at User talk:Iridescent. Responding at the other's talk page is the default method, although not the universal method. Maurreen (talk) 22:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked this account indefinitely for trolling and disruption. My decision to do so is motivated in large measure by a checkuser finding that this is the same user as User:Hiineedrequestforcomment, who was blocked for somewhat similar behavior. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]