User talk:Newbyguesses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • If Newbyguesses left a message on a talkpage then Newbyguesses will be monitoring that talkpage for replies
  • or, leave a message here, if you wish – all NEW messages go at bottom of talkpage-- Please remember to SIGN (~~~~)
  • If a message is left on this talkpage then User:Newbyguesses will usually reply on this talkpage, below
  • or the article/talk/page or to sender's talkpage, whichever

Talk page Archives

Hello Newbyguesses! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking Image:Signature icon.png or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! —EncMstr 04:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
WikiProject Philosophy task list
  • German Idealism and almost all the articles related to it need to be either rewritten or expanded, because a wikipedia user called Lestrade has, among other things, taken it upon himself to imbue each page with bias in favour of Schopenhauer, who he attempts to present as having the last say in everything. This is a terrible thing to do, because German Idealism is such an important period in philosophy, whose influence is still strongly felt today.
  • Protected Values first section confuses right action and values and needs a copy edit, moving and wikifying
  • Ludwig Wittgenstein is having its FA status reviewed due to a couple of concerns. Help save Ludwig! See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Ludwig Wittgenstein for requirements for retaining FA status.
  • Quality (philosophy) needs a more clear explanation.
  • Socratic dialogues could do with some tidying and clarification. See the talk page for one suggested change.
  • Problem of universals: The introductory definition is (perhaps) fixed. But, the article is poor. Check out the German version.
  • Teleology: the article is shallow and inconsistent.
  • Existentialism: the quality of this article varies wildly and is in desperate need of expert attention.
  • Star of Sophia Vote for or nominate someone you think is deserving!
  • Analytic_philosophy This is a very major topic, but still has several sections which are stubs, and several topics which are not covered.
  • Inverse (logic) This article makes me wish that there were a fail grade on the quality scale. Someone should rewrite it.
Vote | Larry's Text | stubs | edit this list | discuss these tasks | Category:Philosophy | Portal:Philosophy | RFC | Deletion | Requested articles | Noticeboard | Discussion
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Contents

[edit] References

[edit] from Wikipedia:Civility

Civility is a code for the conduct of editing and writing edit summaries, comments, and talk page discussions on all Wikipedias. Wikipedians define incivility roughly as personally targeted behavior that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress. Our code of civility states plainly that people must act with civility toward one another.

[edit] Hall of Fame

For a limited time, and at great expense to the management, talk:Newbyguesses presents for your enjoyment and edification some of the BEST EVER edits, and edit summaries.

(No users should feel impugned by being included in this Hall of Fame.)

  • Best ever Revert using an anti-vandal tool to remove a good-faith edit (to the article Vandalism)

01:53, 25 December 2007 SaveThePoint (Talk | contribs) m (12,216 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by 66.142.174.58; Good faith, but POV. using TW[1]

  • Best ever deletion of (five) poems (from the article Poetry)

22:37, 24 September 2007 Nihil novi (Talk | contribs) (74,347 bytes) (Deleted, again, 5 "examples" of poems. This is NOT an anthology. The "examples" should be placed in their authors' articles, with links perhaps to "Poetry" article.) [2]

00:06, 21 August 2007 Newbyguesses (Talk | contribs) (7,088 bytes) ([[WP:UNDO|"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo Bufflao bufflao Bufflao bufflao Bufflao buffalo" is way too many buffalo) [3]

  • Best ever edit summary, (with an aquatic theme), (at Wikipedia:Bait)

sorry, I just had to.

  • Best way to reply when someone implies that you may have, you know, made a mistake.

I don't appreciate the assumption of bad faith, and still don't see the point. [4]

Please explain this. It is clearly not appropriate. per--Deskana (apples) 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC) -- [apologies,self-revert, mea culpa]

  • Most optimistic post ever (to WP:AN/I).

"The beatings will continue until morale improves". [5]

[edit] Notes, (Rfa/Mantanmoreland)

"mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa."
"mea culpa, mea culpa, mea máxima culpa."

archived talk page notes (User talk:Newbyguesses), from Feb - March 2008

[edit] From Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Arbitration report

Closed case.

IRC: A case involving <> #wikipedia-en-admins, which led to an edit war on WP:WEA, involving page protection <> As a result of the case, the committee stated that it will determine "Policy and procedure changes regarding Wikipedia IRC channels" separately from the case, all parties were "strongly cautioned to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption".

[edit] Zipper club

[6]

[edit] Welcome back!

Welcome back! I'm very glad to learn your surgery went smoothly, and I hope you're feeling relatively well. Of course, your contributions are always valuable, but do what you think is best for your health. Best. Superm401 - Talk 22:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talk page edit summaries

Well, short answer: "No". :) However, you can click "edit this page" (or the edit link for the last section), and manually type in "==My header==" and use whatever edit summary you'd like. Tell me if I can clarify further. Superm401 - Talk 10:20, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Right, that's about the size of it. I tend to click on the edit section link, and just add a header manually. But you can always do "edit this page" at the top, which gives you the most flexibility and no default edit summary for the wrong section. Superm401 - Talk 10:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

thankyou Superm401

[edit] BetacommandBot

That's basically right, but the rationales need to be on Image:CollingwoodDesign.jpg. I suggest you use a template, such as Template:Fair use rationale, to keep things organized. I do realize BetaCommandBot seems annoying, but it helps keep Wikipedia as free as possible. Superm401 - Talk 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the rationales go on the image page itself. I don't know what "other one" you're talking about exactly. As for Image:Rod Serling1.jpg you can't use it in Wikipedia-space. Non-free images can only be in articles. Superm401 - Talk 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Image:FitzroyDesign.jpg looks okay. Superm401 - Talk 02:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I prefer people post to my page, because then the pretty orange bar pops up right away. But I can check your page too; it's on my watchlist, but I just might be a slower in responding. You are correct that fair use images may not be outside article space. That's because they're meant to improve the actual encyclopedia. We decided we don't want the legal risk of using them elsewhere. This is monitored manually for now, at least until BetaCommand codes another bot ;). Superm401 - Talk 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course, you can link them elsewhere, as I did above for Rod Serling1.jpg, just not include them. Superm401 - Talk 03:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but I have no idea what your last post on my talk page is about. Can you clarify what you'd like me to do/explain, please? Superm401 - Talk 15:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I thought the content was significant. If I understand correctly now, you were testing your Sandbox; if so, feel free to use it however you like (within reason). I definitely think you're doing well a Wikipedia editor, both technically and in terms of integration into the community. I don't really feel you've misused my time in any way; I just want to know how to be useful. And, as you said, do feel free to contact me with urgent requests. If they are private, you can of course use my email. Superm401 - Talk 23:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Silly old me  ;) Newbyguesses - Talk 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Smiley

I'll see your smiley and raise you one. . See also emoticons. Superm401 - Talk 04:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some characteristics of Minor edits

The edit adds ONE byte, the edit summary adds 22 bytes!

[edit] Re: New section -header

e- rE the triv/guideline discussion, these words- If information is otherwise suitable, it is better that it be poorly presented than not presented at all.

I am fairly certain that i saw somewhere a statement to the opposite gist to this one which currently forms part of the text of this guideline (second section). My recollection is a statment to the effect, in fact, from User Jimbo, if memory serves, to the effect --if information does not need to be included then it does not need to be included, or some thing more like that than the "linked words". It was on an early talkpage, or archives. I am thinking Iar:talk, although it is more logical that it be talk:OR, or talk:V or some BLP; it is here my memory fails me . Does any of this seem familiar to you, at all? cheers nbg Newbyguesses - Talk 00:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure which quote you're referring to, but 2 separate Jimbo quotes come to mind:
  • on WP:OR or unsourced statements: better no information than information such as this (very approximate wording). This sounds closest to what you describe. The quote is from an email list, and is reprinted in a few places around WP.
  • on Trivia: The important thing is, Wikipedia is NOT a trivia collection. [7]
Do you mean either of these? If it's the first one, let me know and I can hunt it down for you. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the first one, still thinking I saw it in an archive of talk:Iar, thanksNewbyguesses - Talk 01:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Got it.

better to have no information, than to have information like this, with no sources."

Removed from WP:V on October 2007. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
My mistake. It was restored, and is still at the bottom of Wikipedia:Verifiability. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)That's good. (As always, it is appropriate to read User:Jimbo's comments in context, before introducing them into a discussion.) That it was removed then restored to WP:V does not surprise me. This discussion can continue back at talk:TRIV, (my review added to yours, you may still hold reservations to sect:Other policies apply, but bear with me? nbgNewbyguesses - Talk 02:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No prob. WP:TRIV is such a WP:BATTLEFIELD that I'm not too invested in the current efforts. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems. Woops, that section is gone, now! (Npenguin did it)—Newbyguesses - Talk 02:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That is, at Wikipedia:Trivia/Draft. Newbyguesses - Talk 03:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Found: another Jimboquote, (in use at WP:BLP), will track down further details when I have time -

Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia.

–Jimmy Wales [1]


  1. ^ . "WikiEN-l Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information", May 19, 2006

[edit] complaint

This user contributes to fringe theories in Wikipediaspace.

Your comments about me on WT:IAR are quickly devolving into personal attacks. If you don't have anything to contribute, please just don't comment. - Chardish (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, old son. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Point to a personal attack I've made on that page, then. - Chardish (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Note, this issue has been resolved amicably, at User talk:Chardish, thankyou.

I apologise again, and mean it, Sorry, Chardish, I will try to do better. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to note for the record here that I accept the apology User:Newbyguesses left at my talk. - Chardish (talk) 01:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Politely, please

A bouncer
A bouncer

Politely, or else it will be some other individual's poor choice of words which will likely lead to trouble. [8]

It's okay to call a spade a spade, but be sure to use discretion and politeness when you do. [9]

[edit] Protected page

Just checking, David - you did not consider this edit of mine to be frivolous, did you? It was discussed on the discussion page before going up. That is, since the page got protected, I hope I am not in danger of being held partly responsible for the edit-war. Reassurance on that would be nice. Respect.Newbyguesses - Talk 04:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

While I disagreed with that edit, I never suspected that it was anything other than a sincere attempt to improve the page (unlike a number of other recent edits). I'm sorry that there was any ambiguity. —David Levy 13:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

FYI.Newbyguesses - Talk 04:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that.  :-) —David Levy 13:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] request

Could you clarify the the first to bullet points in the proposal, seems confusing. IE

  • This does not change the 12word version of IAR.
  • This supports the current consensus explanation of WP:WIARM.
  • I am in favour of any worthwhile effort to render the text of WP:IAR less confusing, or more useful.
  • I am not in favour of adding to the rules, by implying in any way that an understanding of any rules is necessary to "Ignore all rules".

Commom problem is the "change vs no change" people, this identifies the objections on both sides. just a suggestion. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Done! Thanks, that makes sense. Newbyguesses - Talk 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The origional section title ""suggested re-write, provisional, by newbyguesses" has multiple links to it on several project discussion pages, changing it as you did here negates navivigation from those discusions. May I suggest the section tite be reverted back? The proposed renaming of IAR to Wikipedia:No firm rules should be an entirely seperate section and proposal, and risks the loss of support already gained. Thanks--Hu12 (talk)06:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Done, woo this page is 400K, slow as. Will start new section, presently. The name change would lose suport, wouldn't it. Hmm. --Newbyguesses - Talk 06:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, the small changes are recieving heavy opposition, renaming is a whole new honeypot of debate. the proposal should not include the *Name Change*. I do like the idea however, but one step at a time. I understand its your proposal, but could the other mention of the rename be moved, repeated revisions (changing the proposal) after suport is added for a version, is probably a bad idea, if you wish it to suceed. --Hu12 (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I am fine with that, all of what you say. May I ask you to do the required edit, if you would. My computer is on fire, and I have to get back to <dramas> elsewhere. If you get this message, go for it, be my guest. I will take it slow. OK no name change, is goodo --Newbyguesses - Talk 06:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

<-- This page is 334 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to move older discussion into an archive subpage. See Help:Archiving a talk page for guidance.

Done, phewww. --Newbyguesses - Talk 06:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

254.7kB currently, the bot archived some threads, but yes, its big. Sorry to be a pest. Thanks much!--Hu12 (talk) 07:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] I like WP:TWILIGHT

We all need to work together to build the community. That is CIVIL amd common sense. Igor Berger (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, user:Igor Berger. What you said here is concise and to the point. I will add that any help with the essay is appreciated, and discussion on the talk-page talk:TWILIGHT most welcome. As it says at the top of the page there, Update As Necessary. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, not purely an individual one. --Newbyguesses - Talk 08:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to help you and comment at the essay talk page, but unfortunately, I was Wikipedia namespace banned for 30 days, and out of respect for the community I will uphold to my agreement of not editing in that space. But I will comment a bit here, because the more of us that see things as a community, through many eyes, the stronger Wikipedia project is. We all have different views and opinions so it is easy to make a mistake by seeing something from one angle while ignoring another, because that view is minority. That is how accidents happen, you ignore the blind spot. What I find most benificial in the TWILIGHT essay, and I hope you are the one who wrote it, which I think you are, because you are open-minded, is that when there is a complaint or an edit by user A, that edit is not questioned but user B and other editors after that user are. We tend to forget the original edit, and take it on face value. That is how I got in trouble in the first place, I followed all the complaining editors at ANI, and checked to make sure their complaints have merit. What I found out that many editors who file the complaints are bad faith editors. While the community goes after the editor who the complaint is levied on and finds something wrong with this editor, it tends to take the word of the complaining editor as truth. We need to work closer as the community and find out what are the motivations of that complaint. What is the history that editor A has with editor B. Very oten, and not in all case, especially not when an establish editor makes a complaint, the complaining editor has some adverse relationship with an editor he is complaining about. It is very hard to get to the truth and requires calaboration of the whole community to check each other edits from left to right, from up to down no matter if we are administrators or regular users. There maybe problems, some intentional, some accidental, but if we work together we can fix those problem by teaching each other and not waving the LAW as if it was written in stone. That is where the gray zone lies. The TWILIGHT zone, something that our common sense may not even understand. I guess I got in trouble being in the TWILIGHT zone..:) Igor Berger (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Just to add a bit, let's not discount the original edit that starts the process. I think that is the gist of your essay! Igor Berger (talk) 10:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thankyou IgorBerger, please feel free to comment here concerning WP:TWILIGHT if you wish; if your points are well-made and easily understood, I will try to incorporate them into the essay, that is what essays are for. I have just added Wikipedia:Avoid personal remarks to the See also section, it seems a good point to make.
Yes, I read the AN/I thread where you asked? to be blocked/got restricted from WPspace for 30 days. Might I suggest that "it takes all sorts to make a world" - our communications are best when short-ish, and when the point is simple to discern. We all have a part to play, the sum is greater than the parts. Thankyou once more. --Newbyguesses - Talk 20:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
I am totally okay with being banned from Wikipedia namespace for 30 days. It gives me time to relax a bit. I think our problem is we care too much about CIVIL, while we do not investigate what causes the CIVIL violation in the first place. But CIVIL violation is very easy to proof while to figure out what provoked it in the first place requires an investigation. I will give you a hypothetical senario of what may provoke a CIVIL violation. User A is a Troll who does nothing but arguee his POV on a article, user B is a conserned editor who is trying to work with other editors to get a consensus in order to edit the article. User A is very CIVIL but obsructs the editing of the article with slow reverts and even a sock account to help his ways. User B just cannot take it that the article gets fallen into desarray and slowly deleted by user A, he tells users A stop being a Troll. User C sees this and warns user B of violating CIVIL. User D who is an admin sees the violation and blocks user B, who is a good faith editor, for 24 hours. Now user A learns who to game the system, and he really hates user B and tries to get him off wiki, he files an ANI report against him showing the diff of personal attack and the 24 hour block by an admin, asking that user B be banned from the article. User B in ANI, gets really mad and calls user A a POV pushing Troll trying to game the system. User B gets an indef block. Wikipedia lost a good faith editor while gained a Troll. Now imagine if there where an uninvolved editor who investigated user A, lets call him user E, and this editor brings the issue to user F and points out all the problems with user A, even requests a check user. User F is an established editor and files check user request. When investigated it is determined that user A has a sock and is blocked indef. The Troll is gone and the article can be edited again without disruption by user A, whos only consern was to delete the article, because he did not agree with the article topic in the first place. So our user E maybe was even attacked by A, but E is very patient and does not get intangaled but works from the sidelines. We need more users E to keep an eye on the Wikipedia to figure out what is broken and to get the community to fix it. We are as a community too quick to get things fixed right away, because we do not want disruption and it is very easy to follow the policy. But while we enforce the policy we lose good faith editors, who are knowledgeable about a particular topic, because Trolls game the system. Anyway, if you think you can add what I said to your essay, you are welcome to. You can rewrite it too sound more logical and coherent. I think what I have just said is the TWILIGHT zone that you are talking about. We care about policy especially CIVIL but we rarely investigate the TWILIGHT zone! As much as CIVIL is important NPOV is more important! Wikipedia is about having our articles NPOV not about being civil to each other. Although civility is desired it is not paramount to NPOV of knowledge. Igor Berger (talk) 23:18, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds like the Twilight Zone to me. I will see what I can do with it. Thanks --Newbyguesses - Talk 23:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A WP:SPADE is a SPADE and a WP:DUCK is a DUCK and not a 5 legged WP:HORSE

Maybe instead of putting all what a SPADE is not in the essay is to have a paragraph to What a SPADE should not be used for with a link to NOSPADE essay. Also with a link to an essay what is CIVIL, not the CIVIL policy, but CIVIL common sense. Igor Berger (talk) 05:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, good points Igor. You have been reading the talk-pages, havent you, and following that discussion! I am not sure what to do just now, I am gonna have to think about it. Thanks --Newbyguesses - Talk 05:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you doing a great job on it, the difficult part is to get the consensus of the community! Igor Berger (talk) 05:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The essence of beginnings, the beginning of essence

I'm unclear on your rationale here. Those two points are the distilled essence. And in fact they are the perfume of wiki, in that they are an attractive quality. In fact, ha ha, too much of them are annoying, just like perfume.

I don't see where "beginnings" is in any way an improvement, especially because it seems to conflict with "just getting started" immediately above and is therefore almost certain to confuse the new reader. I'd suggest either going back to "essence" or changing again to something like "beginnings of successful ignorance". But I think we're picking over this too much as it is. I dunno, I'll let my good feeling about a certain version in time fade away, and what will be, will be. :) Franamax (talk) 03:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I could go with "beginnings of successful ignorance", that sounds catchy, but now we have "essence" back in. That's OK. --Newbyguesses - Talk 05:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Linear process for CCC

I couldn't find what I thought was a good solution for a linear description of CCC or Consensus, but I've pasted my best attempt below. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, now that seems pretty reasonable thanks Kevin. It is a linear process, but my idea may be a bit too much of an over-simplification. The idea that I had was that we often do not discuss single edits. We usually discuss an edit and the subsequent edits. That allows us to avoid the question of reverts - we are thinking of the big picture, rather than the outcome for a particular editor who is personally involved with a particular edit. That is, we discuss edits when they are reverted, but we also discuss edits when they are accepted, this may lead us to the next good idea for an edit.
I am gonna think about this some more, may or may not get anywhere, thanks for your help. --Newbyguesses - Talk 07:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
My pleasure. --Kevin Murray (talk) 18:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Lectures on the 6th

Kim is starting the lectures on April 6th around 15:00 UTC (although that is apparently open to discussion). Just a reminder (might want to add it to your watchlist :-p) Xavexgoem (talk) 14:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Newbyguesses.

[edit] Lectures

The lecture has started. irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia-en-lectures

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you --Nbg.

[edit] Templates

If you want to refer to a template without actually transcluding it, as I did on Kim's page - squiggly - squiggly - tee - ell - pipe-symbol - template-name - back-squiggly - back-squiggly. Thus I can refer to {{Supplemental essay}} without putting it on your page. (Which template still exists and is involved in the template chain which we have recently discussed) Franamax (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 13:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The twilight zone

Would it be possible to integrate this into the essay?

A single editor who opposed the consenses metamorphises as a sock playing for your team to distract the ball players of the bigger issue? All the ball pplayers jump to protect the goal - the article, while the stadium gets burned down -Wikipedia - because fans - other editors who are not familiar with the issue at hand come rioting to the field - ANI. Wikidrama - Applause, applause, more applause! Burn it down, hang the goaly, he is the one who made us lose the game! The twilight zone! Igor Berger (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, I understand the points you raised and I agree with everything you say. I never wanted it to be me vs him, I just wanted to raise my conserns about the editor to the community, because of his editing way on AA. Which I raised on AA article that he is SPA and filed SSP as well as WQA. Please check the reports and the editors contribution history. Now that the community is aware of the situation I will restrain from interacting with the user and let the community address the issue, if need to be! I am AGF the editor and want the editor to be a productive member of wikipedia, same as I am sure you about me. I am trying to avoid going to ANI, because I do not want this to become some spectical like last time, with wikidrama, it is not healthy! I filled the WQA not because of his ANI but was writting it up then I got "you got message". I hope we can quietly deescalate this. Thank you for your consern, Igor Berger (talk) 05:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope it works out, Igor. I am pleased that you will no longer interact with that editor. Hopefully, other procedures will follow a smooth course.Let the community address any issues. [10] It is really best to keep your cool at all times, that is what I try to do. I don't think you will be getting into any trouble, but watch your step, it is easy to be mis-understood. --Newbyguesses (talk) 05:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I know, I am very careful and respectable to all editors and always open to criticizm. You know what really conserns me and I do not understand why no one is deling with it? Many established good faith editors including admins find it almost impossible to edit articles. It is a marry go around! The SPA SSP just cause havoc on all hot - sensitive articles. It is a battleground, they do not give up. You block them, they just come back under anonomus proxy new user id! These account are just destroying Wikipedia! Edit, revert, edit revert. We follow WP:DR and civil and AFG but we are losing. Many good editors are leaving because they do not want to edit war. Why we cannot set up minimum 50 or even 100 edits before hot - sensitive topics can be edited by new users. Will this not prevent abuse and gaming the system? We are told everyone can edit, but today no one can edit because of this abuse. Igor Berger (talk) 07:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can tell that you are concerned. Try not to worry so much, about people "destroying" Wikipedia, it is too big a job to take on alone. Just do a little to help, wherever is best, and in the end Wikipedia will be fine!. Don't get too upset about those bad things that happen, it doesn't help. Wikipedia has a strange way of dealing with problems, we let people do their worst and then eventually they give up. So, someone like yourself, trying always to do good, will never be pushed away by Wikipedia, we want people who do good to be happy, and stay. Be happy, and stay, Igor.

Advice from me: try to treat all editors equally, even those who are doing (temporary) harm, be polite, don't accuse without being able to provide evidence, give everyone two chances to prove they are trying to be helpful, and if they fail, still give them another chance. And when you yourself get over-excited, take a break, go do something else. Write up a post, then wait, and rewrite it when you are calmer. Let me know if you get into strife with any Admins if they are failing to understand you; there is not a lot I can do other than speak up on your behalf, but i would do that if I am made aware of a problem. Best wishes, --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Newbyguesses, thank you everymuch for caring. Your humbelness and respect that you have just showed me, made me cry. I am cool, and letting the process take its place. I am just a small fish, and will not take the Bait! Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 23:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, User Igorberger! I am pleased to hear that things are working out. You keep well, and don't take the Bait! --Newbyguesses (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's another amusing link for you, Igor: Staying cool when the editing gets hot! Thank you, NewByGuesses.
I like to ask you for an advice about a very sensetive issue. I have been dealing with this issue for a while now, and have tried coperative contact to make the situation more amiable between me and the other party conserned. But I feel it is being viewed obscurely by the other party. Having that party view me in a less favorable light, hinders me from smooth perticipation in the project. I know I have made some mistakes since joining, but I am sure all editors have. We are only humans. I also think we all have something to teach each other, and knowledge makes the community stronger. How can we build trust? How can we build bridges to overcome the divide. I feel talking to the party directly is a definite no, because it will agitate the perception of that party of me even in a more negative matter. I am even aprehansive in talking about this to you, even that I am keeping in very low key. But I feel if the problem is not addressed I and the community will have to deal with it again and again. I feel it is more misperciption and miscommunication. I admit, I am different than many editors on the project. So not the typical joe. But does not the project grow as new ideas come forward? So all of us need to be open minded. And I feel you are very much because you have taken me into your confidence, to help me deal with the dilemmas. As a third party editor what would you recommend? Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 02:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Igor, I am not sure what you are referring to here, but, if it is in the past, let it go, I would say. Let each day be a new enjoyment. Things will work out, they usually do, I have come to value some contributors whom at first I was in some disagreement with. We became friends and now work well together. Others, I have disagreed with, then it is all done, and never seen again. Get my drift? As a third party editor I would recommend letting go, live for the future. --Newbyguesses 03:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. No use of dwelling on the past. We must look towards the future and relish sunny days. Even though the ghosts may persist, they should not frighten or disillusion us. Igor Berger (talk) 03:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I think communication is the key. If we are open to communicate with each other we can overocme all obstacles. But communication is a difficult thing to acomplish. The party that you working with mus be open to communication, or there is a brakedown of the process. We are told to comment on the edit not on the editor. But commenting on the edit will only work if the other party is actively open to a resolution for this edit. But if the party involved does not understand or agree with the edit complecations arise. At that point of time we must seek alternative methods of communication that require commenting on an editor not on the edit. But this is problometic. No one likes to hear that you doing something worng. "Hey who are you that you tell me what to do?" "I am just a conserned editor trying to iron things out between the two of us!" "Hey dude get lost, don't tell me what to do!" "Don't you understand, I never asked for your advise. Why you coming to my talk page lecturing me on what to do" "Listen, if I need your advice I will ask" "Have a nice day." Catch-22 You want to talk to the editor to resolve the diferences but the editor not interested in discussion.

Is my circular reasoning confusing as hell, or is it undestendable? Igor Berger (talk) 04:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Igor I agree with some of what you are saying. I would add, that communicating on-line is not one-on-one, there are others who might read and comment, sometimes it is much later. That is interesting, and requires some thought in posting (to consider history, not to be too pretentious). We are not just addressing one person at a time. Things often make more sense upon re-reading. NewbyG.

I was thinking for a title to this short story!
Do not tell me what to do
If you have a problem talk it out
It takes two to tango
Stop citing policy and show me how to do it
NewbyG, which one do you like batter? Igor Berger (talk) 06:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Lectures

#wikipedia-en-lectures @ 15:00, yay. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[11] Partial (abbreviated) log. Thanks, again. I don't think I can make it "live", but will peruse the logs you are kindly providing on-wiki. --Newbyguesses (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem Part one

I think you better take allok at Life.temp edits Special:Contributions/Life.temp. This guy is bouncing off the walls. There is no good faith here at all. He is running around Wikipedia telling other editors that they are on my hit list. Is he ok? I made a joke list of wiki called buzzkill and put a few editors there with a joke! What is just a private rant of wiki. I never went around saying anything avout other editors. Would be stupid to do so! Anyway, Life.temp should not be fermenting hatrade on Wikipedia it is disruptive. I really feel we bent backward with this guy....honestly I cannot think anyone taking my list seriously. The whole thing is really weird how fixated on me! I even find the whole thing very funny, but feel bad for the editors that he is Spamming with bullshit. MAybe you want to take to him or what ever. I really do not care what he does, and I am not going to respons on the editor talk pages about this shit. If an editor comes to my page and asks about it, I will apologize to the editor for the stupid thing on my part - childish! Anyway check it out. Thanks, Igor Berger (talk) 10:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You better deal with this. He is posting the shit at ANI...he is not normal. Igor Berger (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Igor, I haven't looked at the latest posts at WP:AN/I. (I suggest to you not to post there.) Let the Admins sort it out. You have done your bit, from what I can tell. Don't worry about this any more, I will take a look and, barring anything really ugly, that should be pretty much all done. Just walk away, drop it, Igor is my advice at present, you are too upset, that is not right. Everything is in the best hands at AN/I. I will take a look at the notice-board for myself, but I suspect you are getting frazzled to no good purpose, and you can just relax now. Cheers. --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the Admins are having a little difficulty sorting things out, there are no DIFFs, and the incivility being displayed is somewhat unpleasant, but is best ignored. You used the word "shit", now the other user has used "shit" - that is what happens. You haven't posted there, that is good, just let it die down, and the other matters can then be attended to by Admins.
And I really recommend you not to interact with User:Equazcion, who is an Admin. Weilding the mop is not all fun and games, and if the pair of you are mis-understanding each other, there is no need to carry on. Respect each other and walk away. Both of you can then contribute to en.wikipedia more comfortably. --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I think I got that wrong, Equaszcion is not an admin, but the rest of what I said still applies. --Newbyguesses (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I did use the word "shit" and it not incivil because it was not directed at a person. If you say this person is shit, that is incivil. OF course if one at a heat of a moment, let's say at ANI say "this shit" one may get a block for that And a block would be justified because your anger is disruptive. So need to stay cool. Also if someone arguing about content with an admin, and says "the work you doing is shit" something like that may get a block. But is it a fare block or abuse of adminship? Igor Berger (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
It might be a good idea to try reading Wikipedia:Blocking policy. Cheers NewbyG.

[edit] ANI fuels drama

Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#ANI_fuels_drama Actually I think ANI should go or atleast redirect editors to mediation not use editos as a soccer ball. Someone bring an editor to ANI and others jump on the bandwagon....not nice an unproguctive for Wikipedia. We have mediation tools, but none is using them. All editors have problems, including me, but to wikidrama them at ANI does not adress the problme, but becomes a psychological gangbang! Igor Berger (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to try reading Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Cheers! Newbyguesses

Yes I can see that Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Life.temp
Not a Wikiquette issue, moved to appropriate board Not a Wikiquette issue, referred elsewhereSee Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Igorberger harrassment

. refered by Bfigura Is something wrong here? When an editor make an alert at Wikiquette alerts an admin directs the alert at the editor who made the alert to ANI. Igor Berger (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

OK. I haven't followed these processes myself. I think you leave it to the admins, though, at AN/I. --Newbyguesses (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually the editor is not an admin. He should not have redirected to ANI. Life.temp is Life.temp. and his problematic editing needs to be addressed. Igor Berger (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
You also should look at this User_talk:Marskell#The_Revenge_of_Bsharvy_Part_3 Igor Berger (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the situation, and I think I prefer not to get involved. If you have specific evidence, keep track of the DIFFs, and supply them if necessary. But I think as well, you may have taken this one far enough. Think about moving on to some new adventure, you brought this to attention, and shouldn't get worried about it any more. There may be a big problem, maybe, but there are many eyes on it. You do not have to solve it or try to, all by yourself, and I don't think I need to get involved either. (I am a bit busy). Keep cool, but let me know if you get into strife. (You aren't, are you?) Cheers, --Newbyguesses (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I will let the community address the issues. I filed a reports, now it is up to community to look at it. If I get more information I will supply it. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 02:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] zomg WP:Lectures

Edison cylinder phonograph ca. 1899
Edison cylinder phonograph ca. 1899

Today (Apr 20th), around 15:00 UTC! Possibly on Skype, but certainly on IRC! I don't actually know about the Skype details... Message me on Skype (xavexgoem) about that, if you have it (no harm in getting it, either), and then maybe by that time I'll have a clue :-p Xavexgoem (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the school-kids round this way are all apparently using MSN or some such thing, and even the tuck-shop ladies are using Skype; I guess two tin-cans connected by string just dont cut it any more. I usually upgrade "my" equipment only after someone else does and they donate their old gear to charity (ie myself, still using Windows 98 on a borrowed computer).
Maybe these lectures could be recorded, and released on an LP that I could play on my neighbour's gramophone. Cheers! --NewbyG (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The bitter comes out better on a stolen guitar — You're the blessed, we're the Spiders from Mars! — David Bowie Spiders from Mars

[edit] Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance

See also: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

[...] οἱ αὐτοὶ ἤτοι κρίνομέν γε ἢ ἐνθυμούμεθα ὀρθῶς τὰ πράγματα, οὐ τοὺς λόγους τοῖς ἔργοις βλάβην ἡγούμενοι, ἀλλὰ μὴ προδιδαχθῆναι μᾶλλον λόγῳ πρότερον ἢ ἐπὶ ἃ δεῖ ἔργῳ ἐλθεῖν

   [...] although only a few may originate a policy, we are all able to judge it, and instead of looking on discussion as a stumbling-block in the way of action, we think it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all.
Thucydides, The Peloponnesian War, from Pericles' funeral oration (II.40.2)
translation Karl Popper (The Open Society and its Enemies, Ch 10.IV) and Perseus website

See also: Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers; Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars; Be nice; Be cruel; The twilight zone; Wikipedia:Apology

[edit] IAR/UIAR

I've tried a new thread-point, but beware that won't stop the various discussions evolving where they will.

I'm not sure about the becoming-unfocussed thing, you always do have the option of regaining focus onto a single topic with a new thread, and if you think it's really important, just refactor extraneous discussion outside of that thread. People generally engage the subject with a relatively broad slate of their own particular concerns, generally wish to present their concerns, and are often unsure of where to do that, so they tend to present within the thread at hand just to be sure someone will read what they have to say - that's the nature of humans. And as it turns out, the nature of a wiki.

Indenting is important, as it (imperfectly) indicates where within a thread you wish to comment. Those who are fully engaged will see this and respond appropriately, those who pursue a single agenda will not be reached, and will disregard any method. There is a bit of a problem as I see it, it is hard to come to a thread and easily see where the new bits are happening since you read it last. I've been thinking for a while of some scheme to use colours to show each editor where the changes are in multi-branch threads, I'll keep thinking.

Meantime, stay cool, and remember you can always try summarize/re-itemize: at worst, you'll just be ignored; at best, you'll contribute in small measure. That's the wiki! Regards. Franamax (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

True dat. --NewbyG (talk) 00:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Ain't it though? Napoleon would learn to stick to the brandy article and Jesus would build edits working on carpentry and reverting vandalism. They would both watch Lenin take the fast-track to admin status. Ai, c'est le temps. Franamax (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
I stick to strictly uncontroversial edits these days [12], nothing to see here. --NewbyG (talk) 00:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] zomg WP:Lectures again!

They are today (27 April 2008) at 15:00 UTC. Here is the skype link & here's the IRC link. Xavexgoem (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Flowchart

Why did you put the old chart back without discussion after we have all worked so hard to find a new compromise? You've just set the process back several months, when we have been relatively peaceful here. --Kevin Murray (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[13] Sorry for any confusion. Just a couple of edits to the project page, and we are still on track! I do think all the work of the past months has been worth it. (Peace reigns again) Thanks, --NewbyG (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Lectures time

Yeah, we're posting on time for once (40 minutes early). Todays lecture is by Vassyana (an expert mediator), who will be talking about how to deal with conflicts, whether you are a mediator or not. Hope to see you there! --Kim Bruning (talk) 14:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Administrator's notice

Thanks!Bert Schlossberg (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chart

Hi, Why can't we work to improve the new chart? --Kevin Murray (talk) 06:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi! Yeah, work to improve the chart, of course, but I have come around to preferring the older flowchart now. It is the combination of a number of recent comments on the talk page, plus the comparison I just finished doing of the two charts, that makes me see the older chart working best for now. There is nothing wrong with the newer chart, except that it is trying to do too much. It seems to me now that "discussion" cannot go into the flowchart, it doesnt fit into any particular place, and the older chart avoids that problem. --NewbyG (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we have a side bar for a bit and see if we can reach a consensus between you and me? COnsider the chart below as a possible starting point for our discussion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was actually thinking along the lines of a chart with multiple entry points, but it just got too complicated. --NewbyG (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I think that I'm seeing what you like about the old chart. Discussion is implied in places and only mentioned specifically between the boxes at the bottom. The chart is sloppy, but its ambiguity may be part of the attraction. I posted 5X last night in response to another editors reversion of my repost of 5F - only as a compromise. I'd like to keep the improvements going, but I think many people felt we had reached a comfortable compromise and now the reactionary influence among the remaining is to jump back. I realize that you are busy, but hopefully we can structure a good product. PS: when are you likely to be at WP (GMT) --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Kevin. That's all good. I am most likely to be on WP between 22:00 till 05:00 (UTC) weekdays. Say from 8am till 3pm where I am. I mostly seem to be making minor edits these days, and probably discussing too much in wikipediaspace. Been having service outs and computer crashes also. I have enjoyed working on the flowcharts, we can keep doing that; this latest idea seems monumental, a big task to take on. Cheers! --NewbyG (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The chart below goes back to the original chart and then distills out my objections and simplifies some language, without adding back my preferences in the later charts. What do you think?

That is something much simpler to start from. It describes a process which consensus new and old doesn't, but consensus new and old still has it's place. I know Kim suggested using some charts to illustrate a new page, that is one idea. I have to think more about it. --NewbyG (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Lectures

Todays lecture is starting! The topic is "How source experts judge source reliability" and the speaker is DGG. The meeting location for setup is #wikipedia-en-lectures on irc.freenode.net. The lecture will be given over skype. Contact Filll2 or kim_bruning to be invited to the lecture chat also.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Good change at: [14] --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

These are the changes to WP:CON since the last page protection was lifted 19 January, 2008 up till 18 May. (372 intermediate revisions not shown.). The page has gone from (14,638 bytes) down to (8,957 bytes), it is tighter more relevant, and more readable. I think this has been good work, certainly there has been much discussion and input during that time on the project and discussion pages from yourself Kevin Murray (KM), myself, (NbG) and Kim Bruning (KB) and a number of other editors. I feel that we were reasonably successful in observing consensus through this work. Do you agree? --NewbyG (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I woud agree, and it was through this effort that I became convinced that the path was closer to being bold than I had thought earlier. I still remain concerned though that constant tweaking of the policy and process pages destabilizes the project. I see two solutions: (1) a higher standard of consensus for process pages and (2) a tougher process for creating process pages to limit the number of pages we have to monitor and protect. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Those are good ideas. I can think of another couple of options. A) Streamline the text and especially the wiki-links of existing policies and guidelines. B) Some sort of overall survey to be made of the extent of current policies, where they are excessive, where deficient or missing, how they inter-connect. I am sure you are familiar with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines#Sources of wikipedia policy, and perhaps with Wikipedia:How to contribute to Wikipedia guidance#Pruning, (two pages which I have been looking at). I want to see if the processes that I use when editing are reasonable, and how I can improve my techniques here. --NewbyG (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen Wikipedia:Governance reform? --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Hmmm -- I didn't get most of that proposal, the bit I did like best I posted at Wikipedia talk:Consensus#The map is not the territory. --NewbyG (talk) 01:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civ lead

It's the two last paragraphs of the lead that's largely calmed the wave of upset with WP:CIV, I am really unwilling to lessen their importance now, when the upset has finally calmed. =) The fact is, people (there was a perception of many, probably really just a few) were trying to use pseudo-civility and greatly exaggerated upset in order to get people blocked, while meanwhile pushing a fringe POV. A couple short paragraphs about proper application of the policy do a lot to keep upset down, let's leave them in the lead, at least for the time being - after all, it's hard to attack CIVIL when the only possible problems with it are specifically covered in the lead. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 04:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Which 'wave of upset with WP:CIV' are you referring to? WP:CIV worked fine without those two extra paragraphs for months, sorry. Leave them in the more appropriate section. --NewbyG (talk) 05:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Metonymy

Thanks - I will try to remember it Matilda talk 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome, I am sure. --NewbyG (talk) 06:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy talk page

Nice contribution this morning. thanks --Snowded (talk) 06:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem at all. --NewbyG (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Didn't work though! Mind you I think he will be back --Snowded (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Well, I would say the article is in reasonable shape, in my non-expert opinion, and the lead is not atrocious. I am not going to start quoting Wittgenstein, or Russell for that matter, to no purpose on the talk page, and I must say that I take pretty well most of what I read with a liberal grain of salt. Luckily for me, I do not know enough about anything to be dogmatic. There is always much to learn. --
I have seen editors come and go, and return etc. Nevertheless, it it possible for the experts and non-experts to touch base, in many cases, and we co-operate in our fashion. Let's hope for the best. --NewbyG (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I don't know if you were the one that merged my comment back in the first place, but I had a good idea that would spawn a section anyway. But whatever, good clerking imo. -- Kendrick7talk 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

-:-) This page is 139 kilobytes long. It may be helpful to keep our discussions in their separate subsections. You're welcome! --NewbyG (talk) 02:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)