This is Newbyguesses's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Please add new comments in new sections, e.g., by clicking here. Thanks. Newbyguesses |
---|
A cup of tea and Welcome! Hope all is well with you.
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
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
A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Edit this list |
To do |
stubs |
Article alerts |
Cleanup listing |
Category |
Portal |
RFC |
Deletion |
Requested articles |
Discussion
|
Getting started
|
---|
Getting help
|
Policies and guidelines
|
|
The community
|
---|
|
Writing articles
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
Summary (with deletions, and bolding etc. added) extracted from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost
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".
Hi, Why can't we work to improve the new chart? -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 06:22, 15 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? (User:Kevin Murray 16 May 2008)
Good change at: [1] -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 23:09, 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)
-- 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)
[2] (220 intermediate revisions not shown.) [3] (8 intermediate revisions not shown.) Changes at page Wikipedia:Consensus from 21 May 2008 up to 5 March 2012
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. -- Kendrick7 talk 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This user contributes to fringe theories in Wikipediaspace. |
-:-) 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)
Hey mate, there's a vote happenning at the wikiproject on rugby league's talk page if you're interested. I just saw your old comment on my talk page which reminded me of you. I actually created George Lovejoy's article a few days ago, but it's unfortunately pretty lean.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 01:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | I like to think of Wikipedia as a plugged in toaster, and editing as sticking a fork in that toaster. | ” |
— User:Volunteer Marek, 04:12, 30 November 2011 |
Look at the flowchart again, which is prominently displayed on WP:CON. It's not my flowchart. This "first mover advantage" stuff to explain why ...
Just when is too much too much?
Ah that's too much! tempo di sturb de neighbors seen in Fats Waller's arrangement of Stardust
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)
Is there supposed to be an RFC occurring here? If so, the proper code needs to be placed at the top of that section. Editing the RFC list directly is not advised, so try using the code to make any changes. -- Fyslee / talk 05:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was trying to sign in all my posts, but because of certain things that I put in my Preferences, it would always show my real name instead of my username link. Now I fixed it. Thanks. Danilloclm ( talk) 15:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
re: NewbyG ( talk) 21:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC) comment. cool. kudos. :) — Ched : ? 22:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi SmokeyJoe, I hope I did not appear rude by failing to respond to your kind greeting at WT:CON! As you can probably intuit, I am attempting a *dispassionate* style of posting (so far as possible), and avoiding even the appearance of factionalism. (I just noticed the lines on your userpage, good.) Don’t want to get anyone who is my friend in trouble by association when I maybe go out on a limb. But may I say now, thank you and it sure does feel good to be on the same *page* with an fondly-remembered collegue. NewbyG ( talk) 10:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there! After submitting a small fix I noticed that you reverted exactly the same change on this article before. From what I understand, the change 3-->2 makes a lot of sense: If player 1 AND 2 both choose strategy B, both players will get a payoff of 2. However, if for example player 1 decides to change to strategy A (while player 2 continues to use strategy B), his individual payoff decreases to 1. Exactly this is the reason why the lower right cell represents a Nash equilibrium. (The rising payoff of the seconds player (from 2 to 3) that also happens doesn't influence the first player's decision at all.) Does that make sense? -- Hauke Pribnow ( talk) 12:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Amendment: After a short search in the article history I think I also found the source of this error: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nash_equilibrium&diff=278146037&oldid=278144484 Other numbers were used in the revision before that change... and the text was still correct then. -- Hauke Pribnow ( talk) 12:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I've ignored this behaviour for too long. Please restrain yourself. No sane person is going to waste their time reading dozens of scattered posts per day by one editor, so you are writing for yourself only. If your goal is simply to entertain yourself, there are far less disruptive places to do so than a core policy talkpage. If your goal is to actually improve the policy, some focus would help you do that, because there would be a chance that your comments would be read. At a minimum please cease the commentary on other editors, they are entirely destructive to collaboration. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, this went over like ...
Since Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", nothing in it can be trusted. It is left as an exercise to the reader to verify assertions they may doubt. Editors should so far as possible assist them in this endeavour by providing cited sources.
The second version was jeered out of the house.
Since Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", nothing in it can be trusted and everything in it can be trusted. It is left as an exercise to the reader to verify assertions they may doubt. Editors should so far as possible assist them in this endeavour by providing cited sources [1] [2].... [x]
Well, I thought it was an improvement. NewbyG ( talk) 19:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
See [7], where I have asked that you be blocked for a bit. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Insults, gratuitous and cluesess:
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)*I had a look at that talk page, and I'm a bit shocked. You keep complaining about the other kids not letting you play in the sandbox, but the way you messed up that page is impressive. As far as I'm concerned, after you come off this block you may be blocked again, and longer, for disrupting a talk page by introducing subheadings and removing established headings in the middle of a discussion, or anything else deemed not in agreement with TPG and/or considered disruptive by other participants. I hope it won't have to come that far. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 04:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
NewbyG ( talk) 06:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines [8]
This en.wikipedia.org, by Edits (reverse), with Page = Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, since 2012-02-07 00:00:00, until 2012-03-05 00:00:00
show 100 / 250 / 500 / 1000 | (no more results)
Edits ↑ User first edit last edit 301 (276/25) Newbyguesses 2012-02-07 10:33 2012-03-04 16:09 231 (229/2) North8000 2012-02-07 20:14 2012-03-04 23:41 115 (115/0) Blueboar 2012-02-07 02:37 2012-03-04 20:45 113 (86/27) Dreadstar 2012-02-07 00:05 2012-02-28 01:58 101 (101/0) Becritical 2012-02-07 01:32 2012-03-03 23:10 93 (88/5) S Marshall 2012-02-07 00:03 2012-03-03 19:20 72 (55/17) Doc9871 2012-02-07 09:18 2012-02-29 06:21 68 (60/8) Littleolive oil 2012-02-07 03:08 2012-02-28 14:39 37 (32/5) JakeInJoisey 2012-02-20 02:16 2012-03-04 23:17 37 (28/9) Kalidasa 777 2012-02-21 01:30 2012-03-04 19:19 34 (34/0) SarekOfVulcan 2012-02-22 14:58 2012-02-22 15:59 33 (33/0) Jayen466 2012-02-11 14:25 2012-02-22 17:00 32 (32/0) Tryptofish 2012-02-28 21:36 2012-03-04 21:25 22 (22/0) Bob K31416 2012-02-07 02:27 2012-02-25 00:13 20 (17/3) ThatPeskyCommoner 2012-02-28 18:39 2012-03-04 06:50 19 (17/
Ach, I see you got into a bit of a pickle! Take a little while to chill.
I was actually just wandering over to let you know that's I'd removed a phrase of yours from Ched's workshop, as it was mistaken / misunderstanding, and couldn't possibly have done any good. If you pause to think about it for a moment, you'll see how it could have really irritated / offended the person you were thinking of. Best to avoid such things wherever possible. Cheers, Pesky ( talk) 06:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Adding: it seems that sometimes your thoughts and posts get a bit chaotic. I'm sure you mean well, but it might be an idea for you to draft up your thoughts in a basic text editor first, then try to trim them down as much as possible (yes, I know I;m verbose, too, but you know what I mean!); then go through what you've types up again, and edit out of it anything which isn't directly relevant to the page you're on. Try to keep it all in one place, wherever you can, as it makes it much, much easier for other people to keep track of it and get the gist of what you mean to convey. Some of us can have trouble following a line of thought where it's split up too much, or has "wandered". Also, avoid "interrupting" into another person's line of thought, wherever humanly possible, and avoid putting lots of headings and section breaks into pages, as even though it might make it easier for you to navigate, it can make it harder for others, too. Sometimes writing up everything you want to say in a text editor, then pruning and tidying it, and then leaving it until the next day before going through it again and posting it, can make a huge difference. Most things here in Wikipedia don't need an immediate response; taking more time to get do it right, rather than doing it quickly, is all to the good, and will make your time with us more productive and enjoyable, for you as well as for everyone else. Pesky ( talk) 07:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
As requested at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard I've removed the comment made after the report was closed. At this point it would be best not to initiate threads at Dicklyon's talk page. Nobody Ent 11:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [9] Nobody Ent 12:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Please do not
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Cutecutecuteface2000 (
Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be
blocked from editing.
Cutecutecuteface2000 (
Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
How is it legitimate editing. Please explain why? Cutecutecuteface2000 ( Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe go back to usertalkcuteface2000, and join the discussion with user:Floquenbeam, who makes sense. NewbyG ( talk) 21:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Take a few days to think about it. *I* have explained that the Revert was an unhelpful edit, and *I* am going back to mainspace, so *I* don't need any more chit-chat here thank *you*. NewbyG ( talk) 21:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)
NewbyG, you said above you were going to go back to mainspace for a while, and that was a wise decision. There's a lot of productive stuff you can do there. Please take a break from Wikipedia-space, or at least stuff related to the policy area. Superm401 - Talk 03:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Going back to main-space, I am. ( My case is archived in Archive 740)
I would suggest one of you file a case at WP:DR/N naming all involved parties. And stop edit warring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
You might want to consider using this tool - (tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py) - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or Special:MyPage/vector.js, or Special:MyPage/monobook.js, and then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page!) It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well all by itself. For those it can't do by itself, it gives you a pull-down (or up) menu of templates to choose from, which you can then fill in manually. Often the problem is "No title found" - sometimes the title is obvious (especially if it's a pdf), but, if not, just open the page yourself and choose something appropriate if there's not already a clear title there. Happy editing! To use Reflinks, you'll need to remove any [...]'s from around the bare url's, or Reflinks won't "see" them properly. Pesky ( talk) 10:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Oooh, another point with Reflinks: if there's other stuff (but not enough "other stuff") in between the ref tags, it's best to "strip" it down like this:
It looks like Office on Global Women's Issues is off to a good start. I'll try to put in some more time on it later. It's not a big deal, but you don't need to use Template:talkheader on every talk page. It's meant for "particularly active talk pages that attract commentary from inexperienced editors, and/or high levels of debate from everyone." Superm401 - Talk 12:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited VerKeerderkill Falls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bushwhack ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I really think it would be a great idea if you could restrict yourself to doing bits of article work for a while! No matter what the temptation may be to get involved at places like AN/I, to rebut or riposte anyone else's comments, and so on!
If necessary, tie your hands to your shoelaces for a while, or forbid yourself even looking at talk pages (other than article talk), dramah-boards, and so on!
There are people "out there" who will delightedly collect diffs of any controversy you may get even marginally involved in, and store them up as cannon-balls and other assorted ammunition for when they decide to "have a go". Simply as an exercise in long-term self-preservation, keep a low profile for at least a month, content yourself with some quiet gnoming, and avoid your name and sig appearing too often in front of those who lurk the dramah-boards in any way, shape or form. (I suggest de-watchlisting anything non-article-related which you currently have watchlisted. They will all survive without you for a while!)
Loads of hugz, Pesky ( talk) 19:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a
sockpuppetry case. Please refer to
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roger Pearse for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with
the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.
Kalidasa 777 (
talk) 04:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Jehochman 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Cheerfully Withdrawn User: NewbyG 17:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Couple things: First, thanks for your input on the civility sandbox. Now the bad part. Please don't do this again. That really is a personal attack, and I was surprised to see you resort to that. I don't know where it all started, don't have time to research or referee, and it doesn't matter "who started it". I've had a few disagreements with Jehochman over the years as well - but he usually sticks to policy. I noticed it looks like the two of you are disengaging, so that's a good thing that it can now de-escalate. Remember to walk away when you start feeling emotional and want to respond in kind or make a point. Take a deep breath, and enjoy life. best — Ched : ? 17:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know, this may inflame things unnecessarily. According to WP:BLANKING, they are allowed to remove stuff from their talk page. I disagree with their edit summary as "baiting", but it is their right to remove it. I have retired from the WP:V nightmare, which the "SPI" was directly related to, and if you want to tough it out over there, I wish you the best of luck. Being there since August is enough for me, but many have been there for years. Cheers :> Doc talk 23:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Now, just how did you actually know that they would remove it again? [15] Is it because you are actually them, and therefore would naturally know what you were going to do all along? Hmm... Doc talk 07:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Deny it, will you? Cardinal Fang! Fetch... the comfy chair! Doc talk 07:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought you were going to focus on articles. The way you insert your noise/nose(striking insult NBG) into policy discussions that you know nothing about is still very annoying, not helpful to anyone.
Dicklyon (
talk) 06:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a legend the Buddha was once handed a flower and asked ... www.gutenberg.org/files/34325/34325-h/34325-h.htmAfter three years of practicing, I no longer saw the ox as a whole. ..... Buddhist monks became court advisers, opening the imperial coffers to build many lavish ...... to a refined essence, rather like extracting a delicate liqueur from a stout potion. The Practice of Zen ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew25922.htmby P Wienpahl - 1963 Nyogen Senzaki and Ruth Stout McCandless. ... The significance of the legend of Bodhidharma's sitting for nine years before he ... Only one hundred and three pages come from sources which the average reader might not consult. Furthermore, The Training of the Zen Buddhist Monk, regarded by some as Suzuki's best ...
the late 18th century primarily by monks fleeing the French Revolution . ... Strong ale: According to RateBeer.com "Belgian Strong Ale s can ... 35 KB (4,987 words) - 23:02, 26 February 2012
The Legend of the Three Stout Monks History of beer Monks built breweries as part of their efforts to provide food, ... very dark, roasted malts, contributing to the flavour of porters and stouts. ... 40 KB (6,188 words) - 02:27, 5 March 2012 diff all done
You seem to still insist on using talk pages like the one at the verifiability mediation to vent some deep-seated problem, but your remarks come across as a combination of attacks, uninterpretable nonsense, and pure noise. If you have a point, I'm sure you'd be welcome to make it, but to keep disrupting the page with nonsense is not advancing your position, nor helping progress in the mediation, which by the way you are not even a part of. So stop it, or I will have to go to AN/I and ask for another block to prevent further disruption. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=480104641&oldid=480102972 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=next&oldid=480177280 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=next&oldid=480182638
At that page I was insulted from day one and ought to think about drawing that to the mediators attention as if that mattered now.
# (3) words redacted as personal attack> I have not "taken on" or involved myself here, just a few grammar tweaks. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC) ((Dicklyon, anyone can make mistakes, for an ---))
After all user:Dicklyon you withdrew in a huff from the Mediation, blaming me, and then disobeyed the ground rules to carry out a revert off your own bat that the Mediator ought to have considered. Duh? Do you care to answer, for the interest that you may redact those forty odd words not that I am begging, it's that I wish to make it up with you. NewbyG ( talk) 12:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Bad block. Where is the personal attack? He mentioned masturbation, which might be crude or insulting, but it is nothing personal. This user had a clear block log (except one prior block by you). A request to refactor the remark should have been the first step. Jehochman Talk 01:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Doc
I have sought medical advice. Was not, thankfully, prescribed A hideously-flavored beverage, bitter as bile. Somehow still popular in at least one state - I tried it twice and hated it. I already tried it twice. Or did I just say that? Anyway, thanks for the sage advice, and please don’t make a bad habit of keeping on coming back to this talk page and making me laugh like that, will ya, I can’t afford a sense of humor, let alone a new computer. I will not be making any links in this post to any cheeky or subversive or humorous webpages coz i haz not nkow henny , wot that are funny an' all. The medicine in the cupboard came fron the pharmacist (registered) and with discount A$17:95 it cost. With discount that is or did I say that? They keep all that sorta stuff on computers they do, the government an' what Cheers PS nobody has twigged yet that I made this edit in wikipedia space, 18:25, 28 February 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+7) . . Wikipedia:Userfication (insert missing word (moved)) (top) and it aint got reverted yet. Nor can I be blocked for it,at the moment. Have a laugh I know I w--- NewbyG ( talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Newbyguesses ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There has been no lasting damage done to WP. I wont be doing that again. The background is the six diffs below (The short version) Take your time, let me think on what I've done wrong. I want to get back to fixing typos Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 09:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
There were probably better ways I could have handled that disruption. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I should add here, for any admin considering that I was blocked for 24 hours by user:Sarek of Vulcan weeks ago, so there is more background if thats relevant, and I should have learned my lesson then. Pax! NewbyG ( talk) 10:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Short version
A request to refactor the remark should have been the first step.
A consensus should have been sought
The Mediator ought to have been allowed to handle it
Humor is not allowed on Wikipedia
( ←) Thanks, I think I ought to leave a message at user talk:Newbyguesses, 23:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The most remarkable feature of the human mind, and which yet is at all costs not to be acknowledged for fear of disintegration, is the immense capacity to produce self-delusion.
Yet this capacity is not infinite.
So it is, since fortunately the conclusions that we draw from our self-delusion are false, that the damage we do in attempting to deny reality is, ultimately, limited, and we continue to survive on this earth. Judged on an appropriate timescale, that is, judged on the timescale of eternity, our self-delusions will be rendered moot.
Then, when reality is no longer denied, and self-delusion moot : then there will be no then, nor will there be time at all, nor will there be any more eternity, nor any more earth, only unblinking reality, beyond death and life.
<>
Straighten Up and Fly Right written by Nat King Cole and Irving Mills and performed by The King Cole Trio
ICHTHUS |
January 2012 |
In this issue...
Hi Newby. Many thanks for your note and for including my idea in the WP:V workshop page. We did get off to a difficult start -- I did have concerns about how you were editing back then. Still, it is clear to me now that I got it wrong -- that you are not the person I thought you were. And also, that you are not the sort of person I thought you were. I hope you will continue to take part in discussions about WP:V etc, for instance on Stradivarius' mediated discussion page. Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 20:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Newbyguesses! Firstly, thank you for participating to MOTD. In the last months we (at MOTD) had big problems on approving mottos, a few people were really active, and this has led to a couple of days without a motto for the day, so any help is much appreciated.
About your suggestion, the "unwritten rule" is "semi-written". The following is an excerpt taken from
Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Guidelines:
In general, the motto must be somehow related to Wikipedia and its community. Any motto that is not related to Wikipedia will not be accepted. To relate a motto to Wikipedia, please wikilink them to the appropriate project pages. Do not edit the quote for this purpose, and do not use links that are not related to Wikipedia.
Personally, I have no objection at all to your proposal. In fact, I think that I will support it. And, of course, we can occasionally follow and observe the
WP:IAR.
Happy Editing! –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs) 08:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that it is the right place and there is no need to move and/or fix it. The only "little" problem is that many users do not participate in discussions. Let me see if I can find a way to do it without having to send another message to all users/participants again (for example by writing the link to the discussion directly in the related nominations whithin the In review section). I would not bother them too much ~ lol ~ Anyway, I really think that your proposal will have my support. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The MOTD Barnstar | ||
The MOTD Barnstar is awarded to Newbyguesses for his invaluable contribution to our project, which was experiencing a period of extreme scarcity. Thank you from Motto of the day. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC) |
Additional note: Hoping that you feel comfortable with us, we hope and desire that you will want to continue contributing to our/your project. I personally think that if many of us contribute, then about ten minutes per week, by reviewing the existing nominations, and eventually adding new nominations, should be more than enough to get the project going! Once again, thank you from your Motto of the day. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
<-->
April Fools Day is just around the corner. As such please could you nominate a new motto or comment on existing suggestions at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials? Simply south.... .. facing oncoming traffic for over 5 years 16:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. With a new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name to this list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 20:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi Newbyguesses! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot ( talk) 19:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC) |
You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Motto of the Day ( WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “ This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.
Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
If I sign in and edit a page and click the four tildes to insert signature nothing is inserted. If I do not sign in and click on the four tildes then the anon signature is added. If I manually type four tildes this happens: start — Philogos ( talk) 23:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC) end
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Newbyguesses. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Newbyguesses. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I wish to confirm that I attempted to login today, and I logged in today, even though there may have been some problem in the login procedure
I am thankful that there have been no successful attempts to hijack my account and I am equally thankful that en.Wikipedia has vigilant procedures in place to deal with security issues
This is Newbyguesses's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
Please add new comments in new sections, e.g., by clicking here. Thanks. Newbyguesses |
---|
A cup of tea and Welcome! Hope all is well with you.
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
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
A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects.
Edit this list |
To do |
stubs |
Article alerts |
Cleanup listing |
Category |
Portal |
RFC |
Deletion |
Requested articles |
Discussion
|
Getting started
|
---|
Getting help
|
Policies and guidelines
|
|
The community
|
---|
|
Writing articles
|
Miscellaneous
|
|
Summary (with deletions, and bolding etc. added) extracted from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost
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".
Hi, Why can't we work to improve the new chart? -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 06:22, 15 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? (User:Kevin Murray 16 May 2008)
Good change at: [1] -- Kevin Murray ( talk) 23:09, 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)
-- 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)
[2] (220 intermediate revisions not shown.) [3] (8 intermediate revisions not shown.) Changes at page Wikipedia:Consensus from 21 May 2008 up to 5 March 2012
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. -- Kendrick7 talk 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
This user contributes to fringe theories in Wikipediaspace. |
-:-) 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)
Hey mate, there's a vote happenning at the wikiproject on rugby league's talk page if you're interested. I just saw your old comment on my talk page which reminded me of you. I actually created George Lovejoy's article a few days ago, but it's unfortunately pretty lean.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 01:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
“ | I like to think of Wikipedia as a plugged in toaster, and editing as sticking a fork in that toaster. | ” |
— User:Volunteer Marek, 04:12, 30 November 2011 |
Look at the flowchart again, which is prominently displayed on WP:CON. It's not my flowchart. This "first mover advantage" stuff to explain why ...
Just when is too much too much?
Ah that's too much! tempo di sturb de neighbors seen in Fats Waller's arrangement of Stardust
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)
Is there supposed to be an RFC occurring here? If so, the proper code needs to be placed at the top of that section. Editing the RFC list directly is not advised, so try using the code to make any changes. -- Fyslee / talk 05:49, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed you have written material on and shown an interest in civility on wikipedia. I have created a poll page to gauge community feelings on how civility is managed in practice currently at Wikipedia:Civility/Poll, so input from as many people as possible is welcomed. Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I was trying to sign in all my posts, but because of certain things that I put in my Preferences, it would always show my real name instead of my username link. Now I fixed it. Thanks. Danilloclm ( talk) 15:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
re: NewbyG ( talk) 21:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC) comment. cool. kudos. :) — Ched : ? 22:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi SmokeyJoe, I hope I did not appear rude by failing to respond to your kind greeting at WT:CON! As you can probably intuit, I am attempting a *dispassionate* style of posting (so far as possible), and avoiding even the appearance of factionalism. (I just noticed the lines on your userpage, good.) Don’t want to get anyone who is my friend in trouble by association when I maybe go out on a limb. But may I say now, thank you and it sure does feel good to be on the same *page* with an fondly-remembered collegue. NewbyG ( talk) 10:35, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi there! After submitting a small fix I noticed that you reverted exactly the same change on this article before. From what I understand, the change 3-->2 makes a lot of sense: If player 1 AND 2 both choose strategy B, both players will get a payoff of 2. However, if for example player 1 decides to change to strategy A (while player 2 continues to use strategy B), his individual payoff decreases to 1. Exactly this is the reason why the lower right cell represents a Nash equilibrium. (The rising payoff of the seconds player (from 2 to 3) that also happens doesn't influence the first player's decision at all.) Does that make sense? -- Hauke Pribnow ( talk) 12:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Amendment: After a short search in the article history I think I also found the source of this error: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Nash_equilibrium&diff=278146037&oldid=278144484 Other numbers were used in the revision before that change... and the text was still correct then. -- Hauke Pribnow ( talk) 12:46, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I've ignored this behaviour for too long. Please restrain yourself. No sane person is going to waste their time reading dozens of scattered posts per day by one editor, so you are writing for yourself only. If your goal is simply to entertain yourself, there are far less disruptive places to do so than a core policy talkpage. If your goal is to actually improve the policy, some focus would help you do that, because there would be a chance that your comments would be read. At a minimum please cease the commentary on other editors, they are entirely destructive to collaboration. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
At Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, this went over like ...
Since Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", nothing in it can be trusted. It is left as an exercise to the reader to verify assertions they may doubt. Editors should so far as possible assist them in this endeavour by providing cited sources.
The second version was jeered out of the house.
Since Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", nothing in it can be trusted and everything in it can be trusted. It is left as an exercise to the reader to verify assertions they may doubt. Editors should so far as possible assist them in this endeavour by providing cited sources [1] [2].... [x]
Well, I thought it was an improvement. NewbyG ( talk) 19:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
See [7], where I have asked that you be blocked for a bit. Dicklyon ( talk) 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Insults, gratuitous and cluesess:
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)*I had a look at that talk page, and I'm a bit shocked. You keep complaining about the other kids not letting you play in the sandbox, but the way you messed up that page is impressive. As far as I'm concerned, after you come off this block you may be blocked again, and longer, for disrupting a talk page by introducing subheadings and removing established headings in the middle of a discussion, or anything else deemed not in agreement with TPG and/or considered disruptive by other participants. I hope it won't have to come that far. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 04:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
NewbyG ( talk) 06:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines [8]
This en.wikipedia.org, by Edits (reverse), with Page = Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, since 2012-02-07 00:00:00, until 2012-03-05 00:00:00
show 100 / 250 / 500 / 1000 | (no more results)
Edits ↑ User first edit last edit 301 (276/25) Newbyguesses 2012-02-07 10:33 2012-03-04 16:09 231 (229/2) North8000 2012-02-07 20:14 2012-03-04 23:41 115 (115/0) Blueboar 2012-02-07 02:37 2012-03-04 20:45 113 (86/27) Dreadstar 2012-02-07 00:05 2012-02-28 01:58 101 (101/0) Becritical 2012-02-07 01:32 2012-03-03 23:10 93 (88/5) S Marshall 2012-02-07 00:03 2012-03-03 19:20 72 (55/17) Doc9871 2012-02-07 09:18 2012-02-29 06:21 68 (60/8) Littleolive oil 2012-02-07 03:08 2012-02-28 14:39 37 (32/5) JakeInJoisey 2012-02-20 02:16 2012-03-04 23:17 37 (28/9) Kalidasa 777 2012-02-21 01:30 2012-03-04 19:19 34 (34/0) SarekOfVulcan 2012-02-22 14:58 2012-02-22 15:59 33 (33/0) Jayen466 2012-02-11 14:25 2012-02-22 17:00 32 (32/0) Tryptofish 2012-02-28 21:36 2012-03-04 21:25 22 (22/0) Bob K31416 2012-02-07 02:27 2012-02-25 00:13 20 (17/3) ThatPeskyCommoner 2012-02-28 18:39 2012-03-04 06:50 19 (17/
Ach, I see you got into a bit of a pickle! Take a little while to chill.
I was actually just wandering over to let you know that's I'd removed a phrase of yours from Ched's workshop, as it was mistaken / misunderstanding, and couldn't possibly have done any good. If you pause to think about it for a moment, you'll see how it could have really irritated / offended the person you were thinking of. Best to avoid such things wherever possible. Cheers, Pesky ( talk) 06:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Adding: it seems that sometimes your thoughts and posts get a bit chaotic. I'm sure you mean well, but it might be an idea for you to draft up your thoughts in a basic text editor first, then try to trim them down as much as possible (yes, I know I;m verbose, too, but you know what I mean!); then go through what you've types up again, and edit out of it anything which isn't directly relevant to the page you're on. Try to keep it all in one place, wherever you can, as it makes it much, much easier for other people to keep track of it and get the gist of what you mean to convey. Some of us can have trouble following a line of thought where it's split up too much, or has "wandered". Also, avoid "interrupting" into another person's line of thought, wherever humanly possible, and avoid putting lots of headings and section breaks into pages, as even though it might make it easier for you to navigate, it can make it harder for others, too. Sometimes writing up everything you want to say in a text editor, then pruning and tidying it, and then leaving it until the next day before going through it again and posting it, can make a huge difference. Most things here in Wikipedia don't need an immediate response; taking more time to get do it right, rather than doing it quickly, is all to the good, and will make your time with us more productive and enjoyable, for you as well as for everyone else. Pesky ( talk) 07:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
As requested at Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard I've removed the comment made after the report was closed. At this point it would be best not to initiate threads at Dicklyon's talk page. Nobody Ent 11:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Even making spelling and grammatical corrections in others' comments is generally frowned upon, as it tends to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. [9] Nobody Ent 12:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Please do not
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be
vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Cutecutecuteface2000 (
Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be
blocked from editing.
Cutecutecuteface2000 (
Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
How is it legitimate editing. Please explain why? Cutecutecuteface2000 ( Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Maybe go back to usertalkcuteface2000, and join the discussion with user:Floquenbeam, who makes sense. NewbyG ( talk) 21:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Take a few days to think about it. *I* have explained that the Revert was an unhelpful edit, and *I* am going back to mainspace, so *I* don't need any more chit-chat here thank *you*. NewbyG ( talk) 21:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)
NewbyG, you said above you were going to go back to mainspace for a while, and that was a wise decision. There's a lot of productive stuff you can do there. Please take a break from Wikipedia-space, or at least stuff related to the policy area. Superm401 - Talk 03:40, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Going back to main-space, I am. ( My case is archived in Archive 740)
I would suggest one of you file a case at WP:DR/N naming all involved parties. And stop edit warring. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
You might want to consider using this tool - (tools:~dispenser/cgi-bin/webreflinks.py) - it makes your life a whole heap easier, by filling in complete citation templates for your links. All you do is install the script on Special:MyPage/common.js, or Special:MyPage/vector.js, or Special:MyPage/monobook.js, and then paste the bare url (without [...] brackets) between your <ref></ref> tabs, and you'll find a clickable link called Reflinks in your toolbox section of the page (probably in the left hand column). Then click that tool. It does all the rest of the work (provided that you remember to save the page!) It doesn't work for everything (particularly often not for pdf documents), but for pretty much anything ending in "htm" or "html" (and with a title) it will do really, really well all by itself. For those it can't do by itself, it gives you a pull-down (or up) menu of templates to choose from, which you can then fill in manually. Often the problem is "No title found" - sometimes the title is obvious (especially if it's a pdf), but, if not, just open the page yourself and choose something appropriate if there's not already a clear title there. Happy editing! To use Reflinks, you'll need to remove any [...]'s from around the bare url's, or Reflinks won't "see" them properly. Pesky ( talk) 10:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC) Oooh, another point with Reflinks: if there's other stuff (but not enough "other stuff") in between the ref tags, it's best to "strip" it down like this:
It looks like Office on Global Women's Issues is off to a good start. I'll try to put in some more time on it later. It's not a big deal, but you don't need to use Template:talkheader on every talk page. It's meant for "particularly active talk pages that attract commentary from inexperienced editors, and/or high levels of debate from everyone." Superm401 - Talk 12:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited VerKeerderkill Falls, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bushwhack ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:39, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
I really think it would be a great idea if you could restrict yourself to doing bits of article work for a while! No matter what the temptation may be to get involved at places like AN/I, to rebut or riposte anyone else's comments, and so on!
If necessary, tie your hands to your shoelaces for a while, or forbid yourself even looking at talk pages (other than article talk), dramah-boards, and so on!
There are people "out there" who will delightedly collect diffs of any controversy you may get even marginally involved in, and store them up as cannon-balls and other assorted ammunition for when they decide to "have a go". Simply as an exercise in long-term self-preservation, keep a low profile for at least a month, content yourself with some quiet gnoming, and avoid your name and sig appearing too often in front of those who lurk the dramah-boards in any way, shape or form. (I suggest de-watchlisting anything non-article-related which you currently have watchlisted. They will all survive without you for a while!)
Loads of hugz, Pesky ( talk) 19:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a
sockpuppetry case. Please refer to
Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Roger Pearse for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with
the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page.
Kalidasa 777 (
talk) 04:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
User:Jehochman 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Cheerfully Withdrawn User: NewbyG 17:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Couple things: First, thanks for your input on the civility sandbox. Now the bad part. Please don't do this again. That really is a personal attack, and I was surprised to see you resort to that. I don't know where it all started, don't have time to research or referee, and it doesn't matter "who started it". I've had a few disagreements with Jehochman over the years as well - but he usually sticks to policy. I noticed it looks like the two of you are disengaging, so that's a good thing that it can now de-escalate. Remember to walk away when you start feeling emotional and want to respond in kind or make a point. Take a deep breath, and enjoy life. best — Ched : ? 17:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Just to let you know, this may inflame things unnecessarily. According to WP:BLANKING, they are allowed to remove stuff from their talk page. I disagree with their edit summary as "baiting", but it is their right to remove it. I have retired from the WP:V nightmare, which the "SPI" was directly related to, and if you want to tough it out over there, I wish you the best of luck. Being there since August is enough for me, but many have been there for years. Cheers :> Doc talk 23:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Now, just how did you actually know that they would remove it again? [15] Is it because you are actually them, and therefore would naturally know what you were going to do all along? Hmm... Doc talk 07:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Deny it, will you? Cardinal Fang! Fetch... the comfy chair! Doc talk 07:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought you were going to focus on articles. The way you insert your noise/nose(striking insult NBG) into policy discussions that you know nothing about is still very annoying, not helpful to anyone.
Dicklyon (
talk) 06:21, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a legend the Buddha was once handed a flower and asked ... www.gutenberg.org/files/34325/34325-h/34325-h.htmAfter three years of practicing, I no longer saw the ox as a whole. ..... Buddhist monks became court advisers, opening the imperial coffers to build many lavish ...... to a refined essence, rather like extracting a delicate liqueur from a stout potion. The Practice of Zen ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/ew25922.htmby P Wienpahl - 1963 Nyogen Senzaki and Ruth Stout McCandless. ... The significance of the legend of Bodhidharma's sitting for nine years before he ... Only one hundred and three pages come from sources which the average reader might not consult. Furthermore, The Training of the Zen Buddhist Monk, regarded by some as Suzuki's best ...
the late 18th century primarily by monks fleeing the French Revolution . ... Strong ale: According to RateBeer.com "Belgian Strong Ale s can ... 35 KB (4,987 words) - 23:02, 26 February 2012
The Legend of the Three Stout Monks History of beer Monks built breweries as part of their efforts to provide food, ... very dark, roasted malts, contributing to the flavour of porters and stouts. ... 40 KB (6,188 words) - 02:27, 5 March 2012 diff all done
You seem to still insist on using talk pages like the one at the verifiability mediation to vent some deep-seated problem, but your remarks come across as a combination of attacks, uninterpretable nonsense, and pure noise. If you have a point, I'm sure you'd be welcome to make it, but to keep disrupting the page with nonsense is not advancing your position, nor helping progress in the mediation, which by the way you are not even a part of. So stop it, or I will have to go to AN/I and ask for another block to prevent further disruption. Dicklyon ( talk) 20:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=480104641&oldid=480102972 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=next&oldid=480177280 http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=next&oldid=480182638
At that page I was insulted from day one and ought to think about drawing that to the mediators attention as if that mattered now.
# (3) words redacted as personal attack> I have not "taken on" or involved myself here, just a few grammar tweaks. Dicklyon (talk) 06:41, 4 March 2012 (UTC) ((Dicklyon, anyone can make mistakes, for an ---))
After all user:Dicklyon you withdrew in a huff from the Mediation, blaming me, and then disobeyed the ground rules to carry out a revert off your own bat that the Mediator ought to have considered. Duh? Do you care to answer, for the interest that you may redact those forty odd words not that I am begging, it's that I wish to make it up with you. NewbyG ( talk) 12:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the
guide to appealing blocks first.
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Bad block. Where is the personal attack? He mentioned masturbation, which might be crude or insulting, but it is nothing personal. This user had a clear block log (except one prior block by you). A request to refactor the remark should have been the first step. Jehochman Talk 01:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi there Doc
I have sought medical advice. Was not, thankfully, prescribed A hideously-flavored beverage, bitter as bile. Somehow still popular in at least one state - I tried it twice and hated it. I already tried it twice. Or did I just say that? Anyway, thanks for the sage advice, and please don’t make a bad habit of keeping on coming back to this talk page and making me laugh like that, will ya, I can’t afford a sense of humor, let alone a new computer. I will not be making any links in this post to any cheeky or subversive or humorous webpages coz i haz not nkow henny , wot that are funny an' all. The medicine in the cupboard came fron the pharmacist (registered) and with discount A$17:95 it cost. With discount that is or did I say that? They keep all that sorta stuff on computers they do, the government an' what Cheers PS nobody has twigged yet that I made this edit in wikipedia space, 18:25, 28 February 2012 (diff | hist) . . (+7) . . Wikipedia:Userfication (insert missing word (moved)) (top) and it aint got reverted yet. Nor can I be blocked for it,at the moment. Have a laugh I know I w--- NewbyG ( talk) 11:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Newbyguesses ( block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser ( log))
Request reason:
There has been no lasting damage done to WP. I wont be doing that again. The background is the six diffs below (The short version) Take your time, let me think on what I've done wrong. I want to get back to fixing typos Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 09:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Accept reason:
There were probably better ways I could have handled that disruption. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I should add here, for any admin considering that I was blocked for 24 hours by user:Sarek of Vulcan weeks ago, so there is more background if thats relevant, and I should have learned my lesson then. Pax! NewbyG ( talk) 10:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Short version
A request to refactor the remark should have been the first step.
A consensus should have been sought
The Mediator ought to have been allowed to handle it
Humor is not allowed on Wikipedia
( ←) Thanks, I think I ought to leave a message at user talk:Newbyguesses, 23:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The most remarkable feature of the human mind, and which yet is at all costs not to be acknowledged for fear of disintegration, is the immense capacity to produce self-delusion.
Yet this capacity is not infinite.
So it is, since fortunately the conclusions that we draw from our self-delusion are false, that the damage we do in attempting to deny reality is, ultimately, limited, and we continue to survive on this earth. Judged on an appropriate timescale, that is, judged on the timescale of eternity, our self-delusions will be rendered moot.
Then, when reality is no longer denied, and self-delusion moot : then there will be no then, nor will there be time at all, nor will there be any more eternity, nor any more earth, only unblinking reality, beyond death and life.
<>
Straighten Up and Fly Right written by Nat King Cole and Irving Mills and performed by The King Cole Trio
ICHTHUS |
January 2012 |
In this issue...
Hi Newby. Many thanks for your note and for including my idea in the WP:V workshop page. We did get off to a difficult start -- I did have concerns about how you were editing back then. Still, it is clear to me now that I got it wrong -- that you are not the person I thought you were. And also, that you are not the sort of person I thought you were. I hope you will continue to take part in discussions about WP:V etc, for instance on Stradivarius' mediated discussion page. Kalidasa 777 ( talk) 20:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Newbyguesses! Firstly, thank you for participating to MOTD. In the last months we (at MOTD) had big problems on approving mottos, a few people were really active, and this has led to a couple of days without a motto for the day, so any help is much appreciated.
About your suggestion, the "unwritten rule" is "semi-written". The following is an excerpt taken from
Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Guidelines:
In general, the motto must be somehow related to Wikipedia and its community. Any motto that is not related to Wikipedia will not be accepted. To relate a motto to Wikipedia, please wikilink them to the appropriate project pages. Do not edit the quote for this purpose, and do not use links that are not related to Wikipedia.
Personally, I have no objection at all to your proposal. In fact, I think that I will support it. And, of course, we can occasionally follow and observe the
WP:IAR.
Happy Editing! –
pjoef (
talk •
contribs) 08:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I think that it is the right place and there is no need to move and/or fix it. The only "little" problem is that many users do not participate in discussions. Let me see if I can find a way to do it without having to send another message to all users/participants again (for example by writing the link to the discussion directly in the related nominations whithin the In review section). I would not bother them too much ~ lol ~ Anyway, I really think that your proposal will have my support. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
The MOTD Barnstar | ||
The MOTD Barnstar is awarded to Newbyguesses for his invaluable contribution to our project, which was experiencing a period of extreme scarcity. Thank you from Motto of the day. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC) |
Additional note: Hoping that you feel comfortable with us, we hope and desire that you will want to continue contributing to our/your project. I personally think that if many of us contribute, then about ten minutes per week, by reviewing the existing nominations, and eventually adding new nominations, should be more than enough to get the project going! Once again, thank you from your Motto of the day. – pjoef ( talk • contribs) 10:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
<-->
April Fools Day is just around the corner. As such please could you nominate a new motto or comment on existing suggestions at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/Specials? Simply south.... .. facing oncoming traffic for over 5 years 16:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. With a new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name to this list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 20:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you! | |
---|---|
Hi Newbyguesses! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot ( talk) 19:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC) |
You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. X Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Motto of the Day ( WP:MOTD) is in a state of emergency and really needs your help! There are not enough editors who are reviewing or nominating mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review, and this probably means that you will notice a red link or “ This space for rent” as our mottos for the next weeks and months.
Please take a moment to review the nominations and nominate your own new mottos at Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/In review and Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Nominations/'Specials. Any help would be appreciated! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 09:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
If I sign in and edit a page and click the four tildes to insert signature nothing is inserted. If I do not sign in and click on the four tildes then the anon signature is added. If I manually type four tildes this happens: start — Philogos ( talk) 23:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC) end
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk) 16:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello! There is currently a request for approval of a bot to manage the AutoWikiBrowser CheckPage by removing inactive users, among other tasks. You are being contacted because you may qualify as an inactive user of AWB. First, if you have any input on the proposed bot task, please feel free to comment at the BRFA. Should the bot task be approved, your access to AWB may be uncontroversially removed if you do not resume editing within a week's time. This is purely for routine maintenance of the CheckPage, and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You will be able regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:36, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Newbyguesses. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, Newbyguesses. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I wish to confirm that I attempted to login today, and I logged in today, even though there may have been some problem in the login procedure
I am thankful that there have been no successful attempts to hijack my account and I am equally thankful that en.Wikipedia has vigilant procedures in place to deal with security issues