User talk:Newbyguesses

1. Welcome! to User talk:Newbyguesses. If a message is left on this talk page then User:Newbyguesses will usually reply on this talk page, below.
2. New messages should go at bottom of talk page. Please remember to sign. (~~~~)
3. Talk page Archives (See Help:Archiving a talk page) Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
4. status: NewbyG contributes via steam-powered computer, with an internet connection provided by messenger pigeons; or occasionally from the library/internet cafe.
5. Happy editing!
6. Water off a duck's back.
7. Sanity check I.

1. New Pages Patrol from back.
2. Take a break from editing if fatigue is a problem, it's very refreshing.
3. user:Newbyguesses is on ()RR or !1RR, depending upon which page it is which is being edited at the/this time currently. Peace!
4. A cup of tea for you!

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)[reply]

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. Optimism should have a separate page that focuses on the philosophical idea of optimism and distinguishes the philosophical view from "positive thinking" and other everyday uses of the word. Philosophy of social science, has some okay points but requires elaboration on Wittgenstein and Winch, perhaps other linguistic critiques, whether logical positivist or postmodernist. Exchange value needs to be redone, it shouldn't be under 'Marxist theory'- although it's an important component of Marxist theory it's also vital for all economics. That said the article's weight on Marx is also absurd. German Idealism and the articles related to it may need to be rewritten or expanded to avoid undue weight on Arthur Schopenhauer. Protected values first section confuses right action and values and needs a copy edit, moving and wikifying 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. Analytic philosophy This is a very major topic, but still has several sections which are stubs, and several topics which are not covered. Lifeworld A philosophical concept that seems to have fallen exclusively into the hands of the sociologists. Could use some attention; it's a major and complex issue in phenomenology. Perception Needs the attention of philosophically minded Wikipedians. This is only the start of an overhaul of perception and related articles. Edit this list | To do | stubs | Article alerts | Cleanup listing | Category | Portal | RFC | Deletion | Requested articles | Discussion

• When you wonder what to do?
• Take a break from editing if fatigue is a problem, it's very refreshing!
• Wikipedia:Wikibreak ...
• 320

Summary (with deletions, and bolding etc. added) extracted from Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost

• Closed case: Civility enforcement; (On 20 February 2012)

1. -- editor, admonished over repeatedly personalizing disputes and engaging in uncivil conduct, personal attacks, and disruptive conduct
2. -- admonished administrator for conduct unbecoming an administrator, and for failing to adequately explain his actions when requested by the community and Arbitration Committee
3. -- administrator admonished for reversing another administrator's actions while said actions were under review through community discussion.
4. -- A general reminder to all editors was passed to engage in discussion in a way that will neither disrupt nor lower the quality of such discourse. Personal attacks, profanity, inappropriate use of humour, and other uncivil conduct that leads to a breakdown in discussion can prevent the formation of a valid consensus.
5. -- Blocks or other restrictions may be used to address repeated or particularly severe disruption of this nature, in order to foster a collaborative environment within the community as a whole.
6. -- This warning is directed at conduct that deteriorates the quality of discussions, reminding all editors that uncivil conduct can be a factor in the breaking down of consensus forming, and that blocks or other restrictions may be used in the event of repeated disruption to ensure the collaborative environment of Wikipedia is maintained.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

Good change at: [1] --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

-- 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)[reply]

[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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, Jeff, and congratulations on the George Lovejoy article. --NewbyG (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Real Gone Troppo

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Civility#Policy or guideline? The Rfc began here, back around 9 August, note the question mark in the section title. No, I shouldn't have edited the Rfc list directly, which didn't change anything, I realize that now, it is just that the Rfc has moved on quite a ways from the original question. Thanks. Now there is apparently another Rfc yesterday at Wikipedia talk:Civility#Wider input requested on suggested changes to introduction of Civility Policy. And having computer problems, so not sure when I will be on-line, but I am sure it will get sorted out. NewbyG (talk) 00:19, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• For reference, subject edit.[4]
• At User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 96#Kudos, The constant seeking for blame and winners and losers in debate is a poison. Jimbo Wales 22.16 11 February 2012

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)[reply]

You are welcome, NewbyG ( talk) 19:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: NewbyG ( talk) 21:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC) comment. cool. kudos. :) — Ched :  ?  22:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome NewbyG ( talk) 22:26, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, just focused. It was nice to see you return. Which lines on my userpage? meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies I guess? Personally, I try to ignore factionalism. I usually misunderstand the unstated subtexts anyway. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:01, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL NewbyG ( talk) 19:49, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Amendment: After a short search in the article history I think I also found the source of this error: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)[reply]

Fine by *me*. Thank you for the information. I checked the payoff matrix and the game seems very interesting. NewbyG ( talk) 19:52, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[5] [6]

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)[reply]

I am trying my best. If you can ignore the inanity at that page, and the disruption by a bunch of battle-hardened regulars at the page, best wishes. I am doing my best in good faith. Do you have an agenda at that page, I don't. A lot of insults fly about, insults are poison that disrupts a page. I have asked and asked editor not to comment on editors. Comment on contributions not on editors, and now you accuse me of destructive comments, trying to get them to observe the talk page guidelines, which they will not learn to do, that is what is the right thing to do.

You do definitely have it wrong, but thank you anyway. I have not disrupted the page, I have been insulted and inconvenienced. Thank you for the reasonable tone of your post. That page, I didn't disrupt it. It's been a disgrace for a long time what is going on there. Are you straining at gnats and easily swallowing a camel? Thanks, for your advice, you may have it wrong. YMMV

Speaking of improving the page, all the current efforts of all editors have been collected (by me) and transferred to Wikipedia:Verifiability/Workshop, if you are interested. No-one at WT:VER seems interested, they would rather fill the talk page up with discussions that go, and go, and go nowhere. You dig? NewbyG ( talk) 16:04, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of policy is not supposed to be an exchange of bad beat poetry or zen koans, even if here on your talkpage, that is your prerogative. Please try to wp:USEENGLISH elsewhere on the English-language Wikipedia, which is to say, express yourself in a manner which is as clear to readers as you can manage. In any case, the idea that posting dozens of incomprehensible snippets per day is not disruptive will not go far, and it certainly help you persuade people of your views. Personalizing the exchange is almost always a bad idea, "Comment on edits, not editors" largely avoids that problem. LeadSongDog come howl! 16:56, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is what I said. I have begged for observance of the talk page guidelines. Comment on edits, not egotists. All* the comments at that page are about *your draft* or *my position* or silly talk about threats which do not even exist, while ignoring actual threats. Making threats to disrupt the page, which can be read there, is disruptive behaviour. And got the page protected again. And the disruption to the policy page has been going on for over a year, long before I got there. No, you aint seeing the whole picture. NewbyG ( talk) 17:16, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is there any evidence that drizzling 20+ posts/day of incomprehensible snippets over the talkpage will help improve the level of discourse? Any signs of that happening are obscure at best, and it does seem increasingly wp:POINTy. The power of wp:AGF is that it calls us to consider that others' suggestions could have positive aspects that we simply haven't recognized. We frequently find that well-intentioned smart people can disagree for perfectly good reasons that must first be understood before it is possible to arrive at a consensus. By all means challenge unsupported assertions and ask for needed explanations, just try to do so in a manner that isn't going to overwhelm fellow editors willingness to read and respond. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you for the AGF. That's right. But are you just ignoring the disruption to the policy page. (1) Page is locked down due to another edit war. (2) There are threats on the talk page to disrupt the page. You want to ignore that? and just nit-pick me? It is not possible to overcome edit-warriors who hold policy pages hostage, that is too hard, so turn a blind eye? NewbyG ( talk) 17:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As far as possible, yes. Focussing on the positive contributions while ignoring disruptions is a large part of AGF. The reverse is the path to madness. That is why I waited so long before coming to your user talkpage with this issue. But when the policy talkpage becomes incomprehensible largely through the actions of one user, something has to be said about it. Just being right isn't enough to be convincing. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, yes, and no, and no, and yes. Ignore disruption? Then the policy page is impossible to edit. No, there are editors who post threats, I don't. Those posts are disruptive, certainly if mine are considered so. No, I do not think I am "right", I am not trying to convince anyone either, they do not listen.

There are other users compiling the threatening and disruptive posts, if I get caught in the crossfire, ouch! Thank you for your restraint, and concern. BTW, I aint posting there now, or intend to. Cheers {The last yes is for AGF, agree with that) NewbyG ( talk) 18:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I like version (1) but ...

The problem with both suggestions is that they leave out half of the equation ... yes, we leave it to the reader to verify doubtful assertions ... but it is the responsibility of the editors who wish to add or keep assertions which may be doubtful to actually provide verification.... so that the reader is able to verify it.

In other words... verifiability is a concept that involves both editor and reader. Information is considered verifiable if an editor can provide verification - verification which allows the reader to verify the information.

Perhaps I'm missing something. How can an editor "provide verification" other than to cite sources?

Yes, editors do not "provide verification", unless they do it by cting reliable, accurate sources. But when adding something unsourced. and which is perfectly reasonable, good sources will be available,;: At that point, an editor is *NOT* providing verification, the editor is assessing whether material, for whatever reasons, is worth including 'inserting' at this point in time. A mental process is involved, followed by the physical activity of editing, or leaving the page alone.

See [7], where I have asked that you be blocked for a bit. Dicklyon (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, NewbyG ( talk) 21:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NewbyG... While I think Dick jumped the gun a bit by taking this to ANI, I have to agree that I have found some of your edits at WT:V somewhat disruptive recently. I often find it difficult to understand what you are trying to say or what point you are trying to make. Your edits can come across as being non-sequitors that have nothing to do with the topic under discussion. This is especially true when it comes to your choice of section headers and "random break" headers. Blueboar (talk) 00:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that is what you think. I agree, I too find it difficult to understand some posts, which apparently make sense when they hit the save button, but which are gibberish, if you have not been conditioned to discuss VNT with every waking breath. Now, I have been watching this talk page for quite a while, and it always seemed so dysfunctional that i dreaded to post there.

Constant edit-wars and battlefield heroics are taking place there, long before *i* was foolish enough to believe that *I* could make one edit to the project page without being involved in an edit war. I admire *your stamina in staying the course there for years,but it is rather hopeless to expect proper behaviour it seems from the regulars at this policy page. That is not good enough, but my approach will now have to veer towards WP:DGAF. I'm outta here. Thank you, and best of luck if you go back to the trenches. BTW did you take a gander at *your contributions to Wikipedia:Verifiability/Workshop. Pretty good, they are. NewbyG ( talk) 00:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Newbyguesses, do I understand correctly from the response above that you don't plan to post to WT:V anymore? If so, I'll leave you in peace. If not, I'm going to have to make some kind of limitation on your posting there. While I doubt you intend to be disruptive, that's the net effect. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*I* do not intend to post at WT:V. *I* do not understand the rest of *your* post here. NewbyG ( talk) 00:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. If you wish me to explain the rest of my post, just ask. But if you're done posting to WT:V, then it's a moot point. --Floquenbeam (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I have poor broadband connections, long talk pages are quite aggravating, and edit conflicts too. And silly reports to ANI. But, even when one is insulted gratuitously and cluelessly, one ought to keep cool NewbyG ( talk) 00:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Insults, gratuitous and cluesess:

1. It seems mighty odd that everywhere Newbyg goes, Doc soon follows. (And vice versa.) If they don't want to be accused of sock or meat puppetry, they shouldn't act that way. Jehochman Talk 12:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
2. I don't believe that Newbyguesses is Doc9871 for a moment. Both users have been spitting various unpleasant accusations at me for quite a while. I think from their point of view they're "protecting" WP:V from "disruptive" editors who want to make changes "against consensus". They need educating on this .. he's used the anonymity to make other disruptive remarks, including antisemitic ones.—S Marshall T/C 12:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
3. Cheerfully withdrawn Peace NewbyG ( talk) 12:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for persistent disruptive editing, as you did at Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*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)[reply]

It should have been discussed on the talk page and a consensus formed, which I would have respected. Did that not occur to you, to apply the consensus policy? Or has it been repealed? There was no emergency, unless WWIII has broken out and no one told me.

NewbyG ( talk) 06:48, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines [8]

• Removing harmful posts, Posts that may be considered disruptive in various ways are another borderline case and are usually best left as-is or archived.

• Sectioning: If a thread has developed new subjects, it may be desirable to split it into separate discussions with their own headings or subheadings.

You have been charged and found guilty and now we bring the jury in to heckle.

The above template is stale, in case you didn't look closely

but watch this space.

Watch out Newby you old scoundrel get that indenting wrong again and you are out of here.

Newbyguesses, try to minimize this kind of snark (like the above) for a while. Superm401 - Talk 02:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, gee whillikers. Is humo(u)r banned everywhere, even on a user talk page. Just joking, I will be as sober as a judge, and wear my best shoes while stumbling through the china shop, I really will. Fixed. Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 02:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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/

• At Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, since 2012-02-07 00:00:00, until 2012-03-05 00:00:00

1. Newbyguesses 301 edits (276/25)
2. Next four users 231 (229/2) 115 (115/0) 113 (86/27) 101 (101/0)
3. Next four users (combined) 560 edits

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sticking my neck out and my wolfy nose in, I wondered if maybe there was some specific and temporary (or semi-temporary) reason for the apparent "chaos". I've had so many various medications in my time, I've encountered these myself as side-effects occasionally, and it just rang a bell for me. Of course, I'm quite possibly totally wrong, in which case forgive me! But a good way to deal with those (and still attempt to function!) is to use the above method; write, then edit, then leave. And leave. And edit, and only then post. Pesky (talk) 08:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. I already answered that question at usertalk:Floquenbeam. My meds (anti-depression) are reliable, but not fool-proof, I am OK, but your advice at your page was spot on. Umm, I really can't talk now. Just need a break. I won't discuss personal matters on a talk page, not mine or anyone else's. It's cool, what your intentions are, but maybe by email is better, I don't check mine often, so I treat emails as distnctly un-urgent. Thanks for your helpfulnes. See ya NewbyG ( talk) 08:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. I have anti-depressant / anti-OCD medication (Paroxetine), and a cocktail of other assorted things, too; mostly they work fine, but when I'm on the morphine I can get very rambly and unfocussed. I had to come of one anti-depressant many years ago as it sent me into high-manic mode (quite funny, but a bit disconcerting for others!) Do feel free to email me. Pesky (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

No, I didn't ask for that, I didn't care. It is the HEADER which is contrary to common decency,and policy. Um thanks, you are not an admin? Leave my comment there please, I would think that it is the responsibility of the admin corp to repair the damage at that page, not you or I . NewbyG ( talk) 11:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sorry, I don't get that. My comment was reverted out. Does that not go against best practice? Yes, it does.

Oh, I see. Whatever. NewbyG ( talk) 12:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. My mistake. NewbyG ( talk) 19:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Funny how Dicklyon just restored this, after I removed it twice and Nobody Ent removed it with "remove content added after ~3 hours after close"[10]. I wouldn't initiate any threads on his page either, NBG. When you apologize and it is utterly ignored, when you dance on graves and run to AN/I straight away suggesting lengthy punitive blocks... it's a waste of time. Doc talk 16:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what is going on here. I have had enough. Please, I am desperate. Would someone please make a typo in any of the articles on my watchlist, I am desperate to get back to main space and do something useful, like fix a typo, or revert some graffiti. Sigh. NewbyG ( talk) 19:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the "Random article" is your friend. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Not much graffiti there these days. The bots get most of it. NewbyG ( talk) 20:03, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could expand Pat's Pizza... :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you [11] NewbyG ( talk) 20:12, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey NewbyG; I wrote this to highlight the good side of one of my own personal glitches; there are (indirect) links to (literally!) hundreds and hundreds of little gnomish things which would be enough to keep anybody amused and out of trouble for months on end, if you feel like burrowing into the hidden caves of WikiLand. This one in particular is a lovely place to go task-hunting. Let me know when you've cleared the backlog ..... LOL! And here's the ultimate tool for the task. (>**)> big hugz to you, and best wishes, Pesky (talk) 10:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOL indeed. I already pinched some links off your page weeks ago, and I am trying to get to it, it will be Good! Ta, NewbyG ( talk) 11:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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) [reply]

• • Use common sense , which means Think about it, Before Reverting. Templates are no substitute for Thinking, nicht war? NewbyG ( talk) 21:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How is it legitimate editing. Please explain why? Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:38, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why the Revert is helpful? The revert fails to comply with wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, doesn't it. NewbyG ( talk) 21:42, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the same as saying that someone has performed vandalism. Please say why it fails WP:TPG. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:47, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe go back to usertalkcuteface2000, and join the discussion with user:Floquenbeam, who makes sense. NewbyG ( talk) 21:51, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You can respond on this talk page. Cutecutecuteface2000 (Questions, comments, complaints?) 21:53, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Newbyguesses, I'm sure you were trying to be helpful, but if anyone had been linking to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive756#Personal attacks by User:SMcCandlish, your edit would've broken the link. You can prevent that by using the {{anchor}} template if you rename a section header in the future. And, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is not technically a talk page and doesn't have the

This is a talk page. Please respect the talk page guidelines, and remember to sign your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~)

notice at the top of the page when you edit it, while Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard is a talk page – note the difference. Hope this helps. Mojoworker (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. This point has been addressed at usertalk:Cuteface 2000, where the current discussion is apparently centralized. *I* would like to think about this for a few days. It ain't an emergency. NewbyG ( talk) 22:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Going back to main-space, I am. (My case is archived in Archive 740)

review please see here.

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)

Oh well, ya try to do the right thing, and look where it gets ya. NewbyG ( talk) 06:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness (is that a word?), gnoming around attacking all those thousands of little things linked from my ODC-Essay page could give you something very fulfilling and soothing to play with for a while. The fixing bare urls's is a nice one and can keep you going for ever (and you'll probably find yourself blue-link surfing around the articles, because you're bound to come across something fascinating in there!) When I went several months totally lacking in inspiration to create anything, I attacked the backlog at new page patrol, which I personally thoroughly enjoyed, but it's not for everyone. (The back end of the queue is far less stressful than the front end of the queue, and there are never enough new page patrollers with good WikiExperience.) You might well find that gnoming around the 'pedia quietly improving articles keeps you fully employed, satisfied that you're making improvements, and out of harm's way, too. Sometimes we can get bogged down in the more dissentful stuff, and it takes its toll on us both in the 'pedia and in Real Life, too. I thoroughly recommend a few weeks of solid gnoming as a rest cure; it keeps you out of the way of people who might want to have a dig at you, and out of the way of temptation, too! All the best, Pesky (talk) 07:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. NewbyG ( talk) 07:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:[reply]

<ref>[... url here] ''other bits here''</ref> goes to

<ref>url-with no brackets</ref> <!--other stuff here--> so that the "other stuff" is commented out, but stil visible to you in case Reflinks doesn't catch it all. Then you can (if necessary) copy, paste, and re-insert the "other stuff" once Reflinks has done its magic thing. Pesky (talk) 10:46, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, thanks. I will try to use good judgement there. With Template:talkheader, generally, if it seems the next editor on a (new) talkpage is likely to be an inexperienced editor, I consider that adding talkheader would be helpful. No likely traffic, no talkheader. Sometimes, even very experienced editors will benefit of a near-at-hand reminder to the appropriate principles, such WP:BITE and WP:FIVE, as on this occasion (diff).

With subheaders, this was an astute one, as the following focused discussion shows. It was however subsequently deprecated, though not reverted, as is our Block, revert, ignore policy, or WP:SOCK Peace! NewbyG ( talk) 06:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• [12] NewbyG ( talk) 20:00, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

[13] Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 20:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have noticed the little gnomish things! Every little helps, it really does. Pesky (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Newbyguesses, if you have a static IP address on the east coast of the United States (which are the only ones I've ever used), then perhaps we could be considered the same editor. Do you? Are we? The IPs in Prague and Sweden? What a devious plan we've devised! And we are all Roger as well. Yay, us! Doc talk 04:40, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just checked my user page, apparently I am still me. Are you you? Do not use such educated language, you might frighten the muskrats! I laughed till I cried. Take care, NewbyG ( talk) 05:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CU's - check these transmissions! We are one, and while we may seem to edit from different locations, we are lying. Oops! I've given too much away. I hope they don't catch on... ;P Doc talk 05:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mention the Beatles. Especially I am he as you are he as you are me as we are all together. Indisputable truth and confession all in one. Yeah, copper ya got me bang to rights! My lord, what next! NewbyG ( talk) 05:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We gotta stop switching accounts to talk to each other like this in order to keep up this silly charade. It's tiring, ya know! Doc talk 05:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) and (adjust indents) You would have no idea how tiring. I just phoned my doctor, (medical that is) to get an urgent appointment. NewbyG ( talk) 05:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No more trouts, okay? I'm certainly no role model to follow, and you've got a lot of people gunning for you. It's best not to pile on to a conflict - it gives evidence of questionable faith to your detractors. I can handle the SPI, trust me. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:37, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not even another 100 trouts would suffice? How long will the investigation take? I do have work to do. Cheers NewbyG ( talk) 05:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a failed SPI once (and did a ton of work on it) on two accounts that were seriously closely related in editing style, interest, and disruption. The SPI was derided as "not conclusive", but both editors were subsequently blocked indefinitely because of the disruption that they were causing anyway. I feel bad that this will be a harsh lesson for Kalidasa 777 on when not to file a SPI, but it's one we must all learn if we want to delve into that realm. Doc talk 05:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no grudge against user:Kalidasa 777 (they called me "young and cute"). Bit tired of being called disruptive, by them's that ought to know better! Oh, well NewbyG ( talk) 06:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My appointment at the medical clinic went OK. There was a cute young student doctor auditing, made my day, *I* almost needed oxygen. NewbyG ( talk) 00:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jehochman 17:10, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheerfully Withdrawn User: NewbyG 17:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• :An uncivil environment is a poor environment

I want to say that I'm finding you a very pleasant interlocutor.

This is already offensive enough on it's own, so can you at least refrain from personal attacks and wild accusations against my person?--90.179.235.249 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The "antisemitic remark" is this: diff. There is nothing antisemitic about that. --90.179.235.249 (talk) 23:44, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I may have to resurrect the old civility and apology header from archives.

Peace! NewbyG ( talk) 12:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please .. Peace! Disengaging, yes, would really wish to get back to mainspace. No comment on which posted to whom at where why and when constitute personal attacks PER our Civlity policy, in the 1st instance estimate, I, to nearest round number in binary notation equals Zero. Enjoy life, from Both Sides, Now. Sand in my eyes, wind in my hair, lying down resting .. Peace! NewbyG ( talk) 18:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be going through a bit of a rough patch recently! Those can be horrible, they just start to escalate and spill over into all our communication with everybody, Real Life and online. Try taking a short break (three of four days maximum) just to chill out for a little while. And read my sheer genius masterpiece, lol! Hugz. Pesky (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[14] Keeping cool, you too, huh. NewbyG ( talk) 18:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Convenience link - Sockpuppet investigation Archive - The result of the investigation was "inconclusive". The so-called evidence!! was utterly prepost'rous to clue-full eyes!

It is their right to remove it again, NBG is on 0RR or !RR depending on the page which is being edited at the/this time. *I* have retired from the WP:V nightmare, which the "SPI" was directly related to. Being there since February is enough for me. Peace! NewbyG ( talk) 06:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:GHBH, say no more, nudge, nudge, a wink is as good as a nod, ... I have formed a view... pineapple, banana, tangerine, smelling salts! Peace! NewbyG ( talk) 07:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Deny it, will you? Cardinal Fang! Fetch... the comfy chair! Doc talk 07:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

diff

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)[reply]

• Ignore them. A revert is a revert and a diff is a diff. Take your annoyance and twenty cents and go buy a coffee. Thanks for putting that section, which is entirely on message, in chrono order. (Chill, man!) NewbyG ( talk) 06:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a nice beer or other beverage, if it is that time of day! History of beer

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

History of beer

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)[reply]

Thanks, but your remarks come across as a threat, and an accusation -insist? having a point? : you're welcome. NewbyG ( talk) 20:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The way I might see it, user:DickL is that

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=480104641&oldid=480102972 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/27_February_2012/Wikipedia:Verifiability&diff=next&oldid=480177280 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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 ---))

1. (42) words redacted as personal attack> Dicklyon (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

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)[reply]

• The ground rules on that page, which apply to everyone, invited or not, are that any necessary reverts be brought to the attention of the Mediator at the Mediators talk page.

1. Not that its a matter of rule, but user:dicklyon you insulted me twice (2) on the 4th March this year on that page, and got away with it, and prejudiced everything. You ought to seek consensus, I won't lecture to an old hand. NewbyG ( talk) 12:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, no answer, but Chill man! In faxt if User:dicky had not stuck there noise in, it would have been handled by the moderator/Mediator, but Why did you do that? I would have respected a request from userSMarshall, and let the Mediator make the call, not you Dicky who have stalked me, and threatened me twice now, still on this page, and insulted me I remind only because you ignore me. Chill Man!! Seek wp:consensus not wild west please NewbyG ( talk) 15:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for attacks on other editors, as shown here. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Considering he had just pointed out an editor who had used "I" 10 times in a post, is was pretty obviously directed at them, and hence personal. And really, complaining about using "I" in a message????? (And no, the block log wasn't clean -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&page=User%3ANewbyguesses)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, NewbyG's comment was not appropriate, regardless of the circumstances. It wasn't a direct personal attack, but it was certainly offensive without a hint of a good reason. Apparently S Marshall was joking around (deliberately using I) since he doesn't agree with the proposed "personal pronoun policy." Certainly nothing in S Marshall's post was offensive or deserved that response.

NewbyG, I'm going to ask you again to take a long hiatus from the policy-related pages. You are not listed as an editor at the mediation. Nor have you agreed to the ground rules, so there's no need to continue there. Superm401 - Talk 03:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're damned right there's no reason to continue there. NewbyG, I wish you would follow my lead on the WP:V thing (along with Dreadstar and countless others). "Consensus" is totally broken over there, it's not getting fixed correctly and likely will not be, and the "improvements" are in utter disregard of WP:CONLIMITED, our RfC process, etc. Cut your losses, as there is no point pursuing anything of worth there. A week-long block is far too long, clearly, as other parties have made similar if not far worse "personal attacks"... meh. Let them have their policy, and just let them destroy it. Doc talk 05:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Add - I bear no ill will towards, nor do I doubt for one second the good-faith intentions of, the admins I have disagreed with on certain decisions. Jehochman has proven why I believe this: while we have definitely disagreed on some things, each case (a block, in this case) must be looked at from a neutral position. The same goes for Sarek, as I have often defended his admin decisions when extremely unpopular. But when NewbyG asks for your help in a dispute with another user, knowing fully well that you are the admin that blocked them before, and you slap them with a week-long block in response... that's a pretty lame decision, IMHO. This block should be reduced to 48 hours, if not "time served". And NewbyG should consider abandoning attempts to make sense of certain things around here (though I do admire their "moxie"/alt); and just know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away, and know when to run. Doc talk 05:39, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Newby has been annoying. I've said so previously, but this block is over the top. A request for them to refactor the offensive remark would have been more effective. Sarek, I am concerned that you are too quick with the block button. Jehochman ^Talk 13:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jehochman, sorry for butting in, and sorry for annoying you, I know what you're referring to. Let user:Sarek of Vulcan talk calmly to any sysop who follows instructions and consults with the blocking admin, I am in no hurry here. I done wrong and eat humble pie here, and wait in line. Sorry, I think I already said NewbyG ( talk) 14:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should add in case you missed the icky details, that A request to refactor the remark could not have been the first step because the post(s) were already removed, were only up for twenty so minutes, and no sign of them being re-added, 8 hours later. NewbyG ( talk) 14:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Heh! Remember this: you can be 14 years old editing video game articles and fighting vandalism, never make any waves, pass your RfA virtually unopposed... and then you become a man (or woman). Humor is allowed here, though to a decreasing degree. While I'm often mistaken for an admin because of where I comment and how I frame things, I'm just a NCO. Admins generally don't want to deal with me; not because I am in any way disruptive, but because I will call them on their mistakes in a... "frustrating" way. No greenhorn tells me what's right, even if they've been here forever. But when I'm wrong, I will admit it, and always attempt to alleviate any damage my mistakes may have caused. Stay true to yourself, always, and know when the waves are getting too high. Hopefully you will be unblocked soon... but now you're a "troublemaker", right? Good luck :> Doc talk 12:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well then Doc, I have made a lifelong habit of admitting my mistakes, it has always worked to my advantage, so that's par for the course or whatever it is in baseball. NewbyG ( talk) 12:18, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doc, I am going to the beach I think for a couple of days, where I'll have no internet, and no wp:v don't you envy me? Read a book in the morning then go to the beach, come back and play the piano, snooze, iced coffee, relax ... NewbyG ( talk) 14:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no enemies on WP, and humbly agree with AGF to the blocking admin, which doesn't really need to be said anyway. I have no enemies in the world, zero, that's a fact not live ones that's for sure. Just ask some elderly users like Jzg or CoolHand Luke, TS, LessHeardvanU, Sir Fozzie, err ... showing my age I am. I don't have enemies and I don't edit war. I hate that word. Yeah, and I knew Rlevse when they were still clerking, if that is not giving too much away. I do hope that competence is not considered an issue here. NewbyG ( talk) 16:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC): Ps I lied about one of those users, guess who : they probably still hate my guts. [reply]

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

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)[reply]

Accept reason:

There were probably better ways I could have handled that disruption. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you, I would still like advice from you, any time its a problem, sorry. New pages patrol! see talk page at top NewbyG ( talk) 16:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent outlook. I am glad everybody is willing to let this be water under the bridge. Jehochman ^Talk 19:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jehochman, I refactored a section above, feel free to amend any insult I made there or anywhere 'gainst yourself, and etc. you know bygones are good gones as you say here thanks. [[:Image:Strip Club Bouncer San Francisco.jpg|right|150px|thumb|This bouncer]] doesn't bite heh.. NewbyG ( talk) 20:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Short version

1. Remark 12:39, 6 March 2012
2. (→‎Sub-proposal - first person limited as of 19:48, 6 March 2012
3. (Reverted 5 edits by Newbyguesses (talk): Pure noise; NewbyG, please stop as of 20:16, 6 March 2012
4. →‎Refactoring at the mediation: 20:39, 6 March 2012
5. →‎Block follow-up: new section 21:02, 6 March 2012
6. You have been blocked from editing as of 21:41, 6 March 2012
7. Youch

A request to refactor the remark should have been the first step.

Yes, but the post(s) were already removed, and no sign of them being re-added, 8 hours later.

A consensus should have been sought

wp:consensus has Been repealed at wp:V and associated POLpages, since last November.Joke

The Mediator ought to have been allowed to handle it

No, it was an emergency, and WWIII has been declared in the Mittel-Ost Joke

Humor is not allowed on Wikipedia

I got no sense of humor left, after this schemozzle, probably never had a sense of humor in the first instance. Blah, no sense of drama either. Or timing apparently, should have remembered its full moon, vampires, vultures and werewolves, all that spooky stuff. NewbyG ( talk) 09:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[Pesky werewolf pokes muzzle around doorframe, cautiously ...] ...all the above-mentioned, of course, should be flooding in to any employment agency which has that "Part-time people wanted!" notice outside its door ;P Pesky (talk) 16:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes! a werewolf, lemme outta here. I'm allergic to man/animal/monster hairs. Love popcorn, hate the movies, no sense a humo(u)r, and like Paul Simon put it, the man ain't got no culture! NewbyG ( talk) 17:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, Pesky, Granny hugs and advice, do you think I need to change my username after this episode, or my Sig, or get a hair-cut maybe, I'm perplexed as to what to do. How's about's going incognito as user:Newbeguesses and hiding away, away. damn my 6,000 good edits over five (5) years. 17:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That took me a looong time to get that joke - werewolves and vampires are part-time people. Sigh, giggle smirk NewbyG ( talk) 17:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind .. my sense of humour is a bit odd sometimes. I;m still waiting for the penny to drop about the fun guy over on MF's talk ... Sig: how about changing the font and the colour for something new and nifty; give yourself a fresh coat of paint :D Pesky (talk) 17:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(←) Thanks, I think I ought to leave a message at user talk:Newbyguesses, 23:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your message. I had noticed that the MOTD was falling behind, from comments you had made on some user talk pages I visit, so I looked into it, and believe I can help out for a bit. Not sure exactly where to make my proposal about links to mainspace - what I would suggest is that we allow, only if suitable, some links to mainspace for particular mottos, but in general there ought to be at least one or more links to wp-space, or Portal etc. with each motto, subject to wp:Iar, of course, and whatever consensus can be discerned, Cheers NewbyG ( talk) 08:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Fine, and thank you! NewbyG ( talk) 00:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Flight from Eden 1990 author:Steven Cassedy published University of California Press (Berkeley and Los Angeles) ISBN -520-06863-7 Acessed 14 March 2012

1. Page 9 - "You can't do without Eden" said Mallarme - profound words indeed.
2. Page 9 (continues) "If we no longer take for granted that a literary text can be reduced to a finite meaning or set of meanings, but see the act of reading as an endless process in which truth and falsehood are inextricably entwined, then the prevailing schemes used in literary history ... are no longer applicable". (from Blindness and Insight Paul de Man 1971.)
3. ibid (de Man - essay Criticism and Crisis) " It is the distinctive privelege of language to be able to hide meaning behind a misleading sign, as when we hide rage or hatred behind a smile. But is the distinctive curse of all language, as soon as any kind of inter-personal relation is involved, that it is forced to act this way." see also post-post-modernism.

<-->

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)[reply]

Hello,

I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. Witha 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 tothis 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. XOttawahitech (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

This message has been sent by pjoef on behalf of Motto of the Day to all editors of the English Wikipedia who are showing MOTD's templates on their pages, and to all the participants to MOTD: (page, template, and category).

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, 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[reply]

Help request copied to its author's talk page and answered there. JohnCD (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes, good, I have been off-line quite a while, no devices! I have enabled navigation pop-ups in preferences, and will remove the deprecated app is.lupin ?? As soon as I figure out how to do that. Meantime, I should be OK with whatever gadgets I currently have access to.. Thanks NewbyG ( talk) 19:31, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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