|The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar|
|Thanks for the Sarcophaga africa article Muhammad(talk) 12:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)|
- New article: Chaetopterus
- New article: Mauna Kea Technologies
- New article: Jamie Barnes
- New article: Allan C. Spradling
- New article: Mole National Park
- New article: David R. Smith
- New article: Bernd Giese
- New article: Helen Westcott
- New article: Hiroshi Tamiya
- New article: Hawaii Undersea Research Laboratory
- New article: Jean Piveteau
|The Original Barnstar|
|The Original Barnstar is awarded to User:18.104.22.168, who has greatly contributed to the creation of new articles, the preservation of good articles, and the continued improvement of articles needing help, with little or no recognition. Wikipedia thanks you for your hard work. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2009 (UTC)|
|The Original Barnstar|
|I don't think I've ever given a barnstar to an anonymous editor before, but I'd just like to say thanks for all the effort you've put in to cleaning up after Anybot. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)|
How to call a newbie stupid: 101 ways
 "See also: in case not blindingly obvious.."
What will get you blocked (in addition to the insult of being a newbie)
People get blocked on Wikipedia for, among many (many) other things:
- Breaking rules which change day by day and even minute by minute, scattered across thousands of webpages and millions of paragraphs.
- Angering (or breaking up with) Jimbo Wales.
- Failing to offer obeisance and fealty to the Wikipedia bourgeoisie.
- Triggering the OCD of one of the legion emotionally-dysfunctional Wikipedia factotums.
- Violating the religious taboos of the reigning Wikipedia junta by uttering blasphemies such as "lulz."
- Defying the ex cathedra pronouncements of Wikipedia's ruling caste.
A quote from an admin who should take her own advice
"In particular, be civil and polite, keep calm, seek help (from projects, noticeboards, RFCs, Third opinions etc), think carefully before editing, consider delaying responses to de-escalate the situation (or even not responding at all), do careful research of the topic using WP:reliable sources and state clear opinions based on this and with reference to policy and guidelines. Remember that there are real people at the other end of the screen, with real concerns, opinions, motivations, pressures and feelings. Whether or not I agree with them, whether or not firmness is required, I can still be respectful in my interactions."
What it is
Protesting against other people's concerns ad nauseam is, by your standard, disruptive as well. That word disruptive does not mean people i disagree with who won't shut up.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)