User talk:Newbyguesses

In the interests of centralized discussion, please if possible continue a discussion on the page on which it began If Newbyguesses left a message on a talkpage then Newbyguesses will be monitoring that talkpage for replies or, leave a message here, if you wish – all NEW messages go at bottom of talkpage-- Please remember to SIGN If a message is left on this talkpage then User:Newbyguesses will usually reply on this talkpage, below or the article/talk/page or to sender's talkpage, whichever

• When this talkpage gets too long, sections will be Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page archived, appropriately, by — User: Newbyguesses

Talk page Archives

• Archive 1
• Archive 2
• Archive 3
• Archive 4

"Edit countitus" rules! Newbyguesses' four-thousandth edit (was to the WP:IAR page) --Newbyguesses - Talk 00:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

All editors, contributors and kibitzers: be best advised to pursue disputes in a civil manner designed to contribute to resolution and to cause minimal disruption. See- Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Arbitration report If User:Newbyguesses is made aware of any reasonable request for a [redaction] or retraction, or correction of a dis-proven or deprecated post of User:Newbyguesses to this or any other forum, especially if it be a mis-spelling or mis-speaking of any Username or of the name of an en.Wikipedia page, or template, or of any impugnment of a User which is regrettable, then I will accede to such reasonable request, and offer appropriate apologies.

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. 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

No autobiographies

A bouncer

From Tip-of-the-Day, a suggestion to refrain from editing an (auto)-biographical article.

Otherwise, the chuckers-out may be required to act!

References

• something that can be referred to as an authority or standard
• any material not supported by sources may be challenged and removed at any time

from Wikipedia:Civility

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

Zipper club

[1]

Welcome back!

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

Userbox!

from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Rofl! I find that the alternate statement, ignore all dramas is deeply offensive to me, because I have a recognised disability, a personality disorder that leads me to be dramatic and call endless attention to myself (I believe there to be an epidemic of it on wiki and ANI) as such, to ignore all dramas would be to ignore me and my deepest needs, and be discrimination on grounds of disability. This disability has also been found to be genetic and hereditary and yes, racial, I am shocked at the high levels of anti-dramaism I see on wiki, all other racism seems to be fought to some extent, but it's fashionable for people to say that the dramatic, should be ignored and even killed. Shocking. I may have to write to that friendly journalist at The Register. Merkinsmum 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

from User:Raul654/Raul's laws

User:Snowspinner's law: All methods of dispute resolution, given time, will trend towards becoming useless or becoming the arbcom.

Don't go there

Just trying to understand this schemozzle, which apparently began back in my grandaddie's time, when the Internert was carried out by telegram, and the news of the Battle of Trafalgar took three months to reach London. Ah, nostalgia aint what it used to be, or not. remember HagermannBot?

Update 05:00 March 1

A series of proposals and remedies have been posted by the arbitrators to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision.

Vote

Four net "support" votes needed to close case (each "oppose" vote subtracts a "support").

24 hours from the first motion is normally the fastest a case will close.

The arbitrators are currently voting on the proposals.

For this case, there are 13 active Arbitrators (excluding 1 who is recused), so 7 votes are a majority.

Voting concluded (8 March) on 13 proposals

At Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision

The arbitrators have voted and these decisions have passed to date.

<-- Proposed final decision

Proposed principles

At /Proposals 8 Arbitrators have now supported Purpose of Wikipedia

At /Proposals 8 Arbitrators have now supported Integrity of content

At /Proposals 8 Arbitrators have now supported Sockpuppetry

At /Proposals 8 Arbitrators have now supported Evaluating sockpuppetry

( 4.1 Evaluating sockpuppetry has 4 Support and 4 Oppose )

At /Proposals 8 Arbitrators have now supported Off-wiki disputes

At /Proposals 8 Arbitrators have now supported Conduct on Arbitration pages

At /Proposals 8 Arbitrators have now supported Purpose of Arbitration

At /Proposals 8 Arbitrators have now supported Limitations of Arbitration

( Enabling has 2 Support 2 Oppose 3 Abstain )

Proposed findings of fact

At /Proposals 8 Arbitrators have now supported Locus of dispute

( 1.1 Locus of dispute has 1 Support 4 Oppose 2 Abstain )

At /Proposals 7 Arbitrators have now supported Impact of dispute ( .1 Impact of dispute has 4 Support 3 Abstain )

Proposed remedies

At /Proposals 7 Arbitrators have now supported Editors instructed

At /Proposals 7 Arbitrators have now supported Article probation

At /Proposals 7 Arbitrators have now supported Review of articles

as at the time of this DIFF [2]

Further voting-

Proposed enforcement

And now, Enforcement has passed, receiving 7 Support votes from the arbitrators.

And now, Interpretation has passed, receiving 7 Support votes from the arbitrators.

Archiving long pages

from - Revision history of Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision, we learn that as at 00:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC), the discussion page, after some earlier severe archiving, now stands at (317,963 bytes).

translation required

tum quoque marmorea caput a cervice revulsum gurgite

cum medio portans Oeagrius Herbrus volveret,

Varkala vox ipsa et frigida lingua a miseram Varkala!

anima fugiente vocabat: Varkala toto referebant flumine ripae.--217.16.219.117 (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

It's latin, I think, but no translation available at this time

Complicated

1. Who was naked
2. Who was wearing shorts
3. Who was selling what to whom
4. Could the sock-puppet be impersonating another sock-puppet, wearing sockpuppet-sunglasses?
5. banned user Wordbomb?
6. None of the above

Arbitrators

• Anyone is free to submit evidence to the Committee by email, via arbcom-llists.wikimedia.org, at any time. --bainer (talk) 08:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Active arbitrators

Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision#Arbitrators active on this case

There are 14 (13, at /proposals) Arbitrators active on this case Active: Blnguyen, Charles Matthews, Deskana, FayssalF, FloNight, FT2, Jdforrester Away/inactive, Jpgordon, Matthew Brown (Morven), Newyorkbrad, Paul August, Sam Blacketer, Thebainer, UninvitedCompany.

the case is about User:Samiharris's relation with User:Mantanmoreland

Who implicates who?

Who implicates whom here?

Who is who?

arrividerci B?

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Summary of checkuser findings

(3). The checkusers have investigated a suspicion that the SamiHarris account was set up by Wordbomb to falsely implicate Mantanmoreland in additional (post-Lastexit) sockpuppetry. The basis for this suspicion is that Wordbomb has also occasionally used proxify.com proxies [3] [4]. Due to the nature of proxy editing, it is unlikely that this suspicion can ever be proved or disproved.

per- 00:36, 15 February 2008 Thatcher (Talk | contribs)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop#Proposals by Daniel

Suspicions of sockpuppetry

Under the particular circumstances of this case, it is clear that the checkuser tool as such was incapable of providing any closure to the question, no matter how long we kept it under our hats. Thatcher 17:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[5]

No socks on

Hey, at least he hasn't socked in this Arb case! At least, not apparently. But after reading this decision I'm not sure what standards of proof it would take to establish that or not. Amerique(dialectics) 21:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

None (of the above)?

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland

• Where angels fear to tread

• Note this

My saying at one point that I believed Mantanmoreland to be Gary Weiss is not a smoking gun or anything like one. They are apparently trying to spin this was me "knowing" and "lying" about it. The truth is that I do not know, I have my suspicions like anyone might, but there is no proof and I have tried (hard) to get proof.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)]

• Users are discouraged from editing their own entry, not forbidden. Fred Bauder 21:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Try to resist simplifying things. This is not black versus white, or good versus evil. This is shades of gray...User:SirFozzie 17:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

*Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Mantanmoreland/RfC (Request for comment)

• Those who are about to die, drink

1. Try reading Henry James while you're stuck in a hospital bed. I swore the man needed to have his semicolon surgically removed. Three cheers for Hemingway (subject-verb-object-full stop). ;) DurovaCharge! 05:16, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• I am not Samiharris, and neither I nor Samiharris have ever been blocked or even warned. User:Mantanmoreland 14:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

from /Mantanmoreland talk/Proposals

Bainer, a workshop proposal was presented here based on Relata refero's and my evidence sections. I also addressed the issue in more detail here. At least on Gary Weiss, I think a couple examples of what has kept other editors from improving the article can be seen here and here. I'd note this may not be worse than WordBomb’s early editing, but it doesn’t seem much better either. Mackan79 (talk) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC) [6] []

The Samiharris diffs there need to be viewed in the context of the original discussion, archived here [7], after which was this.[8]. These edits were in keeping with talk page concensus, and were certainly not tendentious or disruptive.--Mantanmoreland (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC) [9] []

The context of that original discussion is indeed important. Cla68 argued that a New York Times article on Weiss was valid per WP:RS; Sami responded aggressively with a familiar speech about "Bagley memes," saying "we are not going to link to Bagley's smears in any way, shape or form," even if it's the New York Times, and accusing Cla68 (and me, and a few other editors) of being fixated on advancing the "agenda of Judd Bagley"; Jimbo eventually stepped in and said something ominous about "shooting on sight"; Cla68 was blocked and I was threatened – all for holding steadfast that the New York Times was a reliable source. This took place shortly after the banning of Piperdown as a Wordbomb sock, a determination made on no other evidence than that he had edited articles of interest to Mantan and Sami and showed the temerity to disagree with them. (I asked one admin involved in the ban, "would it be fair to say that Wikipedia's current working definition of a WordBomb sockpuppet is anyone whose edits focus (either wholly or in part) on naked-short-selling-related articles, and who opposes User:Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris?" to which he responded, "I would say so.") In the link provided above by Mackan, Sami pointedly warns Cla68 that he was already blocked once for suggesting the New York Times as a reliable source, suggesting the perils of revisiting the topic.

So yes, a certain tense calm had descended upon the article by that time, an atmosphere of fear which Mantan refers to here as "consensus." That "consensus" – and in my view it does considerable violence to the English language to call it that – was arrived at through a fallacy known as argumentum ad baculum, a problem indeed at the heart of this whole matter for the last two years.--G-Dett (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC) [] [10] []

Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Mantanmoreland

• Recused. Thatcher 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

• Recuse. Kirill 00:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that an Arbitration case has been opened, during the initial phase, maybe a week, evidence is contributed by all involved parties at

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence.

Evidence presented by Jimbo Wales

• [all of Jimbo's statement]

I have personally seen no persuasive evidence

Because there has been unseemly and false speculation in some quarters that I know this (or related claims) to be true, and that I have admitted as such in private forums, it is important for me to state what I know and what I don't know.

Claims about Mantanmoreland being author Gary Weiss have been floating around for a long time. Various claims of "proof" have been made, none of which I have found convincing. At times I have believed one way, at times I have believed another way. I have investigated the claims to the best of my ability and I have been unable to find proof one way or the other.

An email I sent to Mantanmoreland and others has been widely quoted as evidence that I supposedly "know" this claim to be true. Such interpretations are malarky, and most of the people making the claims appear to me to be acting in bad faith. What I said, at a point in time, was that I believed it to be true that Mantanmoreland == Gary Weiss. This was specifically in the context of a conversation in which I was trying to get more evidence... a proof, one way or the other. Me believing at a point in time in an investigation that something was true, is not the same thing as an assertion that it is true, nor of an "admission" or anything else.

Mantanmoreland steadfastly denies being Gary Weiss. Ask him yourself if you want to know.

Related allegations that I am protecting a "friend" are nonsense. Mantanmoreland and I do not get along well at all.

Related allegations that I have some vested interest in the underlying content dispute are even worse nonsense. I have no opinion about "naked short selling". I have never sold a stock short in my life. I have no financial interests of any kind in this case. If you read anything otherwise, or hints to that effect, on the overstock.com blog or elsewhere, well, I don't know was else to say but: nonsense. I think such allegations tell more about the people who are making them than anything else.

Regarding the specific claim at issue here, whether Sami Harris and Mantanmoreland are the same user, I can say quite firmly that I do not believe it to be true. I have interacted (argued!) with both users over an extended period of time by private email, and I have not seen any reason to think it true. The offsite "evidence" relating to this comes from a highly questionable source, and furthermore strikes me as completely unpersuasive. For all we know, these are faked screenshots from someone who has engaged in a campaign of harassment and bad behavior (on-wiki and off-wiki) that has been really astounding to witness.

I have reviewed my email archives to look for similarities between the users. I have examined email headers. I have looked for textual similarities, time patterns, etc. I see nothing to lead me to a conclusion that Sami Harris and Mantanmoreland are the same user.

For these reasons, I do not believe it to be true that Mantanmoreland == Samiharris. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence#Evidence presented by Mantanmoreland

Sockpuppeting

...Most of the contents of this page have been on the ASM website for well over a year. If Judd Bagley, Overstock's spokesman and operator of ASM, were not coordinating this, I am sure he would have a case for copyright infringement...(User:Mantanmoreland)

have been on the ASM website ... a case for copyright infringement...(

Um, at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of WordBomb there are 33 users listed. None of them have posted evidence to the Arbcom. case, to date...—Newbyguesses - Talk 09:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

18 Evidence presented by User:Newbyguesses

Evidence presented by User:Newbyguesses

partial log of Nbg's posts to talk/Evidence.

UPDATE 1 dated 19:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop#User:Mantanmoreland and User:Samiharris linked. As of 10:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC), there have been comments here by 10 parties {USERS}, with only Mantanmoreland opposing the finding or claim. At this time, the section has attracted no comment from Arbitrators. Newbyguesses - Talk 19:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Protection of Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence

This page is currently protected from editing until February 24, 2008 (UTC) or until disputes have been resolved.

Protection is not an endorsement of the current version (protection log). Please discuss changes on the talk page or request unprotection. You may use {{editprotected}} on the talk page to ask for an administrator to make an edit for you.

21:06, 22 February 2008 Rlevse (Talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Evidence": arbs have not ruled, giving them time [edit=sysop:move=sysop (expires 21:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)))]

/Workshop

Arbitrators may analyze evidence and other assertions at

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop.

/Workshop provides for comment by parties and others as well as Arbitrators.

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop#Proposals by Newbyguesses

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Workshop#Proposals by Newbyguesses

(Newbyguesses submissions, at the discussion page, 24 February 2008) nbg logged. []

/Proposed decision

After arriving at proposed principles, findings of fact or remedies, Arbitrators vote at /Proposed decision. Only Arbitrators may edit

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland/Proposed decision.

Hemingway, again

Hemingway, again.

Period. Love it! Hemingway dispensed with metaphor; you get the feeling Weiss would sooner just dispense with words altogether. Just sit there and smolder on the page like James Dean on a street corner. Love it!--User:G-Dett 00:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Durova (at talk/Proposed decision)

This isn't a black and white situation. DurovaCharge! 01:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

..."What did I contribute to this mess? How could I have acted better?" The more people who step forward with that and state their own role candidly (on both sides), the more likely we'll be to learn from it and avoid a similar mess in the future. DurovaCharge! 04:50, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

user:Patrick Byrne (at talk/Proposed decision)

As far as violating Wikipedia policy - regrettably it is likely true. I have not, in fact, mastered the intricacies of Wikipedia policy. Once all of this is over, and I have a better sense of the standard oeprating procedures around here, I would love to come back and edit the articles relating to Daoism and Zen. However, in the meantime, I am trying and, as someone points out, for better or worse, I am at the heart of this controversy. If you folks promise not to hold my neophyte errors against me I will promise not to rely too much upon that indulgence. PatrickByrne (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

From User talk:Jimbo Wales

• ...Thus is born the thought crime and how doing battle on wikipedia creates sides. But in the end both sides need to be banned....WAS 4.250 (talk) 12:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
• ...The article, when I have looked at it (not recently) seemed to be quite good to me, whereas the version proposed by the other side was not even remotely close to ok.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• ...If you can show me an example of "bury it and ban those who would oppose" I encourage you to file an ArbCom case about it. --Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland evidence page

Re this thread: link here

• The above thread will stay closed and I hope we don't see any more similar threads. There is no need to hypothesize about RL off wiki interaction. Absent a specific request from an arb to provide such input, contact myself or an arb if you truly feel a need to bring this material up-you could also email it to the arb email list. User:Jayvdb will be making a workshop proposal on this issue. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou for the consideration, I regret any misdirection caused by my weighing in. May I say also then that I agree quite:hypothesizing about RL or off-wiki, (events of which I have remained uninformed) beyond the mere mentioning, unavoidably, of the RL names, as in my post, would likely be non-productive, and if absolutely necessary, should be undertaken with sensitvity and evidence, and only by those acquainted more fully with the material and the issues (that was actually my point). Mea culpa. Newbyguesses - Talk 12:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's no problem. It wasn't a terrible point—we are very limited in the sorts of thing we can prove. But it's also a somewhat philosophical point, and I'm hoping to keep this arbitration as focused as possible. Cool Hand Luke 17:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Small Snippets of...

...Sauce for goose, sauce for gander: where's Weiss's wife on WP?

This is not quite evidence,

<-- "interesting hypothesis. I'm not sure I want to know more....;)" &888--

????? This case is a mish-mash of on-line (en.wikipedia) concerns, and RL. To my mind.... comma,

we must be mindful of BLP issues says---

HUH?? ...in the same room with both Bagley and Weiss in RL? Without that, can Weiss=Bagley even be ruled out? Far-fetched maybe...

Um? ...the Arbcom. investigating what has happened on en.Wikipedia, not in RL, or at any other site which should be... --

<-- reliable sources suggest that -->

doubt material reality while we're at it[].

[silly]

[I did not call anything silly]

--

Regarding your post to my user talk, I'm not sure what you mean by commenting on the situation as it stood several days ago. Jimbo's evidence statement brought a wider latitude into the matter and I'm delighted about that. In fact, after this case is over, I hope to be able to use his precedent to renew the other inquiry from last year that got halted in its tracks over BLP. If you're unclear about how far to go, I suggest contacting the case clerk in advance. Durova^Charge! 20:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, Durova. I see what you mean. Yes, Jimbo's post(s) have cleared the air somewhat. Can you help on another matter, if not any trouble, (posted to your page also)? As for (talk:Durova) "Welcome to my talk page. I'll reply here if you post here." and "Please continue a discussion..." @ the top of thispage (talkNBG), please reply wherever is suitable. Thanks again for clearing that up, Newbyguesses - Talk 20:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

PS and a general note Newbyguesses - Talk 20:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

General note from u-Newbyguesses to (all) those following this discussion, or the (relevant) Arbcom. case currently at issue on en.Wikipedia, GFDL applies. Thankyou, Newbyguesses - Talk 23:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Computer problems

PLEASE NOTE Newbyguesses has computer problems, will be back on-line when sorted, or other arrangement made Sorry.] —Newbyguesses - Talk 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE NBG can log on from various public terminals (at extortionate rates), donations gratefully accepted for a new lap-top, or secondhand cheep unit. Newbyguesses - Talk 01:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom

I would echo other peoples suggestions to tone down the rhetoric - it only raises blood pressure and leads to escalating heated language. Good points are often more effective when delivered in a calm tone. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You are welcome. I see that it has calmed down, and the number of posts has slowed. I won't be posting again for a while, then. I just made a proposals section /Workshop#Proposals by Newbyguesses which is section (13) ! I hope they are in order, and will be considered by respected editors. Cheers. Newbyguesses - Talk 13:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Help, Durova

User:Durova, my apologies, but I am unable to communicate on talk:Durova (Charge!). Your talk page always crashes my 'puter! Regards, Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 03:30, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

re your reply, yeah, all sorted then. Thanks —Newbyguesses - Talk 04:31, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

All fun and games

The original expression is "It's all fun and games until somebody puts an eye out." I have no idea where it comes from, but I rather doubt it is about gladiators. It would go back at least to the early 20th century though, as my grandmother recalled being told that as a child. Christopher Brookmyre wrote a book entitled "All Fun and Games until Somebody Loses an Eye", which is quite humorous - but demonstrates that the idiom is used in both British and North American English.

By the way, your talk page is hard to read; I have a big screen at home, and I can only see half your page. I have no idea if you can 'fix' that. Risker (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou User:Risker, I have no idea how to fix the "problem" either. It began occurring after my latest edit to the big green box @ the top of the page, the code up there is a bit atrocious, or else there was a recent Windows update-. I will look into this, in the meantime, i can now use the horizontal scroll bar at the bottom of the screen to access the page sideways, ThanksNBG—Newbyguesses - Talk 12:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Your wide page

Hello Nbg, I came across your page mostly by happenstance. I believe you will find that the specific cause for it extending beyond the "normal" screen extent is the link inserted by Rlevse here. The link has nowhere to break, so it pushes your red outline box outwards to fit. Compare this version with this one.

You could fix it by editing that big long link and adding a "pipe", i.e. where the link ends with "wife_on_WP.3F]]", change it to "wife_on_WP.3F|link here]]". Alternatively, you can wait until that section goes to archives and the problem should go away with it. Hope this helps, sorry for the wiki-dropping! Franamax (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks heaps, user:Franamax for taking the time to explain that to me! I have fixed the problem now, as per your suggestion. Please drop by anytime, i do not mind comments, and lurkers if there are any, are welcome also. Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 01:04, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

mm proposed decision talk page comments

I suggest you modify your recent comment on GWH's motivations. It is uncalled for. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks. and my apologies to GWH. The amount of verbiage on that page (and it is only getting worse) makes it difficult to evaluate what any user is saying, i got frustrated, sorry, and see no bright future at this page. I modified my statement, and will only read from now on those who have something useful to say, ie. not me, apparently. Newbyguesses - Talk 05:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Politeness is required

Politely, or else. "...have the [whole] sorry mess up before ArbCom so they can judge if the grounds for the original block ... appropriate..... although presumably some other individual ... poor choice of words will likely be the person mostly sanctioned by the committee"! per- LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC) [11]

Congratulations

This was Newbyguesses' edit4039.

FromWikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Arbitration report

Closed case

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

Talk page edit summaries

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

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

thankyou Superm401

BetacommandBot

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

Yes, the rationales go on the image page itself. I don't know what "other one" you're talking about exactly. As for Image:Rod Serling1.jpg you can't use it in Wikipedia-space. Non-free images can only be in articles. Superm401 - Talk 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:FitzroyDesign.jpg looks okay. Superm401 - Talk 02:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I prefer people post to my page, because then the pretty orange bar pops up right away. But I can check your page too; it's on my watchlist, but I just might be a slower in responding. You are correct that fair use images may not be outside article space. That's because they're meant to improve the actual encyclopedia. We decided we don't want the legal risk of using them elsewhere. This is monitored manually for now, at least until BetaCommand codes another bot ;). Superm401 - Talk 03:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, you can link them elsewhere, as I did above for Rod Serling1.jpg, just not include them. Superm401 - Talk 03:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have no idea what your last post on my talk page is about. Can you clarify what you'd like me to do/explain, please? Superm401 - Talk 15:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I thought the content was significant. If I understand correctly now, you were testing your Sandbox; if so, feel free to use it however you like (within reason). I definitely think you're doing well a Wikipedia editor, both technically and in terms of integration into the community. I don't really feel you've misused my time in any way; I just want to know how to be useful. And, as you said, do feel free to contact me with urgent requests. If they are private, you can of course use my email. Superm401 - Talk 23:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Silly old me  ;) Newbyguesses - Talk 00:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Smiley

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

Some characteristics of Minor edits

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

• 15 Feb 2008 . 10:17 . Wikipedia:Citing_sources. (+1) . . 87.114.29.191 (Talk) (minor grammatical error)

Re: New section -header

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

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

Not sure which quote you're referring to, but 2 separate Jimbo quotes come to mind:

• on WP:OR or unsourced statements: better no information than information such as this (very approximate wording). This sounds closest to what you describe. The quote is from an email list, and is reprinted in a few places around WP.
• on Trivia: The important thing is, Wikipedia is NOT a trivia collection. [12]

Do you mean either of these? If it's the first one, let me know and I can hunt it down for you. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Got it.

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

Removed from WP:V on October 2007. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Jimboquote 

+(per) Noroton (talk) 20:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC) (from talk/Mantanmoreland/Proposals)

Chardish's complaint

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

That is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, old son. Newbyguesses - Talk 06:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Point to a personal attack I've made on that page, then. - Chardish (talk) 06:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

You are harassing me on my talk page, right now. Please just stop. —Newbyguesses (talk · contribs) 06:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking you to point to a personal attack that I've made. Can you? - Chardish (talk) 07:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Did YOU not read what I just posted ON MY OWN TALK PAGE please!

You are harassing me on my talk page, right now. Please just stop. —Newbyguesses - Talk 07:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I not allowed to have any communication with you, then? Or am I merely not allowed to respond to the accusations you've made against me? - Chardish (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, if you had read my edit summary, I requested the discussion to take place in a central location, at talk:Iar, where, although your posts make it hard to see the value of contributing, at least there are observers of your peurile tricks.

And, do not continue to "troll" on this page, you dick! Newbyguesses - Talk 07:44, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The reason I brought the discussion to this page was because I didn't want to bog down an already busy talk page with our own personal dispute. If you want to end this conversation, I'll end it, and if you want to take it to my talk, that's fine by me too. I'm not okay with carrying on a discussion about our personal differences in a general-purpose venue designed to improve a policy page. - Chardish (talk) 07:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really, I prefer centralized discussion. Do you fancy Rfc? Or, please, just drop it. Meanwhile, back at talk:Iar, you will be defending your role as an edit Warrior, I think. Newbyguesses - Talk 08:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Chardish, I meant to say you are acting like a dick. Newbyguesses - Talk 17:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

Politely, please

Politely, or else. "...have the [whole] sorry mess up before ArbCom so they can judge if the grounds for the original block ... appropriate..... although presumably some other individual ... poor choice of words will likely be the person mostly sanctioned by the committee"! per- LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC) [13]

<-- nutshell| It's okay to call a spade a spade, but be sure to use discretion and politeness when you do. --> DIFF-in spades

Protected page

This user contributes to fringe theories in Wikipediaspace.

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

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

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

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

request

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

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

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

Done! Thanks, that makes sense. Newbyguesses - Talk 18:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

The origional section title ""suggested re-write, provisional, by newbyguesses" has multiple links to it on several project discussion pages, changing it as you did here negates navivigation from those discusions. May I suggest the section tite be reverted back? The proposed renaming of IAR to Wikipedia:No firm rules should be an entirely seperate section and proposal, and risks the loss of support already gained. Thanks--Hu12 (talk)06:11, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, woo this page is 400K, slow as. Will start new section, presently. The name change would lose suport, wouldn't it. Hmm. --Newbyguesses - Talk 06:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, the small changes are recieving heavy opposition, renaming is a whole new honeypot of debate. the proposal should not include the *Name Change*. I do like the idea however, but one step at a time. I understand its your proposal, but could the other mention of the rename be moved, repeated revisions (changing the proposal) after suport is added for a version, is probably a bad idea, if you wish it to suceed. --Hu12 (talk) 06:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with that, all of what you say. May I ask you to do the required edit, if you would. My computer is on fire, and I have to get back to <dramas> elsewhere. If you get this message, go for it, be my guest. I will take it slow. OK no name change, is goodo --Newbyguesses - Talk 06:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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