User talk:Newbyguesses

• Welcome to User talk:Newbyguesses. New messages go at bottom of talk page. Please remember to sign. (~~~~)
  • If a message is left on this talk page then User:Newbyguesses will usually reply on this talk page, below.

Talk page Archives (See Help:Archiving a talk page) Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |

status: NewbyG contributes via steam-powered computer, with an internet connection provided by messenger pigeons; or occasionally from the library/internet cafe.

• Take a break from editing if fatigue is a problem, it's very refreshing.

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

Take a refreshing break

• Take a break from editing if fatigue is a problem, it's very refreshing!
• Wikipedia:Wikibreak

From Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-11/Arbitration report

Closed case.

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

Notes, (Rfar/Mantanmoreland)

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

Archived notes (User talk:Newbyguesses) Feb - March 2008. ANI. WP:ANI. User.

Chart at Wikipedia:Consensus

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

Hi! Yeah, work to improve the chart, of course, but I have come around to preferring the older flowchart now. It is the combination of a number of recent comments on the talk page, plus the comparison I just finished doing of the two charts, that makes me see the older chart working best for now. There is nothing wrong with the newer chart, except that it is trying to do too much. It seems to me now that "discussion" cannot go into the flowchart, it doesnt fit into any particular place, and the older chart avoids that problem. --NewbyG (talk) 06:57, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we have a side bar for a bit and see if we can reach a consensus between you and me? COnsider the chart below as a possible starting point for our discussion. --Kevin Murray (talk) 07:11, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was actually thinking along the lines of a chart with multiple entry points, but it just got too complicated. --NewbyG (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that I'm seeing what you like about the old chart. Discussion is implied in places and only mentioned specifically between the boxes at the bottom. The chart is sloppy, but its ambiguity may be part of the attraction. I posted 5X last night in response to another editors reversion of my repost of 5F - only as a compromise. I'd like to keep the improvements going, but I think many people felt we had reached a comfortable compromise and now the reactionary influence among the remaining is to jump back. I realize that you are busy, but hopefully we can structure a good product. PS: when are you likely to be at WP (GMT) --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:42, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Kevin. That's all good. I am most likely to be on WP between 22:00 till 05:00 (UTC) weekdays. Say from 8am till 3pm where I am. I mostly seem to be making minor edits these days, and probably discussing too much in wikipediaspace. Been having service outs and computer crashes also. I have enjoyed working on the flowcharts, we can keep doing that; this latest idea seems monumental, a big task to take on. Cheers! --NewbyG (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Wikipedia:Lectures

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

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

You are getting sleepy /NewbyG (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks at Wikipedia:Consensus

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

These are the changes to WP:CON since the last page protection was lifted 19 January, 2008 up till 18 May. (372 intermediate revisions not shown.). The page has gone from (14,638 bytes) down to (8,957 bytes), it is tighter more relevant, and more readable. I think this has been good work, certainly there has been much discussion and input during that time on the project and discussion pages from yourself Kevin Murray (KM), myself, (NbG) and Kim Bruning (KB) and a number of other editors. I feel that we were reasonably successful in observing consensus through this work. Do you agree? --NewbyG (talk) 23:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I woud agree, and it was through this effort that I became convinced that the path was closer to being bold than I had thought earlier. I still remain concerned though that constant tweaking of the policy and process pages destabilizes the project. I see two solutions: (1) a higher standard of consensus for process pages and (2) a tougher process for creating process pages to limit the number of pages we have to monitor and protect. Cheers! --Kevin Murray (talk) 23:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

[2] (220 intermediate revisions not shown.) [3] (8 intermediate revisions not shown.)

Civ lead

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

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

Metonymy

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

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

Philosophy talk page

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

No problem at all. --NewbyG (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Didn't work though! Mind you I think he will be back --Snowded (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would say the article is in reasonable shape, in my non-expert opinion, and the lead is not atrocious. I am not going to start quoting Wittgenstein, or Russell for that matter, to no purpose on the talk page, and I must say that I take pretty well most of what I read with a liberal grain of salt. Luckily for me, I do not know enough about anything to be dogmatic. There is always much to learn. --

I have seen editors come and go, and return etc. Nevertheless, it it possible for the experts and non-experts to touch base, in many cases, and we co-operate in our fashion. Let's hope for the best. --NewbyG (talk) 07:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks at Wikipedia:Iar

I don't know if you were the one that merged my comment back in the first place, but I had a good idea that would spawn a section anyway. But whatever, good clerking imo. -- Kendrick7^talk 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

-:-) This 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)

Up to Six

Thanks for that - will wait to see what happens. I suspect one of those new age agendas --Snowded (talk) 09:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Manipulation (disambiguation)

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Manipulation (disambiguation), and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://resources.bandwidthmarket.com/define/manipulation. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 03:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Think the page is a copy of our page, have to check. --NewbyG (talk) 03:24, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

[4] Fixed. --NewbyG (talk) 03:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

CSB identified possible copyvio material [5] that had been inserted some time ago in Manipulation. I removed that material here [6] and also here [7], replacing it here [8] with this newly-minted text. That new text was then removed [9] as possible copy-vio. /NewbyG (talk) 11:29, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

"Look here, Americans are a very nice kind of people, but there is one point where they are very touchy. You must not let them know that they are corpses."
--Quotation from "A Cow Can't Live in Los Angeles", by Everett L. Shostrom, in "Man The Manipulator". BrewJay (talk) 07:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RFC at Civility

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)

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)

Rugby League

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)

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

Archiving discussion that detracts from or interferes with vote.

I don't understand your motion and reference to wp:notavote. The discussions were a month old, being untouched or resolved against me. I saw no other way to highlight the fact that I proposed a vote. I also want to keep irrelevant considerations out of that vote, which means there should be nothing to see but the mockup and

as it stands.. 216.234.170.89 (talk) 11:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

See Template talk:Weasel. -- NewbyG ( talk) 23:31, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

If do that again without telling me or at least making a sensible answer to my reply in the edit history, then I'll either ask someone to block you or do it myself. As this issue and my requests stand, I certainly hope that someone else reverts your edit. BrewJay (talk) 23:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Forget about that threat. Where I hav been led is that discussion does not always clarify matters at all. I was just considering whether I should speak the rules that George Orwell wrote at the end of politics and the english language into the audio I proposed for a template that you might want to forget about. The cards say my audio did not happen, so I sorted the deck. It cannot tell me if the audio will not happen.

I do not know how to explain the degree of frustration you hav offered me in quoting policy that is by no means scripture. Votes occur every day on whether to delete an article, so votes do occur on wikipedia, despite what wp:notavote might lead you to believe. I've put considerable thought into the very minimum level of information people need to know in order to make a decision, and that bare minimum is AMPLE! There are over five decisions people need to make, and they do NOT -- ABSOLUTELY NOT -- need argumentation cluttering their decision. This is only the second time in my history when I've approached any semblance of the 3RR rule! BrewJay (talk) 00:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

[10] This is inappropriate. It is the second time that 20K of talk page comments were removed without proper archiving. -- NewbyG ( talk) 00:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it appropriate to argue with the guideline by example in the template talk space? BrewJay (talk) 07:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Quirky corner

“ I like to think of Wikipedia as a plugged in toaster, and editing as sticking a fork in that toaster. ” — User:Volunteer Marek, 04:12, 30 November 2011

talk p a g e

... ANI User:Randy in Boise, your cellphone is ringing...

Brewhaha@edmc.net

I filed a WP:AN report regarding the above user, with whom I know you've had some problematic interaction. If you'd care to comment, it can be found here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Page move: Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Criticism of Objectivism

There is an ongoing discussion about moving Criticism of Objectivism (Ayn Rand) to Criticism of Objectivism. You voiced an opinion about moving Objectivism (Ayn Rand) in September, so I though I should let you know. The discussion is here. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

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 ...

Civility

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)

• For reference, subject edit.[11]
• 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

FYI and comment if you wish

Hi Newybyguesses, as you were involved in this matter earlier on you might like to read and comment at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of community ban: Igorberger.--VS ^talk 22:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Research about virtual communities

I am doing a research about virtual communities for my doctorate. I would like to study how the members define norms for the community. I would appreciate your contribution for my research. If I agree to participate, I will send you the questions. Jmbbmj (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:BRD misuse

Wikipedia:BRD misuse, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:BRD misuse and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:BRD misuse during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 19:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Signing

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)

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

re comment...

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

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

Greetings

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)

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)

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

Nash equilibrium#Coordination game

Hi there! After submitting a small fix I noticed that you reverted exactly the same change on this article before. From what I understand, the change 3-->2 makes a lot of sense: If player 1 AND 2 both choose strategy B, both players will get a payoff of 2. However, if for example player 1 decides to change to strategy A (while player 2 continues to use strategy B), his individual payoff decreases to 1. Exactly this is the reason why the lower right cell represents a Nash equilibrium. (The rising payoff of the seconds player (from 2 to 3) that also happens doesn't influence the first player's decision at all.) Does that make sense? --Hauke Pribnow (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Amendment: After a short search in the article history I think I also found the source of this error: http://en.wikipedia.org/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)

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)

Your posts at wt:V

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)

*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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Reboot, 16 February 2012

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)

• 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.

incident report filed

See [12], where I have asked that you be blocked for a bit. Dicklyon (talk) 21:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

• 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)

*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)

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)

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)

Case closed

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

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

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.

February 2012

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)