User talk:Brightening

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. [1][2]

I have found the following long list links useful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Wikipedia:Tutorial
• Wikipedia:Help desk
• M:Foundation issues
• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Utilities
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Use English
• Wikipedia:Featured articles
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:Articles without bias describe debates fairly rather than advocating any side of the debate.
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Village pump
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text
• Wikipedia:IRC channel
• Wikipedia:Mailing lists
• Wikipedia:Current surveys
• Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion
• WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox
• Wikipedia:Don't disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point especially the recognition that WP is inconsistent.
• wannabe_kate

• kate's tool

Feel free to contact me here.

(A word of advice; it makes no sense, but you will get more respect if you create your user page).

September 2007

Please stop attempting to rewrite WP:MOS without consensus; it is highly disruptive, as MoS literally affects over 2 million articles. Our editors rely upon that document remaining remarkably stable, and the changes you are attempting to introduce would invert over 2 years of solid consensus on the issue that Wikipedia does and must, along with all science and technical journals, and other publications in which precision and accuracy are important, rely upon the disabiguating certainty of logical quotation. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 11:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that you have begun your approach to Wikipedia by stepping into a minefield. I would have hoped better of SMcCandlish, who is usually a fairly responsible and civil editor, than these (groundless and irresponsible) remarks. New editors are supposed to be given a certain amount of leeway; we even have a policy on it at WP:BITE. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Punctuation_and_quotation_marks.

Your contribution was extremely useful; and the claim that there has ever been consensus on the subject, rather than successful bullying, seems unsupported by the evidence. Please look over the rest of the Manual of Style to see whether there are any other doubtful portions. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly didn't notice he was an allegedly new user; had about 2 dozen windows open. My bad. However, the odds of this being a real noob are very, very low. This is almost certainly a regular user with a new/secondary account. Noobs do not just show up and start editing policypages. Furthermore, I totally disagree with everything else PMAnderson says here; the MOS has been remarkably stable on this topic for a very long time (i.e., it has long had consensus), and it has never been challenged by more tha n a tiny handful of editors (which still means it has consensus by the definition of consensus at WP:CONSENSUS, which is not "utter unanimity". — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 09:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)