User:Buster7/Sandbox-Garage

kairos papua organization

 * 

8 reasons why "it-may-be-time-to-move-on"

 * 

Basic 5 Dysfunctions

 * Absence of Trust — unwilling to be vulnerable within the group
 * Fear of Conflict — seeking artificial harmony over constructive passionate debate
 * Lack of Commitment — feigning buy-in for group decisions creates ambiguity throughout the organization, Reasonable human beings do not need to get their way in order to support a decision. They need to know that they, and their ideas, have been heard and considered
 * Avoidance of Accountability — ducking the responsibility to call peers on counterproductive behavior which sets low standards
 * Inattention to Results — focusing on personal success, status and ego before team success



Scripts for retrieving editors

 * As one of the original members of Editor Retention project and its sub-project Editor of the Week. I am a WP Wanderer. Your plight and the fact that it caused you to retire has been on my mind since I ran across your page the other day. When an editor like you retires, WP and the community lose so much. Not just the work you do is missed but your attitude, your way of being, the congenial way you work with fellow editors. I'm not sure but I think you suffered some indignities and false accusations during your RfA last year. The same thing happened to me. An editor I had the misfortune to do battle with was the first oppose and created enough doubt to sway the consensus  away from  support. It was close for awhile but it wasn’t to be. And do you know what? It was, without a doubt, the best thing that could have happened.  I licked my wounds and went back to what I liked doing; wandering and editing. I wonder if you might consider renewing you enthusiasm for Wikipedia editing. It doesn’t have to be in areas that you worked before. It can be in any one of a thousand ways. Your voice needs to be heard. Others will try to drown it out with their chatter and their divisiveness but your voice needs to be heard. I hope I am not to presumptuous in this request. As I said, your forced retirement bothered me. I support whatever you decide.

Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines
fa:الگو:سیاست‌ها و رهنمودهای ویکی‌پدیا fr:Modèle:Règles et recommandations de Wikipédia id:Templat:Kebijakan dan pedoman Wikipedia mk:Шаблон:Начела и напатствија ms:Templat:Polisi dan garis panduan Wikipedia or:ଟେମ୍ପଲେଟ:Wikipedia policies and guidelines pt:Predefinição:Políticas e recomendações da Wikipédia sl:Predloga:Pravila in smernice uk:Шаблон:Офіційні правила та поради

WP:RfAdmin

 * Spitfire

User:Gerardw/Notes on civility
The point is it's premature to consider how to deal with a "problem" unless we agree it's a problem. I'm not unsympathetic to your reaction to the comment, but you saw the current consensus at the ANI post. My advice is if you really feel: 1) an editor has significantly the crossed the line, and 2) there's a reasonable chance the community will support you, do "one and done." Make one really good posting at ANI. Phrase it as neutrally and calmly as you can and include as many relevant diffs as you can. Watch the thread but avoid the tendency to reply to every comment, and especially counter claims/accusations from the other party. Answer any specific questions you get asked but otherwise let the community discussion go. Going onto an editor's talk page with anything less than a reasonably polite query or a fairly standard warning is unlikely to be productive. Gerardw (talk) 02:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The comments and soliloquies an editor leaves as they depart are often inciteful and informative. WE should collect and archive them for future research. User:Dayewalkers case is not one of discouragemnet over not achieving Adminship. Far from it. He is discouraged by the continuous and foreboding actions of editors that are repeatedly in attack mode, getting blocked, and yet still participants in the process. Dayewalker states: "So upon seeing that regular troublemakers were still shaking off blocks and going right back to their semi-civil disruption, I didn't really feel like contributing my time to the project any longer. If you don’t protect actual editors in favor of making troubled, obsessive editors bulletproof, eventually you’re going to run off people who are…well, sane."That's not sour grapes. That's an accurate report from a quality editor doing quality work. We should listen rather than label him chastised and pissed off because of it. ```B7 20:04, 2 January 2013 (UTC) @WER

The Social Animal (David Brooks book)

 * ISBN 9781400067602
 * "We live to bond with one another".
 * "Humans flourishing in a multi-layered, profoundly illuminating work....."
 * The polarization that marks our politics.
 * Self control is twice as important as IQ in predicting Wikipedia performance. Self Control is the Essential Ingredient for a fulfilling and happy WP career
 * Calm your mind in order to restore equilibrium and normalcy.

Special arrangements

 * From D. Brown's talk page
 * @Dennis. Your comment, I feel like I'm the only sane person here, which is the first sign of insanity I have been told, brings to mind special arrangements that have been made to provide for your well being pursuant to your inevitable mental health issues. A special safe room has been prepared by The Foundation. It is just down the hall, third door on the left side. A palm print scanner will only allow access by yourself and neccesary personnel (Foundation Personnel are the folks you see with the white lab coats and the golden shoulder epillettes. The folks without the epillettes are Foundation Security). Your use of the room is completely self-determined and, once you enter, assistance will be provided within 24 hours (They are a bit short-staffed). Just make yourself comfortable in the middle of the room. The padding and the lack of furniture are for your protection. Someone will be with you shortly. Have a nice day! ```Buster Seven   Talk ' 14:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

'WP losing editors', study says
Interesting article at http://phys.org/news/2013-01-wikipedia-editors.html - note comments. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "Several changes the Wikipedia community made to manage quality and consistency in the face of a massive growth in participation have ironically crippled the very growth they were designed to manage," the researchers wrote in last week's American Behavioral Scientist.
 * "Specifically, the restrictiveness of the encyclopedia's primary quality control mechanism and the algorithmic tools used to reject contributions are implicated as key causes of decreased newcomer retention."
 * They said that while Wikipedia has sought to root out less competent editors, its rules have also discouraged "desirable newcomers" who get discouraged when their contributions get deleted.


 * "Wikipedia has changed from 'the encyclopedia that anyone can edit' to 'the encyclopedia that anyone who understands the norms, socializes him or herself, dodges the impersonal wall of semi-automated rejection and still wants to voluntarily contribute his or her time and energy can edit,'" they wrote.


 * Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-01-wikipedia-editors.html#jCp

ALSO, the right side article from November, 2009 on that same site.


 * (PhysOrg.com) -- The findings of a Spanish study claiming that Wikipedia's editors are leaving at an alarming rate have been refuted by the Wikimedia Foundation and by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales. The report by Dr Felipe Ortega, a research scientist with Madrid's Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, was published in the Wall Street Journal on 26 November 2009. It reported a ten-fold increase in the number of editors leaving Wikipedia at the beginning of 2009 compared to the number in the equivalent period of 2008.
 * Wikipedia is open to contributions and relies entirely on volunteer contributors (editors), who create content, check the facts, correct errors and refine the entries in the online encyclopedia. Editors can contribute anonymously or can open a free account and become logged editors.
 * The finding in the November report follows a detailed analysis over three years that Dr Ortega carried out for his doctoral thesis on Wikipedia. The thesis analyzed the complete history of changes made to Wikipedia by logged editors for the top ten language Wikipedias. Data analysis was speeded up by using a specially-written program called WikiXRay.
 * The results of that study showed a leveling off in the number of contributions and revisions made by logged editors in 2007-8. The numbers of new editors and those becoming inactive followed each other closely until the summer of 2006, when in all language editions the rate of those leaving overtook the rate of those joining for the first time. There was also a growing inequality in contributions becoming more biased towards a core of very active editors.
 * In the latest study Dr Ortega found a continuing decline, with a net loss of 49,000 editors in early 2009, but only 4,900 in the same period in 2008. The report suggested that recent changes aimed at improving the quality and accuracy of the site contents and reducing vandalism have meant a core group of volunteers now approves pages contributed or edited by new editors, and this slows down the process of getting the content on site. It also means more work is carried out by a decreasing number of highly active editors.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation responded to the latest report saying it was inaccurate and the number of editors is stable, but Wikimedia counts only those who have made five or more contributions, while Dr Ortega counts those who have made one or more. This means Wikimedia's number of editors is around one million, while Ortega's number is approximately three million.
 * Wikimedia Foundation's Deputy Director Erik Moeller, said the numbers of editors contributing to Wikipedia peaked in 2007, and then declined slightly, and have now stabilized. Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales also said the number of editors was stable, and there had been no alarming decline. Wales said a leveling off in the number of contributors was expected because you "can't keep growing forever."

Suggested Response to an Unhappy New Editor

 * Hi User:New Editor, while I understand that it can be frustrating when our work is deleted, this particular article was deleted in accordance with the community's deletion policy after existing for about four and a half hours. While we don't delete articles for speedy deletion under the criteria relating to no content or no context during the first 10-15 minutes after creation, four and a half hours is sufficient time to indicate significance and/or importance of the subject in order to bypass the A7 criteria for speedy deletion. In regards to [the article you were working on, the article was deleted in accordance with the A7 criteria for organizations and companies. While a "ranch" is oftentimes recognized as merely property or a building, it is also a business enterprise or organization. In this context, while the ranch may have existed since the 1800s, this does not indicate importance and/or significance. A ranch is also a company or an organization, i.e., a working ranch, as indicated by the single source to the employee or staff manual. As a side note, it may be advantageous for you to draft this article in your sandbox, until you are able to make sure that the article meets the criteria for inclusion. Respectfully, Cindy  ( talk to me ) 04:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)TC)
 * Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be frustrating at times, for that reason, it is generally recommended that new editors start a draft version first, after which, other editors can provide feedback on if necessary, with less risk of deletion. You can find further guidance at Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Sometimes, when articles are deleted through the "speedy deletion" process, editors cry foul, when they think the article was deleted too speedily. I guess that's the nature of the beast. The alternate deletion process is through Articles for Deletion, when the article does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, so it is presented to the community for discussion. The only time frame we have for nominating articles is a recommendation to refrain from nominating articles lacking content or context within 10-15 minutes after creation. This article was deleted because it failed to indicate how and/or why the subject is important or significant. Doing this could have taken you less than a minute to provide, but you chose instead to create an article and let it sit idle for several hours. While the article was deleted in accordance with the speedy deletion criteria, four and a half hours is doing pretty good here. In the grand scheme of things, you were given sufficient time to bring this article into compliance. Our deletion process does not call for contacting an article creator prior to nominating an article for deletion. Your options at this time include waiting until the deleting administrator comes back online and responds to your message. If you do not agree with his response, you can then request a review of the deletion at WP:DRV. Another choice would be to simply draft the article in your sandbox, request feedback, and move it to the mainspace when it meets the guidelines for inclusion. You may also wish to review the policy pertaining to speedy deletions here. Hope this helps. Cindy  ( talk to me ) 09:40, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

The RighttoleavetheCollective link
GoodBye

The Perfect Homily for the Occasion

 * @User:xxxx, thanks for your contributions. Wikipedia relies on helpful contributions from people like you. We have a lot of rules and you're doing an excellent job of learning them. Because Wikpedia is so visible, it can have an impact on people's lives. So we have very cautious rules about what can be added to articles about living people (and everything that mentions living people). This is because it could have a negative impact on thier lives and could get us in to legal trouble. Our main policy is Biographies of living persons, which I believe you've already read. Some of the more contentious areas people can work in are religion and enthnicity, as you can probably tell from this discussion. While many may see your additions as helpful, others may not. Either way, they will be under a lot of scrutiny. I should also mention that working in this area may cause other users to be rather blunt and possibly even hostile and you'll probably be under a microscope. Some may also accuse you of being a Single-purpose account, which could be detrimental to your position. If you believe the article would be improved by adding these things, then it's best to use an unimpeachably reliable source, such as a newspaper article. You can use Google News Archives to help with this. If you believe your additions are being treated unfairly, you can bring up the issue at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard where our experts will have a look at the situation. I should also mention that I'm not an expert. I don't want to dissuade you from working in this area, just to let you know how difficult it is. I should also mention that there are many areas of Wikipedia that are much easier to work in. Pretty much anything that isn't people, religion or politics. I'll end by saying that you are one of the best new users I've run across. In fact, I don't recall any new user that have learned our policies and operations as fast as you have. That's makes you very valauble to our project and I thank you for that. Please don't hesitate to ask if I can help with anything. - User:Hydroxonium

3rd grade bully
"When Citizen Trump announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president back in 2015, he embarked on a mission that immediately sought to exalt himself, insult and disparage his critics, and reduce the intellectual tenor of American politics to the level of remedial third grade bullies." NewsCorpse

Fox News-The Five

 * 2/20/2024....
 * CT has been making this argument time and time again, repeating it in one form or another at every chance he gets in front of an audience:::If they can do it to me, they can do it to you
 * Fox News co-host Jessica Tarlov said. “The average person is not inflating their wealth by $800 million to over $2 billion. The average person is not sexually assaulting dozens of women, they are not storing top-secret classified documents in the toilet or in a secret storeroom, they are not fomenting an insurrection to overthrow the government. You cannot have three sets of books. You can’t have the books for the bankers....then you have your IRS books....and then you have a set of books with the real numbers, I guess, which is what Allen Weisselberg had.”

"I've seen bigger Tupperware parties"
Turning Point USA attracted roughly 20,000 attendees for its "AmericaFest" event late 2023. Illustrating the poor attendance at the 2024 CPAC, a photo was posted showing sparse attendance featuring rows of mostly empty chairs.
 * 2/25/2024

Speaker Johson/The new Moses

 * . Mike Johnson (politician) Claims That God Prepared Him to Be a “New Moses”..Slate article from DEC/2023
 * Delivering his first remarks as speaker,Johnson suggested that his position was ordained by God, saying: "'I believe that Scripture, the Bible, is very clear: that God is the one who raises up those in authority. He raised up each of you. All of us'".

Actual Job Growth During Citizen Trump Administration
Steve Daines, (R/Montana), chair of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, recently ((FEB24)) reflected on the conditions President Joe Biden “inherited” three years ago. Of particular interest was Daines' focus on the economy. Problem is that his factual details are plainly and demonstrably wrong. During CT’s first three years in the White House, job growth actually fell, and during his fourth year, the U.S. economy lost over 9 million jobs. Biden didn’t inherit “record job increases”; he inherited the opposite. As for the idea that the American Rescue Plan “created problems for this economy,” it was quite the opposite. Thanks to that Democratic legislation, the US has, and is continuing to have, the world’s best post-pandemic recovery. In fact, it’s a recovery that has led to the creation of over 15 million jobs since January 2021 — more than double the combined total of CT's first three years as president.

But the other part of Daines’ pitch that falls short is the degree to which it is part of a larger effort: Republicans are eager to convince the public to disregard their memories of 2020. In case anyone needs a refresher, CT's fourth year in office was unusually horrible for the United States. The Republican administration badly mishandled the federal response to a deadly pandemic. Hundreds of thousands of Americans needlessly lost their lives listening to CT's advice. Millions of Americans lost their jobs — including the month before Biden’s inauguration, when the economy shed nearly a quarter of a million jobs — as part of a recession that began in February 2020. In addition, the national murder rate worsened. The nation’s executive branch was led by a scandal-plagued amateur, who was unpopular and ineffective, and who lost his re-election bid by a fairly wide margin. When Biden took office, Covid deaths declined; the unemployment rate fell to its lowest point since before the Moon landing; and the economy began to recover and grow at a healthy pace. (MSNBC.com)

Door #1 or door #2
Either you vote for It is Biden’s humanity that is always on display. From his early days as a senator navigating Congress to the devastating loss of his wife and daughter in a car accident. We witnessed his faith and devotion to his second wife, as well as his grief over losing his son Beau. Also, Biden has made "gaffes" since the very beginning of his political career. We need a president that provides an example of a good American, not the craven greed, shocking sexism and racism that CT has exhibited his whole life.
 * “a sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with a poor memory” (words of the recent special counsel Hur's report on Biden). OR.....
 * an equally aging and most certainly not well-meaning liar of a man with little grasp on reality or any relationship with the truth.

Asst Border Wall Stuff

 * CT made error-filled allegations on one of his social media posts including the flamboyant; ‘All a president has to do is declare the border is closed, and it’s closed". Chip Roy, Texas Republican, said: “Well, with all due respect, that didn’t happen in 2017, ’18, ’19 and ’20. There were millions of people that flooded into the US during those four years. CT failed, along with Republican’s former speaker Paul Ryan and the other "guys" They failed in 2018 to actually move a border security bill to tighten the border so that we were not repeatedly dealing with this crisis all the time. They failed in their effort to get the wall built. CT signed 12 continuing resolutions after he said he would never sign another one if they didn’t give him the money to finish building the wall. Look, this stuff matters. It adds up. I call balls and strikes. This is not hard.” CT Failed