User:Buster7/Sandbox-The Signpost collection

Potential EotW's

 * User:Lucia Black - Anime and Manga
 * User:Rhode Island Red - Vanderslott
 * User:Rsrikanth05 -India

A friendly word of Advice
Red, hiya, just a friendly word of advice. Edit summaries in all caps aren't really doing you any good. My recommendation if you want to disengage is to simply delete unwanted messages from your talkpage, with a blank or neutral edit summary. I'd also recommend reading WP:AOHA. Which I'm not accusing you of doing, but it's a good idea to be aware of relevant policies and guidelines. --Elonka 22:31, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I've read the WP etiquette essay that describes how all caps can come across as shouting. That's exactly why I used them -- because apparently the user didn't get the message the first time I removed their inflammtory post and merely whispered my request to disengage in normal fonts. I'm also familiar with AOHA; e.g. "Making accusations of harassment can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may not be helpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if harassment is alleged without clear evidence that the others' action is actually harassment." The user in question seems to be unaware of WP:USER, particularly the part that says "If a user asks you not to edit their user pages, it is probably sensible to respect their requests." I appreciate you taking the time to remind the user of this fact. Ignoring it in the midst of a conflict and a request to disengage is exactly the type of unnecessary harasssment and incivility I was alluding to. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * A better answer from you would have been, "Thanks, I'll keep that in mind", but okay. :) --Elonka 23:52, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. Rhode Island Red (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL! Perfect! --Elonka 00:06, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Minor edits
Hi B_______. I've noticed almost every edit you make is minor. Just an FYI, minor edits are for very small changes that are very unlikely to be contentious, like spelling, grammar or formatting, and marking them as minor signals to other editors that they shouldn't bother looking at what you did. Edits like these:   are not minor. See also Help:Minor edit. Your edits are good, but the way you tag them is confusing. Cheers, User:OreoP 15:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Catching good editors early
I'm a reformed deletionist, and have the dubious distinction of being the only admin to pass through WP:RfA and get the admin bit based on a pledge to get mentoring for CSD. Fortunately, they saw other attributes worthy of adminship, and I'm always up for a slice of humble pie. I can honestly say I see the problem from both sides of the issue. Part of how we counter this is to catch up with editors early in the process, welcoming them, so they have someone to contact if they get an article deleted via CSD. Just ask, unless it is defamatory or a copyright violation, I will happily restore a copy of the article in their userspace so they can work on it, and even pitch in with a source or two. All the admins here will do the same, and a good chunk of the members of WER are admins. Just ask here, it will get picked up quick enough. Buster7's (and many other's) efforts to catch good editors early help as well. Anyone can periodically check Category:Candidates for speedy deletion and check out borderline articles, making an argument on the talk page of them, or simply removing the CSD tag if it obviously doesn't apply. A look at the history of the article and the history of the creator will tell you what you need to know. Of course, we aren't here to prop up SPAs, which is sometimes a difficult call to make for a new user, but a warm welcome and offer to help if they need it is free and will help offset any perceived biting by the CSD. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

The Road to Editor is paved with jagged rocks

 * nes are Articles for Creation reviews (which happen in the Wikipedia Talk namespace) and responses to them on my talk page, so I would say a lot of the non article edits are helping people. There tends to be quite a bit of a backlog, and it's not too much of a chore to explain WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV to newbies - it's kind of the "meat and potatoes" of Wikipedia, and I think it's quite hard for some newbies to "get it", but once they do, they can move on to greater things.
 * Not a problem. Learning policies is tricky, as the written word is less important than the intent (hence the need for WP:IAR to normalize).  As for collateral damage, I started WP:WEP with the goal of finding ways to minimize the damage and prevent as much as possible.  As far as working with newbies, that is as good a purpose as can be found at Wikipedia, and is part of the Editor Retention program as well.  Stop by and look around, you may find several who share your ideas.  Dennis BrownWER]]5 August 2012 (UTC)

Archive now
Try {!{User:ClueBotIII/ArchiveNow}!} before thread title

Article Feedback Tool
Wikipedia talk:Article Feedback Tool/Version 5

2012 Roanoke Deletion
Let us all maintain a social equillibrium as we enter this election season. We are all going to be bumping into each other all over the Wikipedia political article landscape. We may all edit at different times and for different reasons, but WE (Wikipedia Editors) are all in this together for the good of our reader not for the benfit of our candidate. Lets all give what we say a third or fourth look---and remove any venom--- before we hit SAVE. The elections will be over mid-November, but WE will still be Wikipedia collaborators. Mid-August

New drivers

 * I suggest you be more inquisitive and less demanding if you want to get answers.
 * You need to read WP:COI, and I suggest looking at WP:HELP for a bit more info as well.
 * The WP:Teahouse is a good place for new users to learn the ropes as well.
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a marketing tool, and it would be helpful if you learned a bit first.  So if you want help, great, hope you learn the ropes and stay.  If your only goal is promotion then you can still stay, but you have to abide by the policies on conflict of interest, just like everyone else.)
 * In Illinois automobile drivers who just got their learners permit in the morning are not allowed to drive on the 8 lane expressways that same afternoon. Invariably, if they do, other drivers will start honking at them because of their limited ability and the resulting mayhem it causes. When the State Tropper eventually pulls them over, he is not being rude. He is protecting the safety on the hyway system and the well-being of the other drivers. While Wikipedia doesn't issue learners permits, your fellow editors will "honk" at you if you try to do more than you know how. User:Brown and User:Gtwfan52 are gentlemen and knowledgable Wikipedia editors. If you get a few hours of reading and doing simple edits under your belt, I'm sure you will find that the honking will stop and you will learn how to do whatever it is you want to do here. But the learning is up to you.
 * I would appreciate any assistance you could give me clearing all this up. Yesterday was my first day here and I'm still trying to figure things out..
 * Thanks for coming to talk to me, Mr. Carlini. Wikipedia is VERY daunting to the newcomer, and I work at a project here that tries to address that.  I was a newcomer just six short months ago, and believe me, I know how frustrating the whole thing can be.  To make matters worse, you inadvertently ended up at a noticeboard (kind of the Wikipedia version of the criminal justice system) on your very first day here.  Those things drive me nuts and I do my best to avoid them. Well, since you are now blocked, the first thing we need to address is the sockpuppet case.


 * What determines whether an article can stay or go is something called notability. Wikipedia's version of what is notable is determined by how much the world at large has noticed the subject of the article. You have to be written up in books, magazines or newspapers.
 * You make alot of contentious and potentially libelous statements in one paragraph. What is required to include these claims is proof...more than just how you interpret your envolvement with the company or your personal experiences. We are creating an encyclopedia. This is not a blog. This is not Facebook. This is an Encyclopedia. We (that "We" includes you) must adhere to common standards of verifiability and documentable references. If you have read what was suggested by other editors your understanding of this entire situation should have improved. If you have failed to read them, you will remain ignorant to what your solutions are.
 * Instead of revert warring other editor's comments from article talk pages, while belittling their comments in your edit summaries, why don't you try to work with them in a collaborative and cooperative manner? I think you will find that it will work better in both the short and long runs. Cla68 21:56, 21 August 2012

Various Dennis Dialogues
Respect is what counts most here. We are always going to have differences of opinion, but as long as we handle those differences like adults with honest dialog that stays away from personal comments, it all works out. Again, it just takes a little patience sometimes. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:32, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Gtwfan52

 * We need editors here that are willing to be diligent enough to see the process through to the end. Eventually, I personally would like to see our efforts rewarded by NOT getting a funny look when you tell someone you looked it up on Wikipedia! Gtwfan52/14:43, 21 August 2012

Political Hot-button Issues

 * your editing is devoted largely or solely to political hot-button issues, and you typically stake out an ideological position on these articles and push it.
 * a reflex negative reaction to people whose interest in Wikipedia seems limited to using it as a platform for their political agenda. I'm not saying that you have to divest yourself of your political views.
 * there are two basic approaches to editing controversial topics on Wikipedia. The first is to start out by looking for the best available sources and then following where they lead. The second is to start out with an entrenched agenda, and then hunt around for sources that you can use to leverage that agenda into the article.
 * infested with people in the second group during election season. who try to camouflage the second approach as consistent with the letter of site policy, but I think it's pretty easy for anyone with some experience here to tell which group someone falls into.
 * obvious attempts to abuse Wikipedia as a platform to amplify political talking points (and with entire WikiProjects seemingly devoted to doing the same), and sometimes I feel compelled to get involved in the more ridiculous and outlandish ideological abuses of this site (like you didn't build that and the attendant nonsense).
 * But if that were all I did, I wouldn't have much fun here, and I'd get a pretty skewed view of how this site operates. MastCell21:42, 28 August 2012
 * To paraphrase, They've put a noose around my neck and I'm up on this high platform, so, I might as well jump off. Too many veteran editors have tried to convince you of the folly of your methods. At some point, it becomes a waste of valuable time for the responders. I suggest you remove the victim noose, get off your "high horse, and see what happens. Or not. Its always been up to you. ```User: Buster7 05:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Less drama and more constructive contributions would help.

A collection of peers. Sharing and presenting ideas, the spirit of cooperation. Transfers into Peace
Christmas Greetings:
 * Hydroxonium
 * Alistair
 * Zaereth
 * fcReid
 * Amadsceintist
 * Writegeist
 * Collect
 * I Jethrobot
 * GtwFan52
 * Deb
 * Dennis Brown
 * Chedzilla
 * Keindra
 * JamesBWatson
 * Sarah Stierch
 * Ryan Vessey
 * SilkTork
 * Diiscool
 * Joshdboz...Timelines
 * SPQR
 * WereSpielCheckers
 * Antandrus
 * Herostraus
 * MastCell
 * Cindamuse
 * Feyd Huxtable
 * Still-247
 * Tvoz
 * Will Beback
 * Killer
 * Pesky
 * Dylan
 * They shoot horses...
 * Ottawatech

Naming Children
Question to help desk....Is there a policy or guideline, or even an essay, on wether we should include the names and ages of children in our Bio's...even if the names and ages are verified. Predators use this type of info. Isn't it enough to tell our reader how many children a person has but leave naming them to People magazine?```Buster Seven Talk 13:52, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * From WP:BLPName; the names of any immediate, ex, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject.

From WP:BLPNAME#Privacy of personal information and using primary sources
With identity theft a serious ongoing concern, people increasingly regard their full names and dates of birth as private. Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object. If the subject complains about the inclusion of the date of birth, or the person is borderline notable, err on the side of caution and simply list the year. In a similar vein, articles should not include postal addresses, e-mail addresses, telephone numbers, or other contact information for living persons, though links to websites maintained by the subject are generally permitted. See above regarding the misuse of primary sources to obtain personal information about subjects.

Use of undefined
You can put "tl|" before the content in the template. In a help me template, you replace help me with help me-helped. Electric 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to expand on Catfish's reply: to stop a template from displaying the template contents, format it with a  or   prefacing the template title within the curly brackets like this:  . This tells the software to display a link to the template page, rather than transcluding the template.   tags work as well, of course, but have the disadvantage that they don't provide a link to the template content. A useful trick!
 * The problem with leaving the template as it was is that adding help me to a page automatically lists it in Category:Wikipedians looking for help - confusing if they aren't actively looking for help. That's why I untranscluded (is that even a word?) it. Thanks for lending them a hand. Yunshui 雲 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions to New Editors

 * 1) Don't take it personally. Editors make honest mistakes. Communicating our thoughts is not easily done on the Internet.
 * 2) Don't isolate your interpretation. There are most likely other interpretations. What you read is NOT what was meant.
 * 3) Don't forget the Human Dimension of Wikipedia editing. Keep things in perspective.
 * 4) Don't think of WP Editing as a competition. Don't retaliate. Don't resort to an editing form of Road rage.
 * 5) It's not worth the aggrevation to respond. Stay calm and maintain a professional demeanor. Be patient and remain courteous.
 * 6) Give other editors the benefit of the doubt. Avoid conflict, even if you feel you are right.
 * 7) Do not retaliate or in anyway engage the other editor by YELLING. Avoid the written equivelent of "hand gestures".
 * 8) Do not underestimate the other editors potential for aggression and some form of retaliation. AGF, but with a caveat.
 * 9) Assume Good Faith toward your collaborating fellow editor but perhaps not his edits. AGF is not intended to be self-destructive. Assuming Good Faith avoids conflict
 * 10) Don't edit the article or talk page in question when angry or upset. Never let your anger or frustration be the deciding factor in YOUR behavior.
 * 11) Ignore attacks. Not easily done, but a real timesaver. Attacks and counter-attacks are hazardous to your mental health. The best and most frequently offerered Administrative advice is to move on and, if absolutely necessary, return the next day. The best and most frequently offered B7 advice is to go fishing. [[Image:Andrew going fishing.jpg|35px]]

UCSI University/Advertsing
This article is written as an advertisment. Where do I find the appropriate tag? ```Buster Seven   Talk 
 * They are all listed at Template messages. The one you were after is named advert. However, since the promotional material is copied straight from the university website, I will shortly be removing it as a copyright violation. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, John. I will make note of that. ```Buster Seven   Talk  07:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a list.....
The lead sentence "Below is a listing of the 55 counties in the U.S. state of West Virginia" is too self-referential for a featured list. (Lists should not start with statements like "this is a list".) Try something like "There are 55 counties in the U.S. state of West Virginia." --Orlady (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Support/Carrite
For me the hardest question was the temporary adminship, as I think it's a pity he'll resign the tools when this is done. As I said in another RfA recently, when we broaden the base of trustable editors who have access to administrative tools, we take a step away from "editors vs. admins" and a step toward "editors with or without tools." I think most of us prefer the latter model. Tim: If this RfA fails, I hope you'll take a little time to reconsider the possibility of another run, and being a respected editor who just happens to have a few tools that get used now and again, when the need arises. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:37, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Various Comments

 * "Whatever reservations one might still have about its overall quality I don't believe there's much doubt that Wikipedia is the largest, most comprehensive, copiously detailed, stunningly useful encyclopedia in all of human history"...William Cronon, a renowned environmental historian and President of the American Historical Association.
 * "...almost every time WP:CANVASS is cited, the person citing it is in the wrong. [It is] used to shut down discussion. [It]'s used to suggest that you shouldn't talk to people who you agree with." -Jimbo Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia.
 * Many an edit war (or talk discssion) may seem like a fight over nothing to the casual observer, but considering that according to its staff, the popular, multilingual Web site Wikipedia gets about 7 billion views per month, stakes can be high. An edit yields what millions of people read on the site on any particular topic.
 * A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. from WP:COI
 * Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. from WP:COI
 * Easier said than done. Their talk edits are constant efforts to send any discussion down a lonely country road where it eventually runs into a cornfield and stops. Finding the Interstate after that can be a mayor drawback and time-waster plus many editors are enjoying themselves in the middle of the cornfield. Getting them back on the road is near impossible. ```Buster Seven Talk 14:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC) From User talk:Jimbo Wales

Proverbs

 * If you understand, you will remember.
 * Success depends less on ability than opportunity; opportunities are rarely equal, and all opportunities have costs.
 * Strive to have the ability to make the most of opportunities.
 * Timing is everything.
 * People have similarities and differences: similarities make communication possible; differences make it necessary.
 * Freedom of choice is an illusion, responsibility is not.
 * Life is a sequence of mistakes and side-effects.
 * We have not grasped justice if we are still balancing competing claims: that which is good, is good for all, there is no conflict of interest.
 * There is no such thing as "rights"; there is only love.
 * The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. — Thomas Jefferson, "Notes on Virginia", 1782.
 * A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. — Edward Abbey, paraphrasing earlier source?

Civility Enforcement

 * The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors. Contributors whose actions are detrimental to that goal may be asked to refrain from them, even when these actions are undertaken in good faith; and good faith actions, where disruptive, may still be sanctioned.
 * Wikipedia's code of conduct is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia that all editors should adhere to. Wikipedia editors are expected to behave reasonably and calmly in their interactions with other users, to keep their cool when editing, and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Administrators are expected to adhere to this at a higher standard. Unseemly conduct—including, but not limited to, edit-warring, personal attacks, lack of respect for other editors, failure to work towards consensus, disrupting Wikipedia to make a point, offensive language (including rude, offensive, derogatory, and insulting terms—whether in English, a language other than English, or using invented terms), trolling, harassment, gaming the system, and failure to assume good faith are all inconsistent with Wikipedia etiquette. Editors should not respond to such behavior in kind; concerns regarding the actions of other users should be addressed in the appropriate forums.
 * Editors are encouraged to engage in frank discussion of matters affecting the project, and are encouraged to share even those facts and opinions which demonstrate the shortcomings of the project, its policies, its decision making structure, and its leaders. Such discourse is limited by the expectation that even difficult situations will be resolved in a dignified fashion, and by policies which prohibit behavior such as personal attacks and legal threats. Editors who have genuine grievances against others are expected to use the dispute resolution mechanism rather than engage in unbridled criticism across all available forums.
 * Wikipedia is a collaborative project that depends on volunteers located around the world. While English is the language of this wiki, there are many national and regional dialects of English. Editors should be aware that their local colloquialisms may be interpreted in an entirely different way by the majority of the project. Particularly in community discussions, a less colloquial "universal English" is key to fostering a collaborative environment.
 * Editors in general, regardless of permission level, are warned not to engage in conduct that will not directly improve the level of discourse in a discussion. 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. 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.
 * Repeated use of sarcasm, wordplay formulated to mock another user, casting aspersions on an identifiable group, or use of language that can reasonably be anticipated to offend a significant segment of the community is disruptive, particularly when it distracts from the focus of an ongoing discussion on communal pages such as those in the Wikipedia namespace.
 * All users are reminded 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. 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.

WP:EW
[[Image:The_Intervention_of_the_Sabine_Women.jpg|935px|thumb|center|An unidentified [[WP:CLERKS|clerk]] (center) tries to bring to an end a great edit war involving dozens of respected editors. At her feet, three bewildered newcomers are seen caught in the middle of the dispute. Artistic symbolism is a tricky "eye of the beholder" type thing. What I see in their nakedness is that we really can NOT know one another. We have no garments, no jewelry, no vehicles to establish our social standing. All we have is our words [in the painting they are depicted by the weapons) to discover and share who we are.]]

Lest We Forget
While editing random articles, I came across this memorable little slice of Americana at Pearson Brick House.....

The Shit Happens T-Shirt Theory

 * When you wear a T-Shirt that says,
 * SHIT HAPPENS, then that's what happens, shit.
 * If your T-shirt says,
 * MIRACLES HAPPEN, then Miracles will happen.
 * It all depends on your viewpoint.
 * Some editors wear a T-shirt that says,
 * DRAMA HAPPENS. So that's what they see. Drama.
 * But pointing out a problem is not Drama.
 * And Protecting the Encyclopedia is not Drama.
 * And Protecting New Users from their own Innocence is not Drama.
 * It's Love.
 * B7

How I spend my time on WP

 * Wandering
 * Welcoming newbies from the recent changes page which I peruse a bit while deciding Who.
 * Chasing down the occasional obvious vandal and pointing out the folly of his ways to him. Long-term editor vs short-term vandal. Make a choice.
 * Noodling all the stuff involved with Editor of the Week.
 * Constantly checking my watchlist to keep abreast of whats going on in my little corner of WikiWorld.