User talk:Newsmare

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Whouk (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Copyright
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Bonfire Boys, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material.

This article appears to be a direct copy from http://members.lycos.co.uk/keyboards/index-6.html. As a copyright violation, Bonfire Boys appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Bonfire Boys has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GFDL, you can comment to that effect on Talk:Bonfire Boys. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Bonfire Boys, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words.

Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. --Whouk (talk) 13:00, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The page is not copyrighted and my interest, along with the original author, is dead. I honestly can't be fucked. Newsmare 14:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Your Snoop Dogg message
Quite interesting but, pornography and a very uninteresting talk page aside, in the future please refrain from writing messages that don't adhere to our WP:CIVIL policy. Drdr1989 22:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I can take care myself. You know, you're getting to be quite wild and somewhat fun to watch.  A little word of advice, though: you also do your part in brushing up some comprehension skills as well. That said, since you're obviously a newbie here I'm gonna cut you a break... for now.  If you think your brains are more worthy than the rest of us I would expect you to comprehend the policies and guidelines in Wikipedia at the speed of light henceforth.  This means next time an additional warning for you would be redundant, right??  I mean you could be banned for this. Also, don't rv comments on other users' talk pages.  Happy editing. Drdr1989 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Subject utilises woefully transparent deflection technique, preceded by bland, entry-level distraction. Raises game only slightly by subsequent manoeuvring via use of group possessives, however simultaneously undermines effort by assuming social conformity within target audience, spotlighting vector for potential riposte.  Lack of self-esteem also supplies unintentional amusement, however overall prognosis; rank amateur with low entertainment value.  Newsmare 19:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Stubs
Just to let you know you don't need all that extra stuff when you stub an article. Just the template does fine. Thunderbrand 15:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thx, just read up on what to subst and what not to, on Template substitution.  ◄ ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ  ►  17:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Appreciation
Thanks for cleaning up after me at MMORPG. --Beefnut 19:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!
Hi Newsmare! Thank you for supporting my RfA. It passed at 105/1/0, putting me in WP:100 - I'm delighted and surprised! I'm always happy to help out, so if you need anything, please drop me a line. Love the signature, BTW! ➨ ❝ R E  DVERS ❞ 21:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Belated thanks
It is unfortunate, but there are times when it needs to be done. The end result is that we open a dialogue with the school(s) causing the vandalism and they are then able to take corrective action. If you ever need anything else, please do not hesistate to contact me on my talk page or via email. Best regards, Hall Monitor 18:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for Cutman nom
Hey,

Thanks for the Cutman nom - it feels good to be appreciated. :)

Yours,

-CasualFighter 20:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic edit war
(Originally posted by User:Newsmare to User_talk:Justen.)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing.  ◄ ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ  ►  00:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the warning. I was aware.  Justen Deal 00:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I should add... You stated in your edit summary for the revert: "rv. 3RR coming into play next time - mccready attempted dispute resolution/compromise on the talk page, but you choose to ignore it and continue edit warring.)"  I understand you've just familiarised yourself with this article today, but it's important to note that there is no compromising on WP:RS and WP:V.  An "edit war," in my mind, requires that I might take a position on the "edits" that are being disputed...  I don't.  I take issue with those edits being added without being reliably and verifiably sourced.  Certainly User:Mccready has added his thoughts to the Talk:Chiropractic page, but nobody, to date, has found reason for adding content to the article that cannot be verified.  These statements are important to the subject of the article, but Wikipedia requires the statements be verifiable and reliable.  So far, you, nor User:Mccready, nor anybody else (for that matter), have offered a source for the statements you're trying to add into the article.  I have searched, and cannot find any to support the statements myself.  That means the edits need to come out of the article until someone (preferably whoever added the statements) can source it. Justen Deal 00:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I should add... You stated in your edit summary for the revert: "rv. 3RR coming into play next time - mccready attempted dispute resolution/compromise on the talk page, but you choose to ignore it and continue edit warring.)"  I understand you've just familiarised yourself with this article today, but it's important to note that there is no compromising on WP:RS and WP:V.  An "edit war," in my mind, requires that I might take a position on the "edits" that are being disputed...  I don't.  I take issue with those edits being added without being reliably and verifiably sourced.  Certainly User:Mccready has added his thoughts to the Talk:Chiropractic page, but nobody, to date, has found reason for adding content to the article that cannot be verified.  These statements are important to the subject of the article, but Wikipedia requires the statements be verifiable and reliable.  So far, you, nor User:Mccready, nor anybody else (for that matter), have offered a source for the statements you're trying to add into the article.  I have searched, and cannot find any to support the statements myself.  That means the edits need to come out of the article until someone (preferably whoever added the statements) can source it. Justen Deal 00:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * For the record, I'm not trying to add any statements to the text. I'm simply resetting a clumsy revert and hoping somebody (you for instance) makes a more surgical edit.  Preferably, although not necessarily, after discussion of the 'offending' material.  To be honest I couldn't care any less about the subject.   If you cannot find the sources for the statements then edit them out manually, seeing as other edits were made in the interim.  Reverting, especially when it includes valid and unrelated edits, just stunts the growth of the article in question.  I'm amazed at the number of editors who don't check what they're editing before they hit the save page button.  That's the very reason I was there on that page in the first place today, because Drdr1989 totally changed the meaning of a sentence by butchering it and not reading the result (or just lacking the faculty to notice the difference when they did).  People are wondering why simple spelling errors they've already corrected are creeping back into the article, and it's because of the kind of ham-fisted reverts you've just pulled.   ◄  ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ  ►  01:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, your revert edit summaries really failed at conveying your thoughts here:


 * 14:34, 29 March 2006
 * ("Facts need to be in the body before they make intro". Well move them then, don't just revert those and other edits into oblivion.)


 * 15:57, 29 March 2006
 * (rv. 3RR coming into play next time - mccready attempted dispute resolution/compromise on the talk page, but you choose to ignore it and continue edit warring.)


 * In the diffs (first and second), there are three or four one or two word stylistic changes to the article, but the bulk of the edits that I reverted were ones that had inserted unsourced, un-v, and un-rs assertions into the article. The "valid" and "unrelated" edits you're pointing to are stylistic, not any "sentence butchering" improvements or "simple spelling error" corrections.  That they were reverted didn't do a disservice to the article.  If anything "stunts the growth" of an article, it is reverts which protect unsourced and potentially libellous and slanderous assertions.


 * Finally, please see WP:AGF. I think calling anyone's work here "ham-fisted" would pretty squarely contravene the letter of that guideline, and certainly the spirit of Wikipedia. Justen Deal 01:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, you're really racking up some negative comprehension points now. Ham-fisted means clumsy.  Clumsy assumes good-faith, but poor execution.  I fail to see how that doesn't describe your efforts as far as I've been exposed to them.  Secondly, if you think that the difference between "In 1895, Palmer recalled an incident whereby he was investigating..." and "Palmer recalled an incident in 1895 whereby he was investigating..." is merely stylistic then there's no hope.  The first infers, and I can't believe I'm having to spell this out, that he is doing the recalling in 1895, the second that the incident itself took place in 1895.  As I said previously, some people just lack the faculty, no matter their intentions.  Thirdly, the "sentence butchering" was clearly not part of my grievance with you.  I explicitly named Drdr1989 with regards to that so we'll have to put that mistake down to your demonstrated inability to understand context.  Fourthly and finally, this diff shows an example of spelling mistakes being reintroduced by clumsy reverts that include legitimate edits - a point I've already made once, and which you failed to grasp.  Note the users comment - "that's neat how the spelling mistake I corrected earlier was reverted back to the wrong spelling again".  Reverted back needlessly, by ham-fisted (NOT malicious, sensitive reader, but clumsy) editing.  By the way, I'm not saying that particular instance is your fault either before your confused self starts taking umbrage.


 * Anyway, Steth has now made the edits that needed making, preserving the legitimate contributions, and he did it all without prompting too. Did I need to spell it out to him?  No.  Maybe he's just a mind-reader, eh?  Yeah, that must be it.  How else could he have known?  Maybe he just understood what was being said or, forbid, looked at what he and others were doing?!   ◄  ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ  ►  02:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to spell it all out for me. Obviously, my ability to comprehend is far inferior to your own.  My apologies.  :) Justen Deal 03:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism
This is about user on 59.163.25.48. This is a proxy server common for all students of IIT Bombay. Anonymous users sometimes do indulge in vandalism. This is not an individual server.Cygnus_hansa 18:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for user on 12.10.219.37 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.10.219.37 (talk • contribs) 00:04, 27 December 2006


 * Terrific. Tell someone with a sympathetic ear.  I'd gladly burn all shared IPs without accounts...  their net contribution is a negative.   ◄  ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ  ►  00:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Chirotalk
I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion. As someone who has recently edited the chiropractic article and discussion pages, I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here.
 * * taps careometer* ... nope, definitely on empty.  ◄  ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ  ►  14:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
Please don't ignore WP:CIVIL, even in edit summaries, as you did here:. Thanks. PJM 11:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They love it!  ◄ ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ  ►  14:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello from a main page regular
Recent vandal attacks on the main page where an 'interesting' picture has been snuck in via unprotected subparts of the main page have been annoying at the least - Yes it's true. It has been one or two lapses of concentration by admins who forgot to protect something that they placed on the front page templates. Admins are human, they do make mistakes. Everyone has been poked and reminded. I'm not saying that it won't happen again, but everything that should be done has.

However.

What should happen when such a vandal attacks? Within minutes someone with admin ability spots it, quietly reverts it and covers the cracks that the vandal oozed in via. The vandal is blocked, defeated and deflated, they move on.

What does happen when such a vandal attacks? Everyone, their dog, cat, hamster and rabbits swamp this talk page with "OMG!11!! I'M OFFENDED!! ARGH! ARGH! MY EYES WTF!" style messages of outrage and indignation. The vandal says "HAR HAR PWND! I EMS TEH 1337", posts several taunting messages about how good they are and revels in the afterglow of their nuclear attack.

Eventually, within minutes someone with admin ability spots it, reverts it and covers the cracks that the vandal oozed in via. The vandal is blocked and moves on with a self-satified smug smile and sticky underpants.

''People. If you get all up in arms about it, you're feeding the vandal's ego. Just let it pass. It will be reverted within minutes.'' --Monotonehell 10:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * ... and if that's not making a mountain out of a molehill I don't know what is. Did you even read my comment? I was taking the piss out of the people who were haemorrhaging "This is terrible!"s, as if the main page was a burning zeppelin.  Oh, and at least proof-read something if you're going to replicate it everywhere   ◄  ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ  ►  12:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Faith-based community
An article that you have been involved in editing, Faith-based community, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Kitfoxxe (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2010 (UTC)