User talk:Nick Moyes/Archive 5

Edits and new articles.
Hi Nick. Colman2000 here. I have been very busy editing on here lately, and guess what? I just created 10 new articles on Wikipedia! I had also taken the 10 unincorporated communities in Caldwell County, Texas before these were created and I expanded them. Here is a list of the 10 new articles I created:
 * Brownsboro, Caldwell County, Texas
 * Delhi, Texas
 * Elm Grove, Caldwell County, Texas
 * Joliet, Texas
 * McMahan, Texas
 * McNeil, Caldwell County, Texas
 * Reedville, Texas
 * Soda Springs, Texas
 * Taylorsville, Texas
 * Tilmon, Texas

I also expanded the articles of Dale, Fentress, Lytton Springs, Maxwell, Pettytown, Prairie Lea, Saint Johns Colony, Seawillow, and Stairtown to make them longer. I added some new info to those articles, and some of them need citations, even though the metropolitan areas that they are located in are true and don't really need them. And in the article of Dale, it says that it needs to be clarified when I wrote that it is located in a valley, even though it says this on its article on the Handbook of Texas.

Thank you for taking the time to read this message. Please ping me back after you have read the new info I added to the articles, and also, please tell me what you think of the 10 new articles I created. Kind regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there - good work, well done. I've only had chance to look at and edit one of them as I've got some other high priority work I must finish in real life. My only question was what a 'gin' was, but I think I got that from the next article  - a cotton gin. You sure do like finding obscure settlements to write about, but there's absolutely nothing wrong in that! Keep up the good work. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:26, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Added plot tag to La Luna Sangre
Hello Nick, you had added a tag to La Luna Sangre article. Is the summary too long? I simply improved the writing with grammar edits, as the article before I started improving the page was riddled with grammar errors and poorly written. I will attempt to shorten the summary into a condensed format. Thanks!Pipamidalton (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Pipamidalton (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello.
 * Thank you for contacting me. I guess, yes, I do believe the plot section to be too long and detailed in this article.  It's not a major crime, or anything,  but if you'd be willing to shorten it down, it  would make the article more useful to readers. The key thing to rememebr is that this is an encyclopaedia, basing content off what other reliable sources have written about a subject, rather than a fansite going into fine detail about everything. It is my view that too many articles about films and TV shows go into minutiae which just aren't appropriate to the significance of the subject.  The phrase 'less is more'  is relevant here.  So, it would be lovely if you would take the time to trim it down quite bit.  Many thanks, and regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Regine Velasquez/archive1
Hi, Thanks for your extremely helpful input during the peer review. I have listed the article for FAC and was wondering if you would have time to provide your feedback. Thanks in advance! Pseud 14 (talk) 13:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. And well done on taking it to FAC. I will try and take a look, but to do a peer review and FAC justice I will need to devote a good block of some time, which I don't have right now. But I will see what I can do to help, if I can. (It does look like another user has just given you some very useful feedback, though, which I hope gets you a long way). Kind regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 13:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Kenneth C Macdonald, scientist
Hello Nick;

Can't figure out how to reply to your specific message received today.

How do I get started creating either a hatnote or disambiguation page for Kenneth C Macdonald? Help page doesn't give clear examples.

Thanks; BrucePL (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK - no problem. To reply to anyone on your own talk page, you can just edit away there (though here is equally fine). I added your page to my watch list so I could be sure of seeing any changes, but the system normally send an editor a notification - just as you should get one as a result of this reply here.
 * I don't think you need to create a DAB page for Kenneth C Macdonald. There is already this one: Kenneth MacDonald, to which you should add both Kenneth C. Macdonald and Kenneth C. MacDonald - just the briefest of lines please!
 * Whilst you do that, I'll have a go at putting in a hatnote between the two 'Kenneth C Macdonald' pages for you - it's probably easier than me leaving instructions as I don't do hatnotes very often. You can then come back and see what I've done and tell me if it's OK. If you then check Edit Source, you'll also be able to see what I've done for future reference. How does that sound?
 * BTW: I'm very jealous of you: Some 30 yrs ago I was interviewed by the BAS in Cambridge for a summer posting as a Field Assistant in Antarctica. Sadly I didn't make it through the interview process - it would have been an amazing opportunity to have a sabbatical from work and to have put my mountaineering skills to good use, I'm sure. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:20, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As you were! I've now added the hatnotes and fixed the Disambiguation page for you. Let me know of any problems. You'll see I've edited the article you created, and have highlighted sections where references are definitely needed to support statements. You'll see I've removed birth date as we don't want Wikipedia being blamed for releasing personal info (see WP:BLPPRIVACY). You need to be aware of our policy on biographies of living people - it requires that only information that can be supported by references be retained about living people. All other material should be removed. This is to protect them, and also to discourage 'stuff' being added that people know, but which can't be substantiated by reliable sources. I hope you understand, and can address some of those issues. Best wishes, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks so much for the Hatnotes and DAB, which I'll look at. Regarding citations needed, for awards, for example, do you mean an online source where it can be seen that KCM received the specific award? I'll investigate that. For his Bio though, not sure what needs to be sourced?

PS: If you missed a chance to work with BAS that's too bad - but FYI you'd likely go to the Peninsula where the weather is very nasty even for ANT!

Thanks; BrucePL (talk)
 * In a word 'Yes', although sources don't all have to be online. But they can't just be a reference to the certificate on Dad's wall etc, no matter how legitimate that is. (Newspaper clippings are fine!) Think of Wikipedia as a site where existing, known information is collated, not where previously unknown stuff is published. It's a sad fact that sometimes one can only put stuff on Wikipedia once a detailed review - or obituary - has been published. I had that experience recently with a former uni lecturer that I wote about. I'm sure at the time I applied to BAS I would have resorted to the old UK climbing adage that conditions like that are just good practice for Scotland in winter! Nick Moyes (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting to restore the page Lifespan Integration (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifespan_Integration)
Dear Nick,

My motivation for creating this article comes from my interest in psychology in general and in neuropsychology in particular. I have neither personal nor professional interests in publishing that page. My only ​wish​ is to give people access to the various therapeutic approaches offered nowadays.

I am convinced that Lifespan Integration therapy is a modern therapeutic approach which deserves to be in wikipedia. It was created 15 years ago and is now well renown in the field of psychology.

This approach is constantly, drastically and​ quickly​​ evolving. Nowadays, we count more than 3,500 Lifespan Integration trained therapists all around the world. And this number is surging, as well as the number of training courses organised worldwide.

Lifespan Integration is a therapy based on neurosciences, in particular on neuroplasticity researches. Clinically, it shows clear results.

I guess the aim of Wikipedia is to enable people to have access to knowledge, so I genuinely don't understand why this page has been deleted. Especially noticing that the French wikipedia page has been accepted.

I hope you will be able to clarify this situation and agree with me on the fact that this page must be present on wikipedia.

Thank you​ in​ ​advance for the time you will take to consider this request.

Regards,

Margaux
 * Hello, Margaux. . Thank you for taking the trouble to contact me. (In future, please sign your comments with four tildes, like this ~ .)
 * Firstly, I should explain that I have no direct say whether any article is deleted or not - we all offer our opinions based on English Wikipedia's policies, and an univolved adminstrator assesses those opinions, and decides what action, if any, needs to be taken. Our policies here differ from other language Wikis. They are not linked, though often we see one editor creating an article in two or more languages. And, surprise, surprise, you've done just that here and on fr.wiki! Maybe one page might stay, and one might be deleted - we have no influence across Wikis. Wikipedia isn't just about 'putting stuff out there' - there are websites and other places for companies, cults, fads and promoters to do that. We base all our content on a concept of notability. If a topic has been covered in depth by independent, third party, reliable sources, that are not connected to the subject, we regard that as notable. It deserves a page here). It may be that detailed and extensive media coverage has shown one thereutic proces to be very effective, or that another is run by frauds. If either were the case, then potentially Wikipedia would regard that topic as worthy of note. See this page and sub-pages for more details on that. See this page for details of what we mean by independent reliable sources. In particular, for medicine-related topics, please see WP:MEDRS. My opinion is that the topic, Lifespan Integration, is not notable - you certainly haven't shown any sources that demonstrate that - just a lot of books and papers by involved authors as far as I could ascertain. You still have time to add these, but I'm guessing you are not able? Anyway, I'm pinging so they know I've replied here and that they needn't spend time doing the same on their talk page, as I see you've also posted the same request there, too.
 * I am firmly of the opinion that the page needs to be deleted as soon as possible, sorry. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See my reply to your identical message at User talk:Narutolovehinata5. Shopping around for a sympathetic editor is not helping. The article must comply with our inclusion criteria. If it doesn't, then we cannot have the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
 * , I read the deletion debate, and since I am an administrator, I also read the deleted article. The article was highly promotional and poorly referenced. Consensus was clear and the deletion was entirely correct. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  18:04, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Black Video Codec
date : 26th Jan 2018

Hi Nick, I've added several references as suggested to Blackbird_(codec)

One research paper from Department of Distributed Information SystemsUniversity of Passau (UoP)Passau, Germany and two separate media reports. Can you let me know if this is sufficient or whether more needs to be added?

Cheers, Seán — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanjmcm (talk • contribs)
 * Hi Sean. (Do please always sign your messages with four tildes ( ~ ) for ease of replying.) OK, you've addressed verifiability brilliantly. If this were at WP:AFD I might !vote ' weak delete' because I don't see much evidence of third party coverage showing notability (esp this: WP:NSOFT). But there is some. I'd possibly want to WP:REDIRECT to Forscene where the info could be added. But both pages seem overtly promotional. Get rid of the links that just quote pres releases unless they say anything useful. We don't see these as reliable sources. In Blackbird there are some terrible promo phrases and links that are irelevant. If you do have a Conflict of interest or are being WP:PAID, you do need to declare this according to both policies. Hoping this helps you. Regards from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:48, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Illinois
Hi Nick. Colman2000 here. I have a question I want to ask you, and I want your honest opinion on it. In the article of Illinois, I want to add that it leads my home country, the United States, in population loss. Did you know that? I have been reading WP:USCITIES, and I wonder if I can add it to the Demographics section of that article. I have read lots of news reports about this topic that I want to use as sources when I add this info to that article. Here is the list of news articles I will use as my sources when I add this info to the article: This is a lot of news articles, isn't it? I will use all of these above as my sources when I add this info to the article. What do you think? Can I add this info to the article?
 * http://northernpublicradio.org/post/illinois-leads-nation-population-loss
 * http://www.wjbc.com/2016/12/21/illinois-leads-nation-in-population-loss/
 * http://www.nwherald.com/2016/01/19/out-migration-from-illinois-hits-six-digits-state-population-loss-leads-nation/aw6o56j/
 * http://tspr.org/post/illinois-leads-nation-population-loss
 * http://qctimes.com/news/local/illinois-leads-nation-in-people-moving-out/article_b2bbb5e6-3cb3-59bb-8423-2042a1e35e4b.html
 * https://newsroom.niu.edu/2015/03/30/illinois-leads-nation-in-population-decline/
 * https://jonathanturley.org/2016/12/21/illinois-leads-nation-for-third-year-in-population-decline/comment-page-1/
 * http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-illinois-population-decline-met-20161220-story.html
 * http://advantagenews.com/news/illinois-leads-nation-in-population-decline/
 * http://northernpublicradio.org/post/census-data-shows-illinois-lost-more-people-any-other-state
 * https://downtrend.com/71superb/residents-say-it-sucks-to-live-in-illinois
 * https://patch.com/illinois/tinleypark/illinoisans-are-no-1-in-wanting-to-get-out-of-illinois
 * http://chicagoist.com/2012/02/27/everybody_hates_illinois_but_not_as.php
 * https://www.illinoispolicy.org/press-releases/illinois-losing-residents-at-a-rate-of-1-person-every-10-minutes-new-report-from-il-policy-institute/
 * https://www.illinoispolicy.org/illinois-losing-1-resident-every-4-6-minutes-could-fall-behind-pennsylvania-in-population/
 * http://www.getoutofillinois.com/
 * https://www.unitedvanlines.com/contact-united/news/movers-study-2016

Thank you for taking the time to read this message. Also, I will add you to my watchlist so that when I leave messages on your talk page, I will be pinged to you. I am also going to leave a message showing you how much I appreciate all of the awesome input you are giving me! Thank you, and have a wonderful day! I can't wait to hear from you! Kind regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 05:30, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi there (and thanks for the very kind Barnstar below.) This will take me some time to answer properly if I were to check each reference and read the article! However, I think the short answer is "no, don't add all those!" There are already 147 references in that article. For a plain and simple 'fact' just one reference would be fine (choose the most trustworthy and reliable-looking one). For a more contentious statement, I would use either two or maybe even three references to support that claim. If you think it will need all those references, it tells me you think you're going to meet some opposition in inserting that fact. In which case, you need to be 'neutral' and give sources to both sides of any claim. That's the essence of Wikipedia - stay neutral and represent coverage of some viewpoint from reliable sources on both sides of any argument. If in doubt, ask on the articles Talk page, stating what you'd like to do and gain consensus from other editors. If you want to copy/paste the paragraph here that you want to insert a line into, and then add yours in italics for me to look at - feel free. Remember, there must be a million and one facts about any subject that one could put in - always ask yourself, "is this one significant and relevant? Will it enhance the article?"
 * Hold on - I've just found this statement in the article which seems to address that issue already: The United States Census Bureau estimates that the population of Illinois was 12,802,023 in 2017, moving from the fifth-largest state to the sixth-largest state (losing out to Pennsylvania). Illinois' population declined by 33,700 people from July 2016 to July 2017, making it the worst decline of any state in the U.S. in raw terms.[63] So what's different about what you want to add? Hoping this all helps, best wishes from a very rainy England. Nick Moyes (talk) 10:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for writing me back! To tell you the truth, I asked User:Magnolia677 about this, and they told me the same thing: post a message to Talk:Illinois. This user said that that talk page has a lot of followers, and that I will get some excellent input. I also saw the statement in green letters on that article. What is different about what I want to add is that I found all of this info out while surfing the web. All of these articles have different info, such as a population loss rate of 1 person every 4.6 to 10 minutes, and that it has led the nation in population loss for four years in a row. Some of the articles I posted are from residents who say it sucks to live in the state, as the most common reasons for this are the following: Job loss (since it is in the Rust Belt region of the United States), the highest taxes in my country, bad weather, unionism, crime, education, unemployment, and the state's budget stalemate. The vice president of the Illinois Policy Institute, Michael Lucci, said that people who want jobs and working people are leaving Illinois. I also added that left an article saying that Illinois is number 1 in people wanting to flee, and that everybody hates that state. It is the second most hated state in my country, after California. I also had that map from United Van Lines, and it shows that Illinois was in yellow, meaning high outbound, since 1978, and I want to use getoutofillinois.com as a source since a couple who moved from that state made that website to help Illinoisans flee the state. I will post a message to the Talk:Illinois about all of this that I want to add, and I hope I get some awesome input. Also, I just left a message on the barnstar I left for you below telling you you're welcome. Thank you for the input, you never let me down with what you write! Also, I fixed a few typos you made, such as adding a "u" to sides, and forgetting an "e" at the end of line. Lastly, it rains a lot here in Oregon, too, just to let you know. Cheers! Regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 17:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, a few things to guide you on, I guess:
 * Stay off Magnolia's user page - you know she asked you not to post there.
 * Don't do what we call "original research" - i.e. synthesising lots of sources to draw your own conclusions. See WP:OR for more on this problem
 * Don't get too obsessed with every fine detail. I could find articles that tell you where I live is a) wonderful b) sucks or c) just dull. None of this matters.
 * Avoid long posts and lots of references - I fear you might get jumped on at that Talk page!
 * Think before you post anything to the Talk page. Something like: "I'd like to slightly expand the section on demographics with a number of sources. Would it be OK to say "...INSERT SHORT SENTENCE HERE...". Here are 3 references to support what I'd like to add. I'm posting here because other editors might feel this is too much detail. Comments welcome please" How does that sound to you?
 * Correct any of my typing errors at any time!! I'm always in a rush on Talk pages, and spelling's not too important to worry about here. Not everyone feels the same way, though.
 * All the best, Nick Moyes (talk) 17:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for writing me back! I understand I should stay off of Magnolia677's talk page since they asked me not to post there. I forgot to tell you that I wrote that on their talk page on December 3, 2017, and they responded to it. What I want to add is not original research; it says all of that on those news articles. I thank you for giving me permission to correct any of your typing errors on your talk page, too. I think what you wrote on what I should add to the Talk:Illinois is good enough for me! I will write it just like that, and add my references. Thanks! All the best from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 18:35, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, Nick! I just left a message on the Talk:Illinois on the info I want to add to the demographics section of that article, and I used the references above for support. I did not get any responses yet, but I hope I will soon. Please wish me luck! Regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Input you are giving me
Here's a gift of appreciation just for you, from me! Enjoy! Colman2000 (talk) 05:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you most kindly, young man! Nick Moyes (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

You're very welcome! A big cheers to you! Kind regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 16:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Helping other editors
Hi again, Nick. Colman2000 here. I wanted to ask you for a favor. Because of all of the help and all of the awesome input you have been giving me, I want to do the same thing and help other editors. If you see any editor who may be having any trouble with any edits they are making to any article regarding any topic on the United States, if they are on the brink of being blocked from editing for an issue they are having on either adding references, adding unsourced material, or adding any original research to any article regarding the United States, or if they have any questions, comments, or want my honest opinion on any topic regarding any article about the United States, will you please ping me to that user's talk page, so that I can help them? I give you my permission to do this, because of how much you are helping me. You can write something like: "I am going to ping Colman2000 to this conversation. He knows a lot of things about the United States, as he is a member of the WikiProject of that topic, and he is a member of the WikiProjects for the states of Colorado, Texas, Illinois, and Ohio. He is an expert in geography and you can go to his user page and look at it. You can leave a message on his talk page, and I'm sure he will give you some excellent input." I would love to help any user if they have any questions. Will you please do this if there is any conflict you stumble upon? Thank you for reading, and kind regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What a heart-warming thing to hear you say. I know you've had your difficulties - and it's still early days for you, I think - but it's wonderful to hear a new editor expressing the wish to help others - a sure sign that you are likely to be one of those editors who we value and retain for a long time, so long as you take the advice of others and come to consensus - which I think you do appreciate. I would counsel you to be careful of jumping in too eagerly, or indeed promoting yourself as an 'expert' in geography, as I mentioned some while ago. 'Expert' means different things to different people. For example, despite speding 18 years of my working life collecting and computerising over 3/4 million plant records, and publishing this, I still don't consider myself an expert botanist! (After 8 + years here I now feel I'm pretty knowledgeable in some areas here, expert in virtually none(!) and a total newbie in many others.) But I'm still enjoying learning from other people - young or old - and sharing where I can. It was for that reason I've recently started to assist, as you know, at the Teahouse and a little bit at WP:HD.
 * So, to answer your question, yes, I will consider pinging you if I see anything I think you might be able to give your own experiences on. Though I rarely work in the areas you're interested in. Just occasionally we see questions answered at the Teahouse by relative newcomers who do, indeed, bring an experience which more established editors might not be able to relate to so easily. Even just lurking at these forums is a good way to learn new skills via other people answering questions. It is important to know when not to dive in, thinking you can help, but then making matters worse. (I've done that a couple of times and realised I knew less than I thought about something. It's always good from the outset to admit one's level of experience so others can appreciate why you say what you say)
 * Weirdly enough, only this week I thought I'd offer my help at a scheme you might of heard of called Adopt-a-User. Now, I'm not suggesting that you sign up to help out there yet, as I think you might still need a bit more experience under your belt, but I found it quite an abandoned project which I've spent the last few days trying to sort it all out and see what's salvageable. It's aim is to offer the kind of support where a less experienced editor has one point of contact with another editor with shared shared interests to help them develop. I thought of you and how you seem to be coming along with a little help from time to time. Keep it up! Regards from an on-and-off snowy England. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words! As usual, you never let me down with anything you write. I'm not really interested in signing up with the Adopt-A-User program, but thank you for saying you will ping me if any editor needs any help. Please don't hesitate to do this. Also, I want to add some info to Mendoza, Texas that I saw a few hours ago. Do you think this is a good source? If so, how do you think I can source it, and use it as a repeated citation? Thanks again, and regards from Aloha, Oregon, United States, Colman2000 (talk) 22:48, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Regarding Mendoza, you'll have seen my reply at WP:TH - please acknowledge that you do understand why I really need you not to ask the same question to more than one person at a time. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

I saw your reply at the Teahouse, and you're right; I do get carried away sometimes. If I do this again, just remind me, ok? From your friend in Aloha, Oregon, USA, Colman2000 (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Adoption
Adopt me, pleasssse. Just kidding. I went thru an adoption program shortly after I started (6 years ago end of February) and it is the single best thing I did for myself regarding Wikipedia. Unfortunately, my adopter has died. . Do you have a course plan set up? I'm asking cause if you don't, Worn that Turned has a good one. He no longer adopts (as a matter of fact, until I saw you put up your adopter userbox, I hadn't heard about adoption in years), but he was at one time willing to share what he has. He has the rep of being the all time best at adoption. Good on you for doing this. Thanks. Having been a university instructor at one time, I know it takes the patience of Job. I only taught for four semesters in my late 20s. Came to the conclusion it was much more satisfying to date coeds than to teach them hotel marketing. John from Idegon (talk) 05:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi John - fascinating post from you. OK, your adopted! Just kidding, too. Love the quote "Came to the conclusion it was much more satisfying to date coeds than to teach them"! I'm sorry to hear of your mentor passing away. It's a comfort that their legacy of work lives on, partly because you are still here, beavering away. Not to mention all their own work, too. No, I'm not thinking seriously of course programmes. I few days ago I was, but I'm coming to appreciate that Adopt-a-User has become quite moribund. There are clearly nowadays other effective fora (WP:TH; WP:HD etc) for new editors get get answers to individual questions. But I am starting to feel there's still potentially a lot to be gained by WP:AAU becoming almost a self-service 'dating agency' where, should one editor encounter a newcomer (perhaps at a Help desk, or just simply by seeing them keen but floundering a bit) pointing them in the direction of WP:AAU where experienced editors have posted a summary of their interests and willingness to assist. Some of those Adopters could even be Help Desk volunteers already. It would then be up to the newcomers this time to take the next step and to make the approach for support, and then for the experienced editor to assess whether they can help, and to be a single point of contact with a degree of continuity. So, probably far less of the structured intros to policies like WP:COI; WP:RS; WP:N etc, etc, but much more of two editors with shared interests but an imbalance of skills working together to create great, long-lasting new editors, and perhaps new content, too. Maybe that's too much to dream of, and maybe I'm missing something obvious, but I'm quite excited by that idea. I recognise WikiProjects could potentially offer some of that support - I need to consider that further. But I would envisage there being little or no expectation of experienced editors going out and proactively searching for 'fresh editors' to take under their wing and train in every policy and rule; far more of good old collaborative learning and working on common ground. And on that note, I need to respond positively to the next thread in this post! Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Nick. We have similar interests and you helped me with Macdonald's BLP. I need help creating new pages. I have several in mind on tectonics and marine geology. Great photo on your adopt entry - where? Bruce BrucePL (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, I would be delighted to try to help you. I can see an overlap of interests (though my geological knowledge is pretty rudimentary) and that you've hit the really annoying speedy deletion nightmare which can be utterly demoralising. Don't despair. I'd be please to help you if I can, and perhaps the first thing to ensure is that you don't (even accidentally) copy/paste anything even in to a draft article that's been taken from elsewhere (even if you published it!). A couple of hiccups is OK - but we need to avoid any more. This tool is used by most editors to check for WP:COPYVIO, and also works OK on drafts and sandbox articles, too.
 * You'll have seen that I've just tried to kickstart the Adopt-a-User scheme, which I'm completely new to. So if you do fancy working together, I'd be quite keen to try out templates that sort of 'formally' show an adoption. Let me know if that's OK with you. It need only last for as long as you feel you need practical support.
 * You've listed a few topic areas you want to work on, so maybe if you do want to work together you could also suggest some of the difficulties you've been having, and the things you'd like to understand better about Wikipedia itself - whether it's small practicalities like how to create and edit in a Sandbox page before submitting as a draft, or using the cite template to add references in a well-structured way. But dare I mention there are a couple of key essentials I do need to get you to read. One is declaring all connections under WP:COI, and the other is to get you to read WP:AUTOBIOG. I have absolutely no concerns that one of the articles you've worked on meets or notability guidelines for living people, and WP:NACADEMIC How cool to have an Antarctic summit named after you. So maybe we could work on stripping that back a bit as its not as neutral in tone and content as it ought to be. Anyway, let me know what you think.
 * Oh - the summit I was on was Mont Dolent - the tripoint between France, Italy and Switzerland. I'm hoping to head back to the Alps to climb the Aletschhorn later this summer. Maybe you could try adding the template to your article which you can see used in that one? The USGS ref give all the altitude and coordinates we need as a source. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Nick. Great! Thanks! Let's try out some Adopt templates to get started. Speedy delete was an education. I was "close paraphrasing" in haste. I can see the issue with French-American article I started but I rewrote Propagating Rifts "in my own words" and that got a Speedy Delete anyway. Thanks for the tool link; I'll try it out, and COPYVIO. Problem I have is no understanding where to save an article in progress offline. I spent a few hours looking into it and other issues on Help but I can't figure it out. Not Drafts; that's online. Sandbox? The Sandbox help page is no help - I don't get it. Help! I'm going to study COI and AUTOBIO; thanks for that. I'm open of course to toning down the BLP pages; I'll need some example edits by you to follow. Info box for Mt. L is a great suggestion - I'll get on it. Climbing in the Alps -how great is that? Ever run into Alasdair Cain (Cube)? He guides summer in French Alps. He was our mountaineer in Marie Byrd Land. Cheers; Bruce BrucePL (talk) 16:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK - that's good. Leave the templates to me, which I'll probably fix early  next week (I am off winter walking in the English Lake District tomorrow,  and need to pack tonight - I'm on UTC  time here). However, let's  sort out  your own sandbox right now. Look at the very top of your page, where it says your username, Talk; Sandbox; Preferences; Logout. Click Sandbox.  This takes you to a new url for a page which, as yet,  you haven't created. So look a bit  lower down for a tab labelled either "Create" or "Create source". Hit that and you get an editing window. Type in a few words "Hi - this is my sandbox" and then look for the big blue "Publish page" button. Hit that,  and your new sandbox page will be created and saved online. Anyone can view it -  hence why we call it  'Publish'  However it is not in mainspace, so no-one will search and find it. The main restrictions are not to paste in copyrighted text, nor use it to overly promote something non-Wikipedia related. From then on you can either work on more than  one article in that single page, or create more than one sandbox with different titles for each topic. Only when you're ready would you then consider submitting it for review/publication in mainspace.


 * Give that a go and I'll try and pop back  later tonight to see how you've got on. If I don't see a sandbox, I'll create one for you. But I think you doing it for yourself is the best way to learn. You  might also just let me know which of our two editing tools you have chosen to use. One is Visual Editor, which has quite a WYSIWYG interface; the other is source editing where there are a lot more  geeky codes and double square brackets either side of a word ( like this to create an internal wikilink to another page. Once I know which one you prefer to use, I can ensure that any guidance I offer fits the editor you're using. (I only use the Visual Editor for adding references because it has a super little automatic lookup tool which the other doeasn't. You just pop in the url and it does its best to fill-in the citation template and saves an awful lot of faffing about, adding fields manually.


 * Can't say I know of Alasdair - but then I've never used a guide, so rarely come into contact with them, especially not these days. Only alpine guides I know personally are Robin Beadle and Ian Spare - neither have been to the Antarctic as far far as I'm aware.  BTW I  spotted a typo on your latest blog post you might want to alter. You described the level of ice or water diminishing, using the term 'decease' instead of 'decrease'. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Just saw your post. I'll try out the Sandbox. Your explanation above is good - maybe put on the Help page? I did an infobox for Mt. L. I use the VE. I started with source edits years back. The VE is so much better. I do find I need to switch to the source at times, like today when I was trying to figure out how to position the infobox. Thanks for finding that blog typo! Yikes! Cheers! BrucePL (talk) 23:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem - not as bad as missing the L out of "public open space",  which I've seen done. Goodness -  I'd  not spotted that you've been registered on Wikipedia longer than I have. Oh, I meant to ask - would you like me to retrieve the contents of either of the speedy deleted articles for you? I could ask a friendly admin to email it to me, or to put  it temporarily in your sandbox, to shall we say, less closely paraphrase?. If it's only a small amount,  it might not be worth worrying about, but I'm happy to ask if you wish. (Living room carpet is still spread out with mountain gear - so proabbly up later than expected tonight!) Nick Moyes (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Adoption bot
Hey, I saw you were editing the adoption list. I originally made the request for the bot five years ago (wow- time flies!) but since Theo stopped editing the bot seems to be broken. I left a new request here for someone to take on the task but it's not looking great. jcc (tea and biscuits) 15:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, - that's interesting to see, and thanks for reviving that request. I actually think there are two much bigger issues which I desperately need a bot to address. Perhaps you can advise on how this might be approached, as I've no experience of making bot requests or finding out whether there are preexisting ones?


 * Problem A: We have new editors who can freely put the template on their page whenever they want to seek assistance under this scheme. I found 109 editors that then showed up in Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user. I've since manually  stripped out all inactive newcomers, leaving just 18 active ones.
 * Problem B: Worse still is this: Category:Wikipedians seeking to adopt in Adopt-a-user with 269 experienced editors listed who have on their pages. I sampled 52 entries, and conclude only 7% are active productive editors today. I need help to strip out every month these templates from all editors who have been inactive for, say 2 months, plus anyone at all who has total edit counts of less than 500. If I were able to leave a courtesy messages on each users's talk page, that would be brilliant.
 * How do those sound as proposals? Oh, I was also given this link in an edit summary: *Useractivity but a Tool Forge notice suggests it no longer functions. I guess it was just a list-making tool, whereas I need to regularly automate some edits. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm sure that these are possible with bot tasks- try putting the above on WP:Bot requests? jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Done! (Have also linked my request to yours). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:00, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The bot for updating the adoption list has been approved on a trial basis. jcc (tea and biscuits) 16:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I've changed it so it doesn't repeat the references now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JennyKing (talk • contribs) 14:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Derby based wikipedians
Hi Nick. The link I'm hoping you are looking for is here. Anyone else who is interested is obviously is most welcome whether remotely or in person. See here for info about the Derby editathon for Women in Red. Victuallers (talk) 12:24, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. I've signed myself up. I should say that I found it extremely hard to discover and view the list of redlinks (and I thought I knew what I was looking for.) Will you be making the goals of the day -and tasks- any clearer for newcomers? I think that could help a lot And is just encouraging female editors to attend sufficient in itself? If so, maybe other articles could be suggested too? (e.g. Derby or Derbyshire articles in general. Nick.

Pinging you
Hi Nick. Colman2000 here. If you noticed I pinged you today, I'm sorry about all of this, but I literally had to lay into User:Magnolia677 about a comment he/she (don't know what their gender is) left on my talk page a little while ago, and I mean, I LAID into this user. You can see all that I wrote on the user's talk page. Now, I understand that Magnolia677 asked me to stop leaving messages onto their talk page, and I understand that, don't get me wrong, but I feel like if they want me to stop leaving messages on their talk pages, then they should stop leaving messages on mine. This user isn't cutting me any slack, and I let my issues that I had with Magnolia out on their talk page. I also laid into User:John from Idegon saying that he needs to stop writing Coleman on my talk page, because he did it four times. He left a message on my talk page stating that Wikipedia is not a social network, which I understand it is, but all I asked was for John to stop writing Coleman on my talk page. You always make me feel better with the very nice and kind messages you write after I leave messages on your talk page, but I am just getting sick of this nonsense. Will you please talk to these editors and help me? I don't know if I can actually block them for what they are writing, but will you tell them to cut me some slack and make me feel better? That would be a pleasure, and a big thank you for always being so kind to me. From your 17-year-old friend in Aloha, Oregon, USA, Colman2000 (talk) 23:03, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thank you for contacting me. I'm away in the mountains at the moment, with limited connectivity and just a mobile. I do understand some of your frustrations, and sometimes it helps to express how you feel. [Addendum: I now see you must have gone far too far in that respect]. I do wish other editors would cut you the slack you need, because I do believe you are genuinely doing your best to contribute. But equally it is really important to listen to the advice other editors offer, and to do your best to cooperate. Sometimes people don't gel, and it may be best to simply avoid interaction. I suspect the Mendoza article probably doesn't need much more work doing to it. I'm not in a position to look at actual edits, though please do your best to be as courteous as possible. (This may be an imbalanced reply as I can't check all interactions.) Keeping interactions on article talk pages seems like an emminently sensible approach. Regards from the English Lake District. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

As usual, you never let me down with anything you write me. Have fun in the mountains! Your buddy in Aloha, Oregon, USA, Colman2000 (talk) 00:55, 3 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Dear Colman. I imagine you might find your way eventually to reading this. I was shocked and upset to return to Wikiland yesterday to discover you have managed to get yourself indefinitely blocked. I am unable to see the revdel-ed (redacted) comments you left for another editor, but I imagine by now you realise your outbursts of angst are not appropriate or conducive to peaceful cooperation and collaborative working. That's why you got  yourself blocked, and I guess you're pretty upset aboout it. I do recognise you have been on the receiving end of a lot of  detailed constructive criticism on your approach to editing and how hard you have worked to accommodate that feedback, and to ask questions. It was clearly frustrating for you and for many of the other editors who have tried to guide and support you along the way. They have genuninely cut you a lot of that slack I'd hoped for. I had intended to approach one of the admins who blocked you and ask for a reduced length of block, and to offer my support. But I see from the fact that one admin felt it necessary to completely redact your comments that you wrote to another editor (Magnolia, I assume) they cannot have been at all acceptable or pleasant - and that really can't be tolerated. I hope you see that now? I am going to wish you well - you have a lot of enthusiasm  (and  perhaps quite a bit too much intensity for some to handle) - but your youth and your autism no doubt explains some of that. As you go forward in life do celebrate that, rather than feel it is a hindrance. It gives you great characteristsics which can be invaluable in certain walks of life, though there will be times, perhaps like this one, when it can work against you. (Let's be honest: I'd rather be your age again than mine!! And if it's of any consolation, I have spent my life as a professional museum naturalist wishing I was as good and knowledgeable as this UK TV naturalist and environmental campaigner). Only recently did he reveal that it is  his autism that has made him the great naturalist and respected BBC presenter that he is. It was almost a relief to appreciate why I could never be as knowledgeable as him in our shared sphere of interests!)
 * I know you will find other other ways to focus those interests - perhaps as you go forward in your studies. Please don't be too upset or angry with yourself. I'm sure you realise now that you haven't helped yourself - though I know you have tried very hard to listen to others - and that many editors like Magnolia, John from I, Kudpung and many others have tried to support you. I haven't pinged them, as this note is for you, not them, though I have no worries at others reading it. But maybe Wikipedia is something you can return to a little later on in life. (I was almost 50 before I started contributing, and probably couldn't have coped with all the requirements and other people's interactions had I been your age) If you do try to return in the future, my advice would be to be open and honest about your past account and editing here. People will respect you for that. I'm sure your love of geography will carry you through, no matter what path you follow in life. Remember that indefinite does not mean infinite - See WP:INDEF. And as you go through life, don't worry that people get your name wrong - it's rarely meant as an insult - it happens to me often. It's how people see you and work with you that's much more important. Look for the good in people's motives, and they will see it in yours, too. All the very best wishes from the UK, regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 10:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Greetings!
Hey Nick. I've just seen your message on my talk page (not logged in in a bit, as you can tell). My main concerns are twofold. The first is, as I suggested earlier, the large amount of policies that seem to be knocking about. I stumbled across ANI and saw a large amount of policy related abbreviations that I had never come across. Is there a central repositry of policies that I can access?

Secondly, I'm not an expert in any sort of area and, as such, I feel I have nothing to contribute (hence why I haven't been on). Is there anything I can do to contribute?

Thanks in advance! LampGenie01 (talk) 22:24, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello - sorry for ther delay in replying to you, and thanks for messaging me here. Addressing your last point first: Yes - there's always a million things you could contribute to. Nobody needs to be an expert - no way at all - they just need to be good at working together to create a neutral-sounding encyclopaedia that collates information from reliable sources. Only a small number of people actually create articles here - most simply add and improve on them. So the trick is discovering what interests you. (There are even special WikiProjects which bring people with shared editing interests together).
 * I see you edited Dundalk F.C. pages. Maybe check out the "Category" at the bottom of any article you like to find other related articles? See Category:Dundalk F.C., or WikiProject Football, or even WikiProject Football/Scotland task force? Most projects display a table of articles by quality and priority - the shortest, most useless articles are called  "Stubs" - and you can get a list by clicking on the number in that table: e.g.: this list of high importance, low quality articles.
 * Maybe you fancy just picking up grammar or spelling. Again - this is best done in articles you enjoy reading about. It's even possible to monitor brand new edits and check for vandalism as it happens - It motivates some people and turns off others completely! See Counter-Vandalism Unit
 * In fact, there are so many things that a person could contribute to, we even have a couple of pages dedicated to listing them all! If you've ever seen templates at the top of an article saying "references need improving" or "needs editing for grammaer and spelling" - these are the kinds of tasks that are aggregated here: Category:Wikipedia backlog. But a good starting point for ideas, though, is here: Task Center


 * You are too right about all our policies. But you can forget about most of :them to start with, and just appreciate this key point Five pillars. Then I'd just say, take a quick look at this (Policies and guidelines) and ignore the rest for now. You ended up looking at WP:ANI, so you arrrived at the heart of where incidents and transgressions are discussed, almost always citing a myriad of policies by their abbreviations.  Again ignore all this for now. If you really want to understand what each letter group means, there's a useful list at Policies and guidelines. The really key ones to be aware of are:


 * WP:N - notability (is it worth having an article here in the first place? It needs to nmeet this policy)
 * WP:V - Verifiability (can you proved what you assert in an article)
 * WP:RS - Reliable sources(can you cite a references to a good source to substantiate a statement.
 * WP:NPOV - neutral point of view. (an encyclopaedia covers all sides of a story, not just the bits we like)


 * I don't know how much this helps - maybe it puts you off? But rest assured that everyone's contributions here are welcome, assuming they're done in good faith to enhance the encyclopaedia. So, feel free to come back with any questions or tell me about your particular interest or things you imagine you might fancy doing, and I'll see if I  can throw any more ideas at you. We never want  to lose someone who wants to contribute but who finds themselves getting put off by what can sometimes sem like a maze of rules. Best thing - just be bold - noone can break the website - everything can be undone. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 11:13, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey Nick, I really appreciate you getting back to me. I created the Dundalk F.C season list because I noticed that other Irish clubs had them but Dundalk didn't. I'm surprised (and a little pleased) its still there, but I certainly think that I would be more into improving articles than creating them (it was more exhausting than I thought, gathering the references together, learning how to create a table, blinding people with horrific colors and then fixing them again), although I'm not going to rule myself out of content creation completely.
 * As for interests, I just enjoy reading about things (I'm a big fan of the random article button). Anti vandalism intrigues me too. In all honesty though, I'm just happy to contribute in any way that I can, and knowing that I don't need to have a Masters Degree in anything to help makes me feel a lot more better.
 * I hope you don't mind me bouncing ideas and questions off you as a sort of impromptu adoptee, especially as far as policies go (I'll copy and paste those policies you specified onto my user page so I don't forget them. Far from putting me off, you have removed the fears I had, which I really appreciate. LampGenie01 (talk) 11:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That's very good to hear and, of course, you'd be very welcome to contact me in an "impromptu adoptee" sort of way if you have any difficulties or questions. You may also find me at the WP:TEAHOUSE where a whole load of people answer questions right round the clock - so feel free to ask wherever fits you best, or if you need a speedy reply. (Only thing is, it's never good etiquette to ask the same question in two  places at once as this duplicates effort). Goodness- you did bite off a lot with a new article and tables, too. (I did a similar thing here, and it was exhausting but also quite fascinating.) Funnily enough, I found random spelling-checking a very good way in to finding weird and interesting articles in need of help, and that led on to other behind-the-scenes maintenance tasks. I use this setting to display current changes and to spot vandalism. Just click the "diff" link to open in a new tab and browse to see what changes have been made. I have installed a little tool called "Twinkle" which makes the task of rolling back bad-faith changes, as well as leaving a gentle (and then escalating) warning notice(s) on the editors' talk page. If it continues, the user can be reported with that tool, too,  so making the task relatively easy.  If you look at the top of my user page you'll see a little userbox which shows the level of current vandalism. You'd  be welcome to copy this and put it onto your talk page as it serves as a flag to alert me to an "all hands to the pumps" situation, if I'm so motivated to go and help out. Remember - nobody forces you to do anything here, so it's a case of choosing what you find rewarding and satisfying. All the best,  Nick Moyes (talk) 12:47, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Adoption 2
Hi, Nick. I've used WP since 2005, but I've never had formal guidance, and there's a lot about WP and Wiki features that I've never taken the time to learn. Today, I came across a page I would like to have edited lightly, and found that it has a history of contention was locked and for admins only. While exploring how to get admin status, I found this adoption program, and I think it makes sense to start here and get some support before getting more involved. I hope you have time to take me on. I work in bursts, with long periods of WP inactivity. Best wishes and thanks, Dominik Wujastyk 17:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello I've moved your question to a new section, as it's easier to answer here. There are a number of things to say. Firstly, aspiring to be an admin is admirable, but absolutely not required to be a good editor for any article, whatsoever, even if protected. It takes a real commitment and often years of dedicated work across many areas of behind-the-scenes Wikipedia to contribute in an administrative capacity. If you wish to suggest an improvement to a protected page, you will see a link on that page to request an edit - this is your best route. I've looked at your editing interests and, to be honest, I don't feel they coincide sufficiently with my own for me to do you justice by taking you on as a single point of contact for adoption, though another editor might be better suited. That said, I'm happy to answer any specific questions you might have right now, here, but I do recommend that you take advantage of our friendly Teahouse where we answer questions right round the clock on any subject. You might find me there, too. I hope this is OK. Alternatively, you can add a  template to your own talk page, and post a question which should be answered less publicly. Best wishes from the UK, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Rollback granted
Hi Nick Moyes. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ANick_Moyes enabled] rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback: If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Mz7 (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
 * Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
 * Rollback should never be used to edit war.
 * If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
 * Use common sense.
 * - Thanks very much for sorting this. I installed Huggle today, but have hit a brick wall in that, at login, I get the following message: "Login failed on enwiki: You don't have rollback permissions on this project." (I clearly do, as I've been experimenting with using it!) I wsa able to get read-only access, but no more. I was using the bot password issued to me and, as instructed on the Huggle page, had set up User:Nick Moyes/huggle.css with "enable:true" in it (though it did warn me, on saving, that there was an error on the page, despite pasting it exactly). Should I take this to the feedback page, or can you advise? Many thanks, Nick Moyes (talk) 00:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'm not sure why that is happening. When you set up your bot password, did you grant the password the right to use rollback? I think you have to specifically flip that switch on yourself. You definitely have rollback. I think the feedback page would probably be the better spot to ask your question. Best of luck, Mz7 (talk) 03:07, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * No, I didnt change anything as I wasn't expecting to. So, I'll have another look there. Thanks. Nick Moyes (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * , yep that fixed it. I've left a suggestion at the Feedback page to make it clearer in the Huggle startup notice that one needs to select the right that one wants even though one thought one already had it. A case of the Donald Rumsfeld "unknown knowns", methinks! Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Here we go again...
Draft:Defiant Wrestling has just been created. This is the article that just won't die... -  Galatz Talk  04:13, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, that's speedily dealt with. Have just CSD G4-ed it. Looks like is another Sock Puppet. Amazing how one can draft 33,000 bytes of new content all in one go like that. Stunning. Glad to see you've already reported the sock. Maybe I can also look forward to some more foul-mouthed abusive attacks from supporters. Hey ho.  Nick Moyes (talk) 09:20, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks -  Galatz Talk  12:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice
I am the editor formerly known as CanadaDayShouldBeOnJuly1st. I have taken your much appreciated advice, and changed this. I cannot seem to figure out how to do an "edit summary" or to make my changes appear in bold. I'm afraid I'm not very good at this, but I wanted to try. CanadaDayShouldBeOnJuly1st (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't worry - everything is daunting at first. But it can be very rewarding, albeit not financially! (You might like to experiment by taking the interactive tour called The Wikipedia Adventure -it's aimed more at younger audiences but it takes you through all the main steps in editing). The edit summary box is close to the big blue "Publish Changes" button.  We have two choices of editor. In the "Edit Source" version its at the bottom of the page, and in Visual Editor (the more WYSIWYG version) its in the floating box, labelled 'Summary' that comes up when you hit Publish Changes. Later on you'll discover you can set all sorts of preferences for editing (see:  Special:Preferences) There, I've ticked the box "Warn me when I leave an edit page with unsaved changes" so I don't forget. For emboldening,  either use three apostrophes either side of the word to be in bold, or select the text and look for the B in the tools bar above the editing screen. You can select italics in the same way. Use bold very sparingly - really only to repeat the article title  in the lead sentence, not for highlighting. I can't tell you how we all learn these things - we just pick them up as we do lots  of  little  editing tasks and see how others have done stuff. (Referencing is one of the hardest routine tasks - shout at the TEAHOUSE if you need help further help. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 16:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Help regarding archiving my talk page
Hell! Dear Nick Moyes, I want a help regarding archiving my talk page. I read WP:ARCHIVE and used MiszaBot to archive my talk page, but I encountered few problems. It is archiving contents in between my talk page, randomly. I observed that you use ClueBot III. Please suggest me which is better and more automated. You can edit my talk page, if I have done any mistake with the Markup there. SouravDas1998t@lk to me? 12:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Apologing
Im sorry if i created a draft of Defiant Wrestling I created because I didn't knew the problems but I search what was going and the page i saw the issues and I'm sorry I don't want problems I just want to start a new journey here in Wikipedia and I will not repeat the same mistake again I promise TheAnthem67 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 21:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK. I found it amazing you managed to create all that content from scratch. I shall be monitoring your activities as I suspect many sock puppets are at work in this arena. (Pun intended). Nick Moyes (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello!
Hello Nick! I'm Coloradodude19, and I'm a new editor on here. I am super excited to start editing on here! Please take a moment and welcome me, too! I already have a welcome to Wikipedia template on my talk page, but I would love if you welcomed me here, please! Thanks! Regards from the United States of America, Coloradodude19 (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hello, my friend. Whilst I do welcome you, I rather wish you hadn't reached out to me here. How should I respond? I can't ignore your message, of course. As we both know, editing Wikipedia can be super-exciting, and I know how much you personally get out of it. Just as in real life, there are rules and processes that have to be followed and respected, and sometimes when we step over them - even at times of extreme irritation - we have to accept the consequences of our actions. Those rules may seem unfair; we may even see ways around them to carry on doing what we love doing. But it's usually better for all concerned if we accept those rules and punishment and wait until we've been forgiven. Then we can come back stronger, having learned our lessons, and keener than ever to contribute positively and collaboratively. I am not sure you are ready for that yet, young man, or that Wikipedia is quite ready for you right now. I think it would probably have been better had this 'new user' waited a year or two before starting editing. I think it best that you hear this from me first, and  my advice is not to use this account any more, and to declare on your user page any connections with a certain other account. A block is what it is (assuming it's still in place) and your edits are so characteristic that you would soon have been noticed by others. Being open and contrite now, and then going to WP:ARBCOM after an appropriate period away and declaring a wish to return to editing is, I think, the best and most honest way forward for you. You have my very best wishes at heart, regards Nick Moyes (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the interruption. I agree with what you wrote above, and I like the advice you gave me. Cheers! Coloradodude19 (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Bayesian
An article that you have been involved in editing&mdash;Bayesian&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Reverting vandalism
Hi I see the patient and thorough way you deal with questions on the Teahouse, so I wanted to reach out with a question of my own. I recently started using Twinkle to revert vandalism and welcome/warn new users. Can you take brief look at my efforts so far and let me know if I'm doing it right? Because of the large number of edits involved with reverting vandalism, I feel like if I am somehow doing it incorrectly, the negative consequences would be exaggerated, so I want to confirm that I'm doing it right.

Thanks so much, Hillelfrei  • talk •  23:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . I will try and sample a few of your edits for you. The key thing when using Twinkle to revert possible vandalism and to leave templates messages is to imagine how you would feel if you got one ...especially if you believed you were editing reasonably. It may be hard for me to sample your edits and say 'yes', you're doing fine -or not. It is so important that you have confidence that your actions are justifiable, and to be fully willing to apologise profusely if/when you get it wrong. You will know that if you get a lot of 'bite back'. Remember that it's easy to 'tweak' a templated message or to leave a comment which further explains why you've made some revert or left some warning. Every one of us will make mistakes - that's inevitable - but being able to learn from our errors is the really important thing. (But please don't tell me wife I said that, as I feel a totally different set of rules applies in domestic situations! There, I am, of course, always right.) I will get back to you, either here, or on your own talk page. A bientot. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * this warning was excellent
 * With this warning] about three edits to Yui Mizuno, I felt you were too strict. For two, possibly three, bad faith edits, I'd have given a 2nd level 'Caution' warning.
 * For the ten edits made by an IP at Mamnun_Hasan_Emon which you reverted, I am genuinely unsure what they were about. Without a bit more effort on my part to check, I am unsure if they are subtle vandalism, or good faith edits. If the former, your response was quite right; if the latter, it was over the top. I suspect you were right to act as you did. If you get comeback or a revert - be ready to say 'sorry'.
 * With this warning I think it was more of a case of a silly person testing if they can fiddle with an article. So I'd simply have left them a 3rd level'test edit' warning - much less accusative than a vandalism warning.
 * From these few checks, I don't sense you are doing things too badly. try to imagine why an editor does what they do. Revert edits with a comment like 'reverting childish edit' can be more powerful than leaving a nasty, officious vandalism warning. Equally, many people try to make tiny tweaks to Wikipedia, just to see if they can actually edit it. So, WP:AGF, and leave Twinkle Templates relevant to 'edit testing' wherever you can.
 * Where you see three bad faith edits in a row, just leave a level 2 warning unless they're really appalling (racism/neonazi/foul-mouthed etc). That gives them a chance to amend their ways. Make sure Twinkle is adding usernames and pages you've warned about to your Watchlist, and think about going back there to check on recent edits or warnings. Your earlier warnings and other people's wanrings may add to a picture you can act upon by reporting to WP:AIV if the problems appear to be continuing.
 * I realise I've only looked at a tiny sample, so if you want to come back and highlight any particular warning and ask me what I think, I'm happy to do that. However, my impression is that you're doing fine. The fact that you went to the trouble to ask me to check, tells me you are a considerate editor. You have my confidence. In haste, Nick Moyes (talk) 23:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Got it, I'll keep this in mind. I can definitely see how silly or test edits warrant cautions rather than warnings, plus sufficient explanations. Thanks for your time. -- Hillelfrei • talk •  00:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Quick question - if I notice someone's contribs with two vandalizing edits on separate articles, do I leave a level 1 and a level 2 notice at once? Or, since I only noticed all the vandalism at one time I just leave a level 1 so they have a chance to receive and read one level notice at a time? Hillelfrei   talk   02:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi . I'd leave a level 2 warning, leaving a note in Twinkle's optional comment box, saying:"This is your second damaging edit - please don't make any more." Nick Moyes (talk) 05:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

note re your message
I wrote a reply to your note at the other editor's talk page; I would like to discuss it here, if that is okay. thanks. what time frame do you wish me to agree to? I am open to accepting a specific time frame. Do you feel that twelve months is the time period you prefer? thanks. --- Sm8900★ 🌎 23:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Whilst, I don't wish to be sucked into a long conversation over this - sorry - I was genuinely trying to be helpful. I know your heart is in the right place. I knew my bluntness in my reply on 's talk page might either offend you, or steer you to better ways of working. Yes, I really do think a 12 month commitment to only editing article content (whilst still enabling you to contribute at WP:HISTORY) would be the best outcome for you and the Project. Are you agreeable to that, my friend? Nick Moyes (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * well, I am relieved that you are willing to discuss this amicably. yes, your message at Iridescent's talk page caused me huge emotional distress. I do not want to create a prolonged discussion either. I am open to ALL your guidance on this. I am practically crying with distress at this point. your willingness to discuss this calmly is a source of huge relief to me. yes, I would like to discuss this here, is that is okay.
 * to begin with, could you please tell me whether anything that I actually did at WP:Village pump (proposals) was somehow counter to WP:CIVIL? and yes, I did try to improve my behaviour and editing habits in EVERY respect. I have NOT canvassed at all. I only made one or two proposals since then. and a proposal that I made at WP: Community bulletin board was entirely accepted and AGREED upon by user:Moxy and user:Headbomb. so it seemed like the main two parties to the initial issue has admirably and commenably overcome any prior objections they might have had.
 * can we please discuss this via email? I am greatly worried by the overall tone of this. I am glad to discuss this with you. I would like to do so in an atmosphere where we can both approach each other calmly, positively and constructively. I wouild greatly appreciate your understanding. I will email you now. thanks. --- Sm8900★ 🌎 00:16, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, . If I were in your shoes, I think I'd also be deeply, deeply upset by what I said to you, and by what others have said to you. I would probably also be crying too, because it's really not nice to be told to stop doing stuff. I know that; I would be in tears, too. But, no, I am not agreeable to discussing things with you by email. I honestly do not want to be sucked into having to discuss every minutiae of every past discussion, and I am not going to look back to past discussions to evaluate every issue. Look: I do know that you care about Wikipedia; I also know that you want to improve it. But, unfortunately, you've not done it in the right way. You simply need to recognise that, especially as it's upset/annoyed/irritated rather a lot of experienced editors. So, by asking you to agree to taking a step back, and taking a 12 month time-out - I'm hoping you can contribute well to article space, as can the rest of us. Best wishes (and have a hug, too, if you feel that helps). Nick Moyes (talk) 00:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ok. what are the choices here? by the way, I sent you an email, because I had not seen your reply here; you can feel free to disregard it. ok, but what are the options here? are you open to discussing this matter, or the length of time? or are you saying that if I do not agree, you will go to WP:ANI? by the way, I made a set of proposals at another venue, which were fully AGREED to by both Moxy and Headbomb, who were the editors primarily raising issues with my prior statements. So I thought I had succeeded in resolving this positively. and I went out of my way to be fully courteous at WP:Village Pump (proposals), just now. as far as accepting a twelve-month limit, I would be open to that proposal, but I would prefer to address this via an alternate approach.


 * I am willing to take a step back NOW, and furthermore, to not make any improper proposals on a PERMANENT basis. I don't see any need or any reason to make any in the near future, and again, I am willing to accept any guidelines on a permanent basis. I thought I WAS honoring what I said to you previously, I DID forgo any proposals for a length of time, as you said, and further I made sure to not canvass anyone regarding any ideas. I don't necessarily disagree with twelve months as a time frame;l simply am not sure that the time period you suggest as a moratorium would be effective; I would prefer to simply to agree to improve my conduct, editing habits, etc, any way you wish, right NOW, in a PERMANENT fashion.  I think that is much superior as a long-term solution. by the way, could you please let me know if you are willing to discuss further? I am open to any and all guidance and insights on  this. Please feel free to let me know. I greatly appreciate your assistance. I don't necessarily disagree with the need for twelve months, but I don't specifically agree, either; I am saying that I don't have any underlying agenda; as I have nothing currently that I need to propose, but I simply would like to resolve this more positively NOW, rather than assuming no amicable agreement is possible, without a lengthy moratorium. I am open to ANY response you may wish to provide. thanks. --- Sm8900★ 🌎  01:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I am probably not going to respond to your email. I will, however, do you the courtesy of reading it tomorrow. But, right now, you ask what your options are. I can't speak for the community of editors; I can only speak for what I think they might want. I believe they  (including  and ) would seek a commitment from you to a complete 12 month break from all non-article based edits (except for allowing you to focus on what (I assumed) was your prime interest: WP:HISTORY.) And when you resume activity there, that you'd be more willing to 'let go of the bone' when others don't support your proposals. That seems to have been the real problem here -  the rather large time-sink that your ideas and input have caused. I could ask you to make that commitment at WP:ANI, rather than here on my talk page. But if, having considered what I've proposed, and you're agreeable, then can we hold you to that? If you do agree, and then breach that agreement, I would be agreeable to implementing a full editing block for the remainder of that 12 month period. I can't force you to accept this, as it's only my suggestion, not that of the whole community. But if you do accept here, we'll probably hold you to it. I don't want to get into a huge and detailed discussion of all the minutiae of past discussions here, so would refer back to WP:ANI if you're not comfortable with these proposals. If you feel I am not being supportive of you, but am being a heavy-handed bastard and a jerk, then do please say so now. I'm OK if you feel that. But I really hope you see that I am actually saying this for the good of Wikipedia and also of yourself (even if you don't think that right now!). Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 01:36, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Nick Moyes, I appreciate your reply above. and yes, thank you for the courtesy of being willing to read my email. I do appreciate that. I have read al your points, and I am open to any guidance that you may have. with respect, may I ask what time-sink are you referring to? I accepted all suggestions put to me to modify my proposal, and asked for further feedback. More importantly, I took seriously the commitment to not implement ANY proposal without first getting FULL consensus. and also, I took very seriously the commitment to NOT canvass for any proposal, but rather to present it simply in a single appropriate venue for making formal proposals, i.e. WP:Village pump (proposals), and to allow discussion to proceed there. and furthermore, I was specifically careful to do so courteously, and to hear all opinions and feedback put to me. and again, I made sure to fully adhere to WP:Civil, and to to WP:AGF, two core principles which I fully agree with. I do NOT think you are being a jerk. I think you are motivated by a sincere desire to improve Wikipedia. I simply am asking you to sincerely hear me out, and pursue a more positive, constructive, collegial and helpful way to fully and completely resolve this NOW. as you yourself said above, once any putative 12-month had elapsed, you would still have a suggestion as to how I could positively proceed. so my preference would be instead to adopt any such guidelines now, to make a permanent improvement in any area desired. I appreciate your consideration. thanks. --- Sm8900★ 🌎 02:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Persistency is a virtue in life but leads you to the dark side here on Wikipedia. Two editors have this problem as of late and any moratorium they're willing to join to prevent them from being blocked would be great.-- Moxy 🍁 01:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Pronouncing that you're going to restrict yourself to editing articles for 12 months, isn't necessary, as you're not currently facing a ban or block. Just practice that self-restriction & all will be well. Question is - What happens when those 12 months are up. :) GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am very pleased to see you here. you and I have successfully forged a highly positive working relationship in recent weeks!! I highly value your considerable insights, knowledge, and helpful input in various items here recently. and we did have a rather successful exchange, over at WP:CBB, didn't we? I was highly pleased to accept every one of your wise suggestions fully, and to get a much-improved outcome as a result. similarly, as well for . I like and appreciate your willingness to engage here.
 * ok, so Moxy, I will open the question. you have been largely fair, helpful, and interactive in our recent discussions, and I welcome your input. forget for a moment about a moratorium for the time being, although I am NOT disagreeing with that idea outright. just please tell me, which guidelines, modifications to my conduct, editing approach, etc, would you like to see me adopt? you are the one who has had the most experience out of anyone I know with putting aside past differences, and finding ways to work together POSITIVELY. so I would invite your input here. Please feel free to offer any suggestions, insight, or guidance. I see no reason to not abide by any guidelines or principles that you might indicate. only, let's continue to have a discussion that is constructive and positive, on things we can do positively to resolve this now, rather than trying to freeze things for twelve months. by the way, we can discuss this here, or alternately on your talk page; whereever you find it most convenient. thanks!! --- Sm8900★ 🌎 01:55, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * CaptainEek here, I've been trying to mentor Sm8900. I've had some communication with them, and am hoping that them agreeing to edit only content for the next year would be a good solution. I'm willing to continue working with them to show them the content ropes. I think part of the issue is that Sm8900 has not been involved in much content work, and just wasn't sure how to go about it. Thus instead of content, they turned their enthusiasm towards an area they had worked more: behind the scenes. I'm hoping to turn their great energy towards writing some good articles! At the end of the year I can talk to Sm8900 and evaluate how they've grown in the course of a year. Who knows, they might find after a year of article writing that there is no need to push such ardent reforms, or will hopefully emerge more knowledgeable about our core policies and the realities of day-to-day editing :) Smooth sailing, CaptainEek  Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 02:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going to ask to weigh in here. because they and, more than anyone I know or have ever seen at Wikipedia, have been simultaneously willing to put aside all differences and work with me positively on ideas they thought had any merit, yet simultaneously let me know when I was overdoing it a tad, or alternately making a complete hash of things. I like, respect, and admire all of their input, and would like to invite them to weigh in. as you can all see, my own mentor is here, and all they could suggest was to fully agree with the suggestion for punishment to be meted out to me, when I have gone out of my way to FULLY abide by WP:Civil, WP:AGF, etc, and as I will say AGAIN, if you want an example of two editors who willingly and admirably put past differences aside, in order to work with me on positive ideas, look no further than Moxy and Headbomb, both of whom have been more than willing to let me know flat out when they thought I was on the wrong track. and , I appreciate your positive sentiments as well. however, sorry, but just to correct you, I am under a threat of a ban. or a block. or worse. with that said, I am fully willing to work with, accept, understand and abide by ANY and all guidance and insight provided to me here, by the considerably knowledgable and insightful experienced editors gathered here.


 * My only request that we take steps to resolve this positively NOW. I am willing to adopt any positive guidelines and insight provided to me now. Adopting a 12-month freeze will not resolve the problem; it will exacerbate it. it will put a permanent stigma on me that would not improve my relationship with anyone who is already pre-disposed to view me negatively. Again, currently, I am not planning to present any proposals, and do not anticipate doing so for the forseeable future. but if I did, I would like to get the guidance needed now to do so properly. and again, with the two editors who showed the most willingness to challenge me when they felt I was wrong, there is NO need for a moratorium to restore positivity; they have both ALREADY reached that point, willingly, and openly, without any request from myself, but rather driven simply by a basic willingness and common openness to ignore past differences, and place those aside, and to work together to make Wikipedia a better place. THAT is the focus that I would most aspire to, and that is the discussion in the PRESENT that I would most heartfully recommend and request to this assemblage here. thanks. --- Sm8900★ 🌎  02:28, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Due keep in mind. Refusing or failing to get the point in a polite fashion, is still refusing or failing to get the point. GoodDay (talk) 02:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * okay. well, in that case, let me just briefly say, I do not have any proposals I am planning to present right now. but I would prefer to get an answer to the question of exactly how my most recent interaction was improper in any way; and let me say in advance that I will willingly accept any guidelines, recommendations, or indications put to me on how to behave and exhibit conduct that would be on a better and more compliant level. and let me also say, since I have no plans right now to present any proposals, how about a viable alternative to any such punitive measures? such as, before submitting any such proposals on any level, I first submit to a further level of review? such as contacting any individual admin or experienced editor, getting their full feedback, and restricting myself to taking only the steps that they indicate are acceptable? that is just one possible option. I am just trying to demonstrate that I do get it. I thought the point of Village Pump was that it is an acceptable venue to discuss such proposals, and NOT to try to discuss, present, or act upon any such proposals in any other location in any way. so that is a principle that I willingly take very seriously. --- Sm8900★ 🌎 03:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not particularly interested in revisiting the specifics that lead to this, but since you've asked me to comment and give you advice, and you seem to be having a hard time, I'll give you these words of advice: review WP:HERE (third point). Not as a contrast to WP:NOTHERE, but rather absorb what it means on its own. You had an idea you felt strongly about, the community didn't buy in. That happens. But the point of Wikipedia is not to have certain behind-the-scenes page fall inline with your [or anyone's] vision of what a behind-the-scenes page should be. The point of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia that represents the sum of human knowledge. That is, creating and improving articles. Find a topic you like. Maybe you like dancing. Maybe you like cars. Maybe you like coin-collecting. Browse WP:Wikiproject and find stuff you're interested in. Join them. Watch their article alerts pages. Get involved in cleanup. Improve sourcing. Write. And just ignore the back end until you actually need to get involved in the back end. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 05:06, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * okay. I do appreciate your reply to me. that sounds reasonable. thanks. --- Sm8900★ 🌎 05:44, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * by the way, it so happens, I like Agency-specific police departments of the United States. And political charters. And diplomatic conferences. And Domestic implements. And Exploration of North America. And, the Sono arsenic filter. and one entirely new type of article, 2020s in political history. so, see? I do have some actual interests. I appreciate you asking. thanks!! --- Sm8900★ 🌎 12:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

New accord and understandings

 * Hey, I've just read you email - sorry for the hiatus as I'm in UTC+1 time here in the UK, and have just got up. First off - have a big hug from me, if that helps. I'm really sorry that what I said distressed you. By my being intentionally blunt, I was trying to be 'cruel to be kind'. First off, don't be fearful that I am going to personally block you. That would be a community decision if any matter ever went back to ANI. Yes, I think you committing to yourself and your mentor,, to shift focus permanently towards front-of-house content changes is an excellent idea, not requiring you to commit to some informal agreement on pain of pain blocked if you breached it. But steering away permanently from any more of those niggling and seemingly repetitive editor interactions to push forward some change that nobody else feels strongly supportive about is going to be helpful for everyone involved here. It's when someone starts trying to get to the bottom of every minutiae of an interaction and then politely forces everyone else to explain precisely what they mean, how, precisely, someone is perceived to have done something wrong, and it's when they demand 'chapter and verse' on what it is that is all so irritating and exhausting everyone else... - it's at exactly that point that everyone simply wants them to stop talking and take in that everyone else is telling them something different. That should - on its own - be enough. I've seen this with teenage schoolgirls so often - they can irritate the hell out of everyone around them by wanting to sort out everyone's problems for them, but in so doing make every else simply want to give them a slap, or to say something so mind-blowingly  rude, just to stop them from going on.
 * -problem is- the behind the scenes stuff can sometimes get like that gaggle of schoolgirls. If just one of them doesn't know when to stop, it causes more problems than it solves. That, I think, had been your past trait, and it's one that I was pleased to hear you had been addressing - at least until I was dragged into last night's discussion on  's talk page. It's the skill to sense when to "back off and 'drop the stick'" and to stay quiet that perhaps needs nurturing. I do think the areas of content creation and anti-vandalism really teaches one the need for precision and conciseness when interacting with others here. (Of course, I appreciate this reply is, itself a bit TL;DR, but I am still genuinely trying to be helpful and supportive, even if it doesn't sound like it to you right now.)
 * Please don't feel the need to reply in equal measure. Either a short rejection of what I'm saying, or a short acknowledgement of what you're going to PERMANENTLY do or not do from here on in will suffice. Keep it short and simple from now on is my best advice. Let's all get on with adding content to this encyclopaedia. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi Nick. thank you sincerely for your great reply. yes, I do appreciate the thoughts and sentiments that you express above. and your statement above of what steps on my part would be helpful is simple and easy to follow. Now. as to your highly positive question about what I am willing to do for the future. here it is:
 * 1. well, I think one simple commitment would be to avoid the behaviors that defined this interaction. I thought that going from Idea Lab to the Proposals tab, in order to generate a greater volume of response, was a legitimate move. since it appears it wasn't, then I can agree to not do so.
 * 2. I think your additional point above was that if a proposal does not have any apparent support in the venue where I presented it, then I should simply drop it, rather than seeking to further discuss it, tweak it, seek modifications, trying to pare it down, etc etc. is that accurately stated? I think that's your point. Based on that, I am fully glad to commit to fully avoiding any such behavior as well. If I did make a proposal, hypothetically, and someone else responded with significant objections, and no one responded in support, then I could discard that proposal.
 * I would like to note that I might fully discontinue a discussion of some item in a public venue, but then might seek counsel from my mentor if possible, or someone else who agrees to help me with any questions I have; in other words, any requests for further input would not be on multiple talk pages, but I would want to be able to be able to turn to at least some experienced person here who would be agreeable to providing positive guidance and blunt feedback.
 * 3. If an experienced, good-faith editor such as yourself provides further input on any behaviors that are problematic, then I will be glad to utterly refrain from such behaviors immediately.
 * 4. and further just as an article of good faith, I can agree to make no more proposals for the next few weeks; at least two weeks, and probably a good deal more than that. I am not trying to be litigous about this; in truth, I would have to be rather... unwise... to make any new proposals now. So I agree entirely, better to take a step back and concentrate only on basic editing for now.
 * 5. You asked above that I avoid revisiting minutiae. No problem, I will avoid doing so. Please note though, in order to fully address any concerns, sometime I may ask in good faith for information on the actual details for any specific concerns expressed. So your statement on that above is of great value. I may ask you for other details, if needed and if this colloquy develops further.


 * the only thing I would ask, and this is FULLY consistent with my initial statements above, is that ANY concerns be presented in the form of a positive dialogue. one of the main reasons for my distress was I was truly perplexed by all this. I was trying to understand, how can I have reached a plateau of positive accord with Moxy and Headbomb in certain specific matters, and yet be coming back to this issue as if nothing had changed? that was my sincere question on this. so please assume that I am truly open to any and all feedback, that any questions are in good faith, and that I am open to real discussion and real change.


 * so does that cover it? if not feel free to present any other points. or alternately, feel free to discuss or present any concerns to my mentor. you do wear the admin hat now, so I feel that my asking you to allow for any positive discussion of any such concerns is simply fair and valid.  if desired, please do absolutely feel free to cite any other concerns that you may have. I sincerely hope I have addressed all of your concerns above. if not, feel free to let me know; I will willingly accept any other points that you may make. I hope that is helpful. your insights are appreciated. thanks!!! --- Sm8900★ 🌎  12:33, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, you know, I think that does over it. Well done and thank you. If it helps, I am willing to put in a bit of blunt and or subtle feedback from time to time - but maybe you might discuss that first with  or, or any other current mentor. It might even be a good idea if one of those mentors makes that initial approach to a third party, rather than yourself. That way, nobody can unfairly accuse you of bothering them unnecessarily with some matter or another that they deem trivial, but which is important to you.
 * Finally, maybe this near-global lockdown is making some of us more grumpy than usual, and more prone to sharp words. Sorry about that. Best, Nick Moyes (talk) 14:04, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick. thanks so much for your positive reply, and for all your help. I am very glad that we could reach some positive accord on this. I am very glad to hear all of your insights above. I will be glad to follow all guidelines set above, and also, I will be glad to hear any other concerns that you may have. I appreciate all your help. if I have further questions, I will let you know, but I think this has covered all points. and also, thanks very much for your gracious and generous apology above. that is very thoughtful and considerate of you. I appreciate it. thanks very much!! see you. --- Sm8900★ 🌎 23:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * To be clear, since I keep being brought up in this discussion. I'm neither hostile to nor supportive of the recent events, and offer moral support as encouragement to find something you like doing on Wikipedia. But beyond the words I offered above, I am unwilling to be that mentor. I'll also note that a "solemn commitment" to anything in "permanently" seems a bit silly to me. You had one idea (or group of ideas) that didn't fly. Just stop pushing for that idea / set of ideas. Doesn't mean you can't have other good ideas, but if you find support lacking, it likely means support isn't there. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * hi . thanks so much for your helpful note above. you feedback above is extremely helpful and positive, and I greatly appreciate it. your insights were very helpful in elevating this entire discussion, and proceeding into a much constructive and helpful note, and for that I greatly and deeply thank you.


 * In the future, I may run some ideas, suggestions, etc by you on your talk page, based on your highly useful and valuable input here. yes, I agree with you, you do not need to be my mentor; in other words, I would not approach you for input on my own personal editing style. however, your input here on procedural matters, and your input in recent discussions regarding ideas that I had proposed, were all extremely helpful. Based on that, I may approach you for your feedback and insights, in the future, . Don't worry, as I noted above, I will be taking a hiatus of some duration, as I already noted above. but I do appreciate your help. and if i do come by your talk page, you are still absolutely free of course to decline to comment, or to simply say "sorry, but that idea just doesn't wash with me." or to provide any and all other feedback you may wish.


 * Anyway, I do appreciate all of your insights above. again, you were the first person to respond favorably to my request for simple positive input on some direct and specific information on ways that I could improve, and any steps that might enable me to positively address this situation, and to move on and get things back to normal. I really appreciate your help. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi all. To, and to others here, I just want to let you know that I will be placing a message on some individual talk pages for a few editors who have been directly involved in discussions relating to these issues, to let them know of the new clarifications, and the new accord and understandings reached here on this page, above. the reason for this is simple; I have already been directly contacted by some editors with some emphasis, letting me know that they were viewing my actions as having been subjected to some constraints, based on the discussion several months ago at WP:ANI.

Based on that, it seems somewhat appropriate to notify a few editors who may have made some direct comments, to let them know the situation has now been positively clarified, modified, and updated and brought to a clearer and more specific positive resolution in a positive manner, based on the colloquy above.

this seems like a worthwhile and helpful way to bring this whole issue to a positive resolution, and to allow our activities and interactions to proceed more positively from this point forward, in the future. I hope that sounds okay. If you wish, please feel free to comment. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 17:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

One suggestion I have is not to tell people who are providing constructive feedback to assume good faith, act civilly, and not to make personal comments. The vast majority of the feedback I've seen has been on your actions and not made any assumptions on your personal motivations. I feel editors have made extreme efforts to assume good faith on your part and try to guide you towards productive areas, and so telling them to assume good faith is disheartening and engenders bad feelings. isaacl (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * telling them to assume good faith is disheartening and engenders bad feelings.. let me get this straight, asking people to assume good faith engenders bad faith? your statement itself is disheartening. But I mean that with 100% desire to put this behind us, to move ahead positively, and to work with you positively in any respect.  So actually, I do appreciate your suggestion, and will sincerely take it to heart.  can we please agree to addressing this positively, and moving forward positively? I appreciate your help and understanding. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The vast majority of the feedback I've seen has been on your actions and not made any assumptions on your personal motivations. with respect, then you have not read this talk page very closely. please go back, and read it again. the measure that was being offered here was to bar me for twelve months from entire venues at Wikipedia. to their credit, the editors who proposed that, were entirely open to finding positive ways to compromise and to move ahead together positively. but I think that a measure of that magnitude does signify some doubt about my motives, doesn't it? and also, did you read the talk page section at the prior discussion that led here? seriously, I appreciate your attempt to be positive. but I think you are somewhat mistaken. Several people here were quite disenchanted with me, my motives, my approach, and my actions. with that said, the people who felt that way were ENTIRELY motivated by a desire to make Wikipedia a better place. Based on that I have absolutely accepted and implemented ALL of their concerns and feedback. I will be glad to continue to do so. And I do entirely appreciate your positive intent in trying to be helpful, and in commenting here. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 18:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have of course read the feedback closely. I did not say that no one was disenchanted with you, so I don't know what you believe I am mistaken about. Yes, telling people to do things that they are doing already is disheartening, and makes me sad as well, knowing that reaching out in good faith is being misinterpreted as bad faith. Asking editors to address matters positively when they've gone to great lengths to do so already is dispiriting. Being misquoted (no one said that bad faith was being engendered) is discouraging. isaacl (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, I accept, and agree with, all of your valuable points above. and I appreciate your suggestions entirely and in full. is that helpful? as you yourself said, " I feel editors have made extreme efforts to assume good faith on your part and try to guide you towards productive areas." ok, fair enough. since you have specifically said that you do assume good faith on my part, I do genuinely and seriously appreciate that statement on your part. Seriously, thank you. and based on that, I hope we can move on, to addressing this issue positively and working together, based on your highly positive and helpful comments above. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Getting to the point: SM8900, ease off on the paragraph after paragraph of excruciatingly over-polite replies. Isaacl has a point about AGF and I'm darned if I was going to explain it to you. Ease off on making any proposals for as long as you possibly can. A year would be lovely; two weeks is far too short -you decide for yourself, and surprise us all, please. Ease off on innumerable edits to my and other people's talk pages - that can irritate too. Just go get on with some content creation or anti-vandalism work, please, and let us live in peace. I think this discussion should end now. Nick Moyes (talk) 19:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC).

I agree. Thanks. —Sm8900 (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank You!
Thank you for informing me, I will check the Teahouse out! I will keep those points in mind while I edit Wikipedia. Thanks! Dani Hart (Talk) 13:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)