User talk:Being.aussie

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Being.human. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Yashovardhan (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Being.human, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Being.human! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Worm That Turned (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017

Hello, I'm Takeaway. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Acar, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. - Takeaway (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Birbal. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Repeated vandalism can result in the loss of editing privileges. Thank you. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 22:18, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Im still editing, this is no vandalism, lease read the reason cited,, pls come to talk page of that edit. I am pointingout that article is POV and biased and it has been vandalized by posting large CHUNKS OF PRIMARY OPINIONS, so dotn just revert, leave my tags in there and discuss in the talk page please wait for few minutes for me to update talk page after my edits, my edit is only a tag to show other vandalism. I am disapppointed because you are calling me a vandal beause I pinpointed vandalism on the current page? Please take back your statements and restore my edits until this issue is resolved on the talk page. Being.human (talk) 22

25, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Birbal

I urge you to assume good faith to other editors and explain your issue here without SHOUTING or needlessly repeating. Observe the Talk page guidelines.

I've one of the contributors to Birbal and am here to listen to what you have to say. You have said a lot about Taskeen Ahmad Khan, that editor was a new user who made these edits which were undone anyway. There's nothing by that editor in the article to the best of my knowledge. That editor isn't blocked but redlinked since they haven't created a user page.

You then say the author C. M. Naim is biased and shouldn't be used. Over here, if there's a source on a subject that isn't reliable, other sources will covering that topic will prove it wrong or critique it. Our job isn't to judge for ourselves whether they are without this fundamental requirement. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Naim seems to be covered by other sources and there currently doesn't seem to be any reason to doubt his work's reliability. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

ps: I've removed your post to that above user who warned last because of it almost being like a personal attack. See No Personal Attacks. Never comment like that on another editor's judgement etc. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

ps: pls do not gangup on new users. he attcked me ith unfair warnign and running me off wiki and it wastes too much of efforts, he failed to remove vandalism and when i pointed thta out he issued me warning, it is already personal for someone to warn me like this so i hv to standup to wiki bullies and gangup behavior by "wiki old booys club" please take it in the right spirit, make wiki a wlecoming place, im happy to cooperate but i dont wnat anyone UNFAIRLY taggign me to warning nd pls take him to task and warn him abt his abd behavior (no drunken (on ego or alcohol or tiredness) wiki reverts and warning from any fellow editors, this is not on buddy....kindness begets kindness, if someone behaves irresponsiblle rude warning then i will respond ti defend myself and my work, im not emotioanly attached to my edits and im neutrla but i wnat to see wiki as collaborative work and not as an exclusive gang of "Wiki old boys club" who trip on deluded sense of grandiose by feeding their micro-self-esteem ego by tripping on issuing trigger-happy irresponsible warnings to valid edits, this is not on. pls restore my edits and restore my comments. block me, fine, u guys r creating such an unhappy place. I will take it to REVIEW BAORD..i jdont wanna waste ur n my time or others. dso dont bully me, dont game me, dont gangup on me, do not single me out (first puunish or warn the perosn who did wrong to me, then as a secondary clean up u can ask me to remove, REQUEST ME TO REMOVE it after u hv warned the irresponsible warning by others ot me, then uc an ask me nicely to remove my comment to clsoe the issue, dotn make it big issue) Being.human (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

about the Birbal, yes, thats more fruitful to tlak, edits by Dr TAKSEEN Ahmd KHAn are still there as i have highlighted on tlak page. if you are the diotr, then pls do not be emotioanlly attached, i hv alreayd mentioedn takseen is gaming and i will clean up birbal page and remove his edits, i also wish to know your BEND/BIAS because his edits (copyign CM ANIM, upto him to ) just others quoted CM NAIM,doe snot make NAIM a reputed or reliable soruces CRICULAR REFERENCES OF POOR RELIABILITY PRIMARY SORUCES IS NOT ACEPTABLE, even if DR TAKSEEN AHMD KHAN's bias based on NAIM's bias matches ur personal bias. I want to see NEUTRAL POV, not such PRIMARY BIASES by dubious CM NAIM (ebven if he is reqouted by more dubvious sources) bsdies he is quoted not from unreputed publlication, his work is not scholary work. I am goign to remove all that from birbal. if you wish to keep pls justify it fits reliable soruce, CM NAIM fails Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources, Wikipedia:No_original_research, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/ why remove my comments, thsta GAMING the wiki, let everyoen see my OBJECTIONS and you can refute those. at least keep my objjectiosn intact, its like u dont wnat others to see and review my objection and as if your EMOTIOANLLY ATATCKED to the current content (that contaisn vandalism ffrom Takseen based on PRIMARY OPINION/BIAS from unschoalry work of unreputed sruces CM NAIM), DELETE the edits i hv highlighted, LETS DO THE RIGHT THINGS, and we can mutually clean ..no need to waste time in lengthy appeals and review. cus i certainly take this to conclusion, no matter who gangs up on me Being.human (talk) 11:01, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

our job is to judge (peer-review) edits based on NO ORIGINAL RESEARCH criteria, CM NAIm does not pass that criteria. And even if takseen ahmad khans edits were reverted, then someone has taken his edits and inserted here, anyway, my objection si to those specific texts i mentioned on talk page of birbal, who is the editor responsible for inserting those, is it you? is that why you are emotionally attached, just remove, i am not interested in attacking other editors, but pls do not game the syste by ganging up with ur buddies to monopolise this bribal edits by tiny BIASED group of 1 or 2 editors who breach POV. as soon as i highlighted POV breach, i was immediately given warnign, WOOOAAAH soo FAST, what is this, WIKI ISIS TALIBAN in action agaiinst NEUTRAL POV? If BENEFIT OF DOUBT GOOD FAITH appleis then why was it not given to me and why WARNING was issued to me when i highlighted the vandalism and biased POV based on ORIGINAL UNSCHOLARY UNSUBSTAINTIATED RESEARCH of CM NAIM. 11:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

can u please teach me how to inbox (private msg) you directly, wall-to-wall is kinda not nice, sorry i dont knwo how to inbox so im stuck with wall-to-wall for now Being.human (talk) 11:15, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

There are no private messages on Wikipedia. All discussions are public. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Neil (NeilN, thanks buddy for your help, you are kind. Being.human (talk)

Disambiguation link notification for April 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Grand Trunk Road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Battle of Panipat. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:39, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow, or move it unilaterally against naming conventions or consensus. This includes making page moves while a discussion remains under way. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. Saqib (talk) 06:47, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I came across scores of wiki articles with incorrect names, specially of politicians with embellished and inflated titles in their name e.g. chaudhary and sardar etc being used as their first name whereas none of these are their official names but grandiose embellishments which are against wiki naming policies and no consensus is needed to correct such wrongs for example the titles like "prophet" has been removed from the article [[Muhammed}]. If you leave comments like this on someone's page then please be specific as to which article do you mean. I have and I will mass clean up such junk inflated titles from the names of politicians articles, please help me with it. Being.human (talk)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to move pages to bad titles contrary to naming conventions or consensus, as you did at Manisha Ashok (politician), you may be blocked from editing. FITINDIA (talk) 10:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC) UTC);;; I came across scores of wiki articles with incorrect names, specially of politicians with embellished and inflated titles in their name e.g. chaudhary and sardar etc being used as their first name whereas none of these are their official names but grandiose embellishments which are against wiki naming policies and no consensus is needed to correct such wrongs for example the titles like "prophet" has been removed from the article [[Muhammed}]. In this specific case, Manisha Ashok chaudhary (firstname, middlename, surname) is her real and correct name, even election commission webpage has used incorrect naming convention by failing to insert a comma after the surname e.g. (Chaudhary, manisha Ashok) for her and her rival (Ghoshalkar, Vinod Ramchandra). Do not be a a trigger happy bully to easily issue BAN warning to people like this is and you must use good faith first and I will have you BANNED you if you issue warning withotu due consideration and without cordially discussing with people FIRST. I will take you to the review borad for a perm ban if yo TRY TO GAME THE SYSTEM THIS WAY. I also noticed you crated many villages with extremely poor references (e.g. google map is your refrence? lol and massive copy paste from census india website) and you have created too many villages like this, I might have to have all of those DELETED and get you BANNED for mass plagiarism do not make me GO AFTER YOU and if you GAME THE SYSTEM by throwing the rule book on me I too can do the same, you better discuss nciely with people before issuing hostile and unwelcome and inappropriate BAN warning to people. MANISHA ASHOK CHHAUDHARY is her legal name so it will be her page name. I do not knwo her and i hv no conflict of interest and you must disclose your conflict of interest if you are related to her or if you are her worker or supporter interested in inflating titles (chaudhary is grandiose title and in her case it is her surname and should be last and not first as eleciton commission made a mistake on their webpage to omit comma after surname if surname is placed first). As for now, I am HAPPY TO COOPERATE WITH YOU, but be nice, do not issue warnings like this to anyone, discuss first nicely with them in goodfaith on their page without bullying warnings to them, be open to clean up wiki article names based on real names and not conflict of interest, no gaming the system and let is make it a pleasant experience for all the fellow editors, I will leave this on her talk page that i am going to move this again to MANISHA ASHOK CHAUDHARY and you can discuss there nicely, after a while I will move the page again if no one can provide better answer, No GAMIGN will be permitted. if not, i will have to go after all the poorly-refrenced plagiarised villages you have created (collaborate with me and be ncie to all editors and I will let those remian and help/guide you to improve those provided you collaborate wiht me to APPROPRIATELy and CORRECTLY retitle MANISHAK ASHOK CHAUDHARU article). Being.human (talk)

@Being.human It was a warning and was in no way meant to bully you its just that you moved a page that did not need to be moved and Saqib had already requested you not to move pages without consensus you have moved pages here [1] [2] [3] [4] and a few more,We all have been newbies including me, You probably meant well but with 3 months and less than 200 edits I just feel you should be more careful, all us editors are here to help please ask for it if you require it as I did when I need it from editors more experienced than me.Regarding my Geo articles if you feel they are poorly sourced please help out try and improve them, Wikipedia is a community and articles are a collaborative effort so please try and help instead of going LOL on a talk page and mocking other editors.Thank you FITINDIA (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Righting a Wrong to the large number of wrong titles wastes too much time to build consensus, no lengthy discussion is needed to correct large number of such pages. This is a fair balance between pragmatism (effort versus consensus), I have a take an approach that gets the biggest bang for the effort i.e. correct the name of large number of articles where inflated titles have been found and if the changes get reverted then I will be happy to challenge the reversion based on logic and evidence and then use a name based on consensus, this is more balanced approach. About the village names, i do not like to needle people, in general most of your villages are poorly sourced (only one or two references and googlemap reference is not considered a very good reference specially if it is part of one or two reference you have used) but I do recognize it takes lot of effort to document thousands of villages, I let those remain with the expectation that you (original creator) or others will improve them to the acceptable level, I had used that an example to show instad of wrning it is better to use tolerance and understanding. Thanks. Being.human (talk)

A page you started (Saikot) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Saikot, Being.human!

Wikipedia editor Elliot321 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for creating this useful article!

To reply, leave a comment on Elliot321's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Elliot321 (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Maneri, India) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Maneri, India, Being.human!

Wikipedia editor Elliot321 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for creating this useful article! Please make sure that all content you add is attributable to reliable sources, and it is written in prose, except where a list makes more sense.

To reply, leave a comment on Elliot321's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Elliot321 (talk) 14:50, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Rewari Railway Heritage Museum) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Rewari Railway Heritage Museum, Being.human!

Wikipedia editor Elliot321 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for creating this useful article! Please make sure to check for typos before submitting your pages.

To reply, leave a comment on Elliot321's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Elliot321 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement buddy. Regards.

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Rewari railway station into Rewari Railway Heritage Museum. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

just saw this, let me familiarize me with this. Thanks for helping out with the correct way of doing it. :) Being.human (talk)

Wikipedia and copyright

Hello Being.human, and welcome to Wikipedia. All or some of your addition(s) to Maneri, India have been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. While we appreciate your contributing to Wikipedia, there are certain things you must keep in mind about using information from your sources to avoid copyright or plagiarism issues here.

• You can only copy/translate a small amount of a source, and you must mark what you take as a direct quotation with double quotation marks (") and cite the source using an inline citation. You can read about this at Wikipedia:Non-free content in the sections on "text". See also Help:Referencing for beginners, for how to cite sources here.
• Aside from limited quotation, you must put all information in your own words and structure, in proper paraphrase. Following the source's words too closely can create copyright problems, so it is not permitted here; see Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. (There is a college-level introduction to paraphrase, with examples, hosted by the Online Writing Lab of Purdue.) Even when using your own words, you are still, however, asked to cite your sources to verify information and to demonstrate that the content is not original research.
• Our primary policy on using copyrighted content is Wikipedia:Copyrights. You may also want to review Wikipedia:Copy-paste.
• If you own the copyright to the source you want to copy or are a designated agent, you may be able to license that text so that we can publish it here. However, there are steps that must be taken to verify that license before you do. See Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials.
• In very rare cases (that is, for sources that are public domain or compatibly licensed), it may be possible to include greater portions of a source text. However, please seek help at the help desk before adding such content to the article. 99.9% of sources may not be added in this way, so it is necessary to seek confirmation first. If you do confirm that a source is public domain or compatibly licensed, you will still need to provide full attribution; see Wikipedia:Plagiarism for the steps you need to follow.
• Also note that Wikipedia articles may not be copied or translated without attribution. If you want to copy or translate from another Wikipedia project or article, you can, but please follow the steps in Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.

It's very important that contributors understand and follow these practices, as policy requires that people who persistently do not must be blocked from editing. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Dianna, Yes, I had created this new article called Maneri, India couple of days ago and made several changes to it thereafter. I noticed you have retained the article and most of changes, but seems you removed a smaller portion of it. No worries. Thanks for improving the article. Regards. Being.human (talk)

A page you started (Thiruvakkarai) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Thiruvakkarai, Being.human!

Wikipedia editor Elliot321 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for creating this useful article!

To reply, leave a comment on Elliot321's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Elliot321 (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I will check out the page curation to understand it better. Being.human (talk)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a small note

I see that in you recently stated that you believed user Prof. Dr. Taskeen Ahmad Khan had been blocked. I just wanted to take a moment to let you know that the red name merely means that that user has yet to create a user page. Hope this helps. Bakilas (talk) 12:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

thanks buddy for letting me know. Being.human (talk)

Please be very careful about using the word Islamist

Thanks. You should use 'Islamic'. Doug Weller talk 15:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

hehehe ok buddy. Thanks for the finer nuances. I was actually in doubt too, I felt the use of "Islamic" might offend people and might give them INCORRECT impression of me being "islamophobic", so I thought "Islamist" (though mainstream media uses this term to denote the more radical end of the spectrum). I am sure I am going to be more confused in the future. hehehe Being.human (talk)

A few more things

Continuing a thread begun at User talk:Doug Weller#Thanks for your help, and I have more questions for you, hehehe

You are welcome. I'd also like to recommend that you read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. When you leave a comment about an edit on an article's talk page, it's a good idea to notify the other editor by either pinging the editor: {{U|User name here}} or notifying the editor that he or she is being mentioned, using: [[User:User name]] or [[User:User name|User name]]. Also, if someone reverts your edit, don't automatically think that the reason is lack of good faith or someone pushing a point of view. There are many reasons why someone might undo one of your edits. Take each instance as an opportunity to learn something new – about the topic, sourcing, formatting, talk page etiquette, various points of view, WP policies and guidelines, etc. There is so much to learn. It is also possible that you are right, but you must persuade the other editor, or other editors, that you are right, through discussion. You might also be interested in this page for help in organizing and designing your user page: Wikipedia:User page design center. Best regards,  – Corinne (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Corinne, this is useful :) Yes, I am putting myself through the grind to get that experience and by reaching out instead of being a lone ranger. Being.human (talk)

Third Opinion

Hello, thank you for contributing to the Third Opinion dispute resolution process. Please remember however in future to indicate which disputes you're removing, why you are removing it and how many disputes remain afterwards in your edit summary. More details can be found at: 'Providing Third Opinions' on the Third Opinion page. Thanks! -=Troop=- (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

ok, got it, thanks for lettoing me knwo, it was my first or 2nd DR (i hv done 2 only). now worries. Can you further help me understand. Shall I remove the entry simply by providing my comment ot them. Or shall i actually confirm if the dispute has been resolved and remove the entry only and only if the dispute has been resolved. I was under impression that just provide my opinion and remove the entry without waiting for the outcome/resolution, if so, i have been on wrong track. Please confirm which one is the right process (remove entry from DR only if resolved? versus remove just after providing my opinion?) Thanks. Being.human (talk)

You remove an entry from the list just before you contribute to the talk page with your Third Opinion. It's designed this way to stop other volunteers from accidentally contributing to the same dispute.

Also, I've noticed that your English isn't of the highest quality. You may want to reconsider contributing to the Third Opinion process until you improve your English a little further. It's important for editors who are currently in a dispute to be able to comprehend your opinion for Third Opinion to be an effective dispute resolution method for their dispute. I hope you consider what I've said and I hope to see your contributions to the Third Opinion dispute resolution process again in the near future. Best wishes. -=Troop=- (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions and open to the improvement. My English does a fine job of serving its primary purpose of 'conveying' what i wish to articulate. Insecurities, passive aggression and negative reinforcement are not fine. I do not proof read my talk page comments, maximize my ROI on efforts. My English might not be of your flavor. If the numbers are to go by, then I have the majoritarian English. Please be open to cosmopolitan English on the global wiki. This is akin to no one owns English, it has many variations. You are welcome to copy edit my comments. Otherwise, language serves only one purpose, specially on the talk pages, and my English does that well. If you have problem in comprehension, I suggest please be open to varieties of English on the talk pages. Let me mentor you with this suggestion, you can be an emperor by making others feel like kings and queens. If we put others down to feed our ego, it leave everyone worse off. Creating a happy wiki is everyone's responsibility. Never ever leave unwarranted passive-aggressive suggestions on someone's talk page, specially if it pertains to articles's talk pages. Not welcome. I will give you benefit of doubt that you did it in good faith, it still is uncalled for and highly unwelcome, WATCH IT buddy. Please do not do to others. While I work on my English (of our dialect of English), please work on self-esteem, Wikipedia:Civility and positive reinforcement skills. Being.human (talk)

PS: : I empathise, but am not sorry for not being an OCD We are all one and same, and we all are born awesome, no sinners. Feel the universal brotherhood of BEING HUMAN. Hugs. :) Being.human (talk)

If I "help strangers" with the WP:Dispute resolution, I am aware of the potential dangers that one of them still may not like it, and may try to WP:CANVASS friends or use WP:SPI Sock puppetery (which can be caught by the Wikipedia:Checkuser) to stalk me with personal attacks for my good samaritan act of offering WP:Neutral point of view. I request them to read Psychological projection born out of emotional insecurity, Passive-aggressive behavior jealous OCD does not help anyone. Persevering at universities and colleges by country for several years gave me ample Emotional intelligence and Self-confidence to deal with the WP:Cyberbullying, even when it is

disguised as seemingly harmless and friendly helpful suggestion. Wikipedia:Casting aspersions is not allowed by the WP:Arbitration Committee, and it can earn ACCOUNT BLOCK FROM WIKIPEDIA for the person engaging in a repetitive behavioral pattern against other wikipedians. Thanks. Being.human (talk)

Being.human – Haven't you seen that whenever you've asked a question, you've always gotten a prompt and polite response? Quite a few editors have reached out and been very nice to you, offering advice and suggestions to make your experience on Wikipedia more enjoyable and your contributions more effective. Several times, though, you have taken quick offense at something in a comment and angrily lashed out at that editor and cited this and that Wikipedia policy. For example, Trooper1005, above, answered your question about the Third Opinion process, and then added a comment that was polite and honest. In any discussion, but especially in any kind of dispute resolution discussion, it is important for each party to the discussion to understand what the others are saying. Trooper1005 was suggesting that your facility with English is such that others might have trouble understanding what you mean, and that you might want to consider participating on Wikipedia in some other ways – and there are many, including writing articles, adding content to articles, fighting vandalism, etc. There was nothing in Trooper1005's comment that was insulting or disparaging. It was an honest assessment and polite suggestion. In fact, I would agree with Trooper1005. You say your English is a dialect of English that should be accepted and respected. However, you make so many basic grammatical errors, not to speak of the many spelling errors, that it occasionally comes close to being incomprehensible. That is not a dialect of English. Your writing might be a little more comprehensible if you proofread your writing before you hit the "Save" button. Many people use the "Preview" option to re-read what they have typed before they save their comment. It is not the responsibility of others to proofread or copy-edit your comments, so to suggest that others copy-edit your comments is, frankly, silly. Would you like me to list all your errors? I am perfectly capable of doing that, and it would be a long list. Your response was unwarranted and, frankly, over the top. Even if Trooper1005 was wrong in his/her assessment, s/he does not deserve that kind of response. If you can't get along with other editors, you will eventually be blocked indefinitely, and then you would have to find another hobby. Is that what you want? I recommend that you re-think your attitude, critically and objectively re-read your response to Trooper1005, above, start fresh, and assume that nearly every editor on Wikipedia does nearly everything in good faith, and in fact many are kind, generous, and helpful, and I would include Trooper1005 in that group. Otherwise, there's always tennis, badminton, painting, music, reading, gardening....  – Corinne (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Being.human, I concur with everything Corinne said above. Trooper1005 made an expression of kind concern and you came back above and on his talk page with an atomic attack. That was entirely inappropriate and may demonstrate a lack of the kind of calm tact and equanimity needed to do dispute resolution work. For dispute resolution work to be effective, the editors involved in the dispute need to trust both your neutrality and your competence. While I've not seen anything to cause them to necessarily distrust your neutrality, your grammatical and spelling errors, your frequent use of ALL CAPS, and your failure to properly sign your posts do nothing to help those editors trust in your competence. I'm not saying that you ought to quit, not at all, but you do need to take the advice you've been given to heart rather than respond with an attack. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:30, 27 May 2017

Corraine and TransporterMan, Im going out now, will reply later, point by point, I am open. Please both be open, let is be omni-directional learning process for all, not from you to me but from me to you and trooper also. All of us being open and without being patronising, negative, discouraging, etc. I trust you both. I love you both. Muaah, group huggy. i have a lot to say on this. The issue itself is trivial and easy to resolve and close. But this is an opportunity to discuss many things that are on my mind. Corraine, I love you, but seems you are stressed hehehe, I liked the way TransporterMan said the same thing but so nicely. Seems you too went overboard in telling me that I went overboard in response to Troopers overboard way of helping me in patronising way. muaah, hugss ... I still love you. Do not worry, I will not waste anyone's time here. When All this ends, I will "try" to be the best friends with Trooper too. But for now, let us go through the discussion. I am open, I will learn but I want other sot learn to be positive. Trooper might be helpful but wrong attitude and wrong to discourage or ask me to not help others, wrong to create an issue when none existed, if no one from the Dr complained then why is it an issue? It became an issue because trooper tried to be helpful but took the liberty to be negative, discouraging and patronising. More later. Please tell him so on his talk page. Make it fair and balanced. Later after a week or so, when thinsg issue subsides, I will properly do mutual introductions and bond with him. For now I want him to see what he did was not right even if his intention was correct and it is not good to keep turning into bigger an bigger issue. Hugs <3 Being.human (talk)

Corraine and TransporterMan: Please help me understand the following: A1. How did you end up on this issue? (A1.A) Did you just visit my talk page and happen to see it by chance (e.g. both emotionally invested in helping me, want to see me succeed and become part of the in-group old boys and girls club fast, without ruffling feathers hehehe)? (A1.B) Did Trooper reported it e.g. via the DR portal or via some other process? If so, what was the process used? I know now how DR works, sort of, but I have not used it to report others, I want to avoid using it ever, i will give many chance to the people and use mature approach of talking through it. Even using the milder option of "ask the question" on DR is one of the last resort for me. I intend to take the longer route that helps me to learn but help others learn from me and modify their own negative behavior if they been patronising, discouraging or territorial (owning an article) (A1.C) Did Trooper leave you a message on your talk page to come review it? Do you know him online before this? Is s/he a total online stranger to you both? Any canvassing and conflict of interest involved? he he he I still like the way TransporterMan wrote, Corraine if good girl but she too went overboard but I knwo her heart is in the right place and she has helped me in the past and I can see her frustration so i also wanna help her to go easy too, hehehe muaah Love you both, am I sweet or what? Trooper, i love you too, do not feel left out. We will love our bromance later but let me get through this hehehe {A1.D) Some other reason (please specify)? Happy Sunday dear gang. :)Being.human (talk)

I'm not going to respond to your point-by-point above, but what I'm about to say will, I think, cover all or most of them.

I became aware of this due to this posting by Trooper1005 on my user talk page in which Trooper1005 was seeking advice about whether or not he had done something wrong. He wasn't canvassing, he didn't ask me to do anything about you, he only wanted to know whether he had done something wrong. Any way you dissect that inquiry it was both humble and praiseworthy.

That he came to me for that advice isn't particularly surprising since — and I don't say this to brag or to claim any authority — I'm the most frequent contributor to Third Opinion.

To my best recollection, I've not had any relationship or contact with Trooper1005 prior to him posting on my talk page. That was the only posting he's ever made on my talk page and I have never posted on his. We might have at some point encountered one another, but if we have I have no recollection of it. There has been no off-Wiki contact between him and me about this or any other matter.

In order to respond to his inquiry about his own behavior I came here to see what he was talking about. That's how I came to view your talk page. When I initially responded to him on my talk page, I did so in the evening here in Texas on my tablet. I hate editing Wikipedia on mobile devices, so I didn't get around to posting my message to you, above, until the next day when I could use my desktop computer. It was at that time that I also looked further into the matter and found your postings to Trooper1005's talk page. (How? By looking at your contribution page.) But here's the important part: I posted here entirely out of my own initiative, not because Trooper1005 or anyone else solicited me to do so.

Just to wrap things up, let me also note that Corinne and I had no communication about this, on-Wiki or off-Wiki, except for our postings set out above here on this page.

No one has done anything wrong to you here. You have reacted badly and unjustifiably to someone trying to help you and now you're trying to make it worse by mining for non-existent canvassing, conflict of interest, and other issues. You need to drop the stick and give serious consideration to the advice you've been given, not continue to dig the hole deeper. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:01, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

acting self-righteous, accusing others of things that you are violating, behaving judgmental and porting the hangover of your past tussles with others to my talk page to easily hurl out of proportion accusations, taking minor spelling stuff on talk page (not on articles) done late at night and blowing it out of proportion to slap people with accusations of incompetence shows that you sweat the small stuff while completely missing the big picture. About this issue, you acted as pre-judeged, but when you came here you masked it well "Transporterman", that lack of integrity, coupled with all other feedback I gave you here, is a sign of incompetence. Do not feel self-entitled to give sermon to people. Please be open to this constructive feedback on yourself. Let us see how far are you going to fix your own integrity and raise the level of your lacking-in-objectivity sweating-the-small-stuff skills to the higher level of competence and integrity. When someone takes the article guidelines and tries to impose those on the more lenient talk page. Specially those are just guidelines for the article, not for the talk page. furthermore those are just guidelines and not the policies, this takes special kind of subjective behavior to blow those out of proportion. How toxic. Do it on your own wall, without making me a target. Objectivity please. Jumping the big guns, ganging up, acting like "mouse on the wheel" with no objectivity, this is a signs of a low skills type of process worker who is good at following set rules in mechanical fashion but the lacks the talent of highly skilled experts, such as objectivity, integrity, criticla analysis, and so on. I am open to learning even from the low skilled process workers, as long as the feedback is constructive. Wikipedia should not be a place to offer help with the view to feed own narcissist supply, and in the process make a hill out of mole and run people off wikipedia by ganging up. I know gratitude, assertive yet fair, keen eye for the details yet be able to see the bigger picture, consistent integrity (what we talk on one talk page is consistent with our words on other talk pages), etc are the hallmark I try to live by. Minor improvements are easy to fix, like being more careful in leaving comments on the "talk pages" even when I am sleepy late at night is an easy thing to fix. Forgetting to insert three tilde marks to sign a comment should not even be required because this kind of stuff should be handled by software improvement in wikipedia, thats what smart people do who know how to suggest solutions for improving productivity by automating things, only a low skilled process workers will call such as thing (forcing people to manually insert three tilde mark to sign a comment) as a sign of competence, absurd. Your lack of higher level skills, integrity and penchant for turning non-issues into huge issues are real cause for concern for me, because it is directly affecting me, my productivity, mood and experience at wikipedia. You are not adding value to me, yourself or wikipedia by doing so. All I am doing here is showing the mirror to the people trying to bully me on my wall who are blowing things out of proportion and wasting time. I do not need malicious toxic stuff being slapped and subconsciously projected on me, even if it comes disguised as subjective jump-the-judgmental-gun kind of help. Thanks but no thanks. Spare me and do not trash my talk page. Stick to your own talk page if you have too much time to waste.Being.human (talk)

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:03, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for signing up as a DRN volunteer

Hello Being.human and thanks for signing up as a DRN volunteer. I hope you have already read this page to learn how to volunteer at the DRN. I recommend you watchlist the DRN page and its talk page to stay updated. However, before you moderate a case, you must make sure you have no bias against any editor involved or towards the subject area itself. Before you volunteer though, I would like to confirm that you have enough experience with the Dispute resolution process. Have you ever volunteered at Third opinion or any other dispute resolution process? Please ping me when replying. Thanks, Yashovardhan (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

DRN Newsletter 1

You are receiving this message because you are a volunteer at the The dispute Resolution noticeboard. To stop receiving messages in the future, remove your name from The volunteer list.
Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

June 2017

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Being.human", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because your username representing Being Human Foundation. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing this form, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. GSS (talk|c|em) 05:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I immediately acted upon your suggestion. I have already changed my user name changed to Being.Aussie Being.aussie (talk) 10:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW, do you know of any Turnitin type of plagiarism checker tool that I can use directly inside wikipedia editor to check for plagiarism before submitting my wikipedia article edits? Thanks. Being.aussie (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please include a timestamp when you sign

Hi, Being.aussie. Please sign comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will translate to your signature plus a timestamp. It looks like you may usually sign with only three tildes, which gives only a sig, no timestamp. Absence of timestamp can be inconvenient for other users trying to comprehend the chronology of a discussion, or trying to find a post of yours in the page history. Thanks. Bishonen | talk 09:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC).

I am trying to take care about this, but it seems I keep missing this :( This time it could be because I might have used three tildes and not four. Okie dokie I will try to stick with four then. It is best handled by making appropriate enhancements to the wikipedia system software that should generate auto signature as soon as a comment is saved on the talk page. This should really be automated. If you know, please point me where to submit this "Wikipedia Software Enhancement Request". Thanks in advance. Being.aussie (talk) 10:04, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Warning

Hi again. Thanks for taking my suggestion about timestamps on board, Being.aussie, but I'm afraid this is a warning. I see some experienced editors above asking you to dial down the aggression — such as TransporterMan and Corinne ("Corraine" to you — if you don't like proofreading and previewing in general, please make a special effort to spell people's names right, for politeness).

Trooper1005 wrote a few lines of mild criticism and advice to you in May.[5] Nobody but you has blown that up to nuclear proportions, first by responding to Troop with an "atomic attack" as TransporterMan put it, in two places, accusing him of insecurities, passive aggression and negative reinforcement and of leaving unwarranted and unwanted passive-aggressive suggestions, and telling him to "WATCH IT buddy" (yes, capitals in your original) and to work on his self-esteem and Wikipedia:Civility.[6] Have you noticed that Troop never returned to your page after that onslaught? Sensible of him. Other people who were concerned at your extraordinary response have come here, though, and you have attacked them, too. Incidentally, mixing attacks with pushy textual intimacy doesn't help, on the contrary. Your real-life friends may like being hugged and "bromanced" by you, but you don't know these Wikipedians. I doubt anybody wants to be told a rather aggressive stranger loves them and hugs them in the same post where he attacks them. "hehehe muaah Love you both, am I sweet or what? Trooper, i love you too, do not feel left out. We will love our bromance later but let me get through this hehehe" ... "I love you both. Muaah, group huggy", "Corraine, I love you, but seems you are stressed hehehe""muaah, hugss ... I still love you", "hugs >3".

I noticed you took a break between 28 May and today (6 July). I was hoping you'd cooled down and found a better approach in the interval, and if you had, I wouldn't have said a word. But on the contrary, I see you launching an amazing attack on Transporterman today, just above[7] — in reponse to a more than month-old post by him, too! That seems extremely unpromising. This is a warning: if you continue to behave like that I will block you from editing. Please read through your own post that I just linked to to see what I mean by "behave like that": it's full of illustrations of how not to talk to somebody, whether online or in person, and certainly never on Wikipedia, where civility is policy. (As you know: you actually link to it yourself, higher up in this page.) And before you ask: no, I wasn't canvassed, nor am I friends with Corinne, Transporterman, or Trooper1005, on Wikipedia or off it. I don't think I've ever interacted with any of them, though I may have done, just in passing; I've been here a long time. Bishonen | talk 11:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC).

Okay, no worries. I felt it unwelcomed here. So, I took the deliberate gap to get away from wikipedia. I will try to observe the ""wikipedia culture"" lot more and see how others are dealing with each other. I am also learning that any capitalization of letters is not seen as emphasis or key words for the skip-readers, but aggressive shouting, seems there is might be history behind it. I will take note of that and try to avoid what other wikipedian, who have been lot longer, seem to be allergic to. I was just reading Criticism of Wikipedia when I noticed a message from you. Now that my talk page has been permanently trashed, my prime concern about the "wikipedia culture" is that everybody who comes to my talk page, will use it against me for whatever motives. What do you suggest, what is the best way to handle that and use a clean slate approach? Thanks. Being.aussie (talk) 11:41, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear you're ready for a change. Your longish break would have been a good start to that, if only you hadn't come back worse than ever, to be frank. (What possessed you to answer such an old post at all..?) But it's never too late, and people won't have any reason to use your history against you provided you do change. (Your suggestion that they might do it "for whatever motives" is a little concerning. No, nobody's going to criticise you from shady or self-interested motives. Have you read Wikipedia:Assume good faith? It's a fundamental principle on Wikipedia.)

Your talk of "the skip-readers" worries me too, frankly. Who are these readers..? Never heard of them. I do think it's normal here to read carefully — it may not be normal on other parts of the Internet — and I hope you do. Please don't skip any part of my warning above.

You're free to blank this talkpage, or any parts of it you like, to start your new Wikipedia life. That way, people who come here won't immediately catch sight of conflicts etc. It won't go away — it remains in the page history — but it won't be as eye-catching. Good luck. Bishonen | talk 14:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC).

                         ________________________

A. Yes, I am open to change, that is an important part of the learning curve. I am also keen to engage with others on reciprocal egalitarian terms. Open to those who are open towards me. I have to establish healthy boundaries of mutual reciprocity by pushing back if people entitle themselves to provide feedback to me while not being open themselves about accepting or acknowledging any feedback on them. Once I find the right balance with the trigger-happy wikipedia culture, I might have a smoother ride. Please understand my motives of "reciprocal respect on equal terms" for healthier engagement, even any help that is offered must be done without patronizing attitude, any warning that is issued must be filtered and re-filtered with "good faith" and see if we can do without it.

B1. About why I replied to such old post: It was an unresolved issue, which was stressful enough for me to take month long break from my wikipedia account. As soon as I came back, i saw a "new" notification with new reply on that stressful topic that I had taken a long break to avoid. That comment might have been made a month ago after I last used the wikipedia account. As soon as I logged on to wikipedia, I saw "new" notification that led me to the new reply. It is normal for people to consider all the notifications and messages since their last logoff as new. They are basically "new" by virtue of being unattended things to. I replied to that "new" notification from him today and I have already said everything that I wanted to. I was hoping that will be the last I see this stressful topic on my talk page, until you decide to join too. few few hours of my return were productive in edits, but now still stuck with that "old" issue here.

B2. The old issue that new people keep jumping into without being invited: The problem is all this is on my talk page. People keep adding themselves to the issue. It would have died down after no one replied after the first person. I can avoid people on their talk page or article talk page. It is much harder to avoid people on my own talk page, if they keep jumping on. My talk page is akin to my home on wikipedia. Also, if I leave things unresolved they may come back and haunt me later. I might never end up setting healthy boundaries of reciprocity with people who came uninvited to my talk page, granted themselves right to become part of an issue unrelated to them, thus becoming an uninvited "part of the problem themselves" while trying to help. Everyone who came to my talk page and joined, had nothing to do with the issue and was uninvited. If they just ignored it, it was dead long ago. Leave it to people to sort out among themselves, unless it they asked for help via DRS. That is maturity. Over-zealous trigger-happy patroller type approach, just perpetuate the issue. others can shoot and scoot at will from my talk page. Where do I go to escape it, stop using it? which I did. I have to face it and solve it. I am facing it by being open to acknowledging the minor stuff. I have to also push back if people become "uninvited" part of a non-Wikipedia:Dispute resolution issue on my talk page. It is not even on article, which is owned by no-one and owned by all. My talk page is open to all but still is "primarily my talk page" my unique personal channel of communication with all others at wikipedia. There is distinction between article talk page (more public, for group discussions) versus personal talk page (personal one-on-one channel of direct communication). I hope all those uninvited people will also learn to please avoid jumping into others issues on their personal talk pages if they were not invited via the dispute resolution or some kind of abuse reporting system. Personal talk pages are also not the wikipedia articles to be patrolled in the same style.

C1. About the capitalization and skip-readers - 1: I do realise it is a sensitive topic on wikipedia, not in my other parts of life. I found that many people on wikipedia auto-assume it to be aggressive shout. Personally, it is lot easier for me to just avoid it at wikipedia. It is not worth fighting and showing people alternative, specially when majority of people are not even ready for it. Pick the right battles to fight, that add more value, such as fight against the trigger-happy shoot-warn-and-reprimand hypocritical dysfunctional wikipedia culture by pushing back to establish the healthy boundaries.

C2. About the capitalization and skip-readers - 2: Yes, I have used it heavily in other areas, there are scenarios it works for me and others. Apply good faith that what may not work for you or the majority within the limited context of wikipedia, may work for others elsewhere. See it in relation with the previous comment, it may still be better to avoid capitalization on wikipedia talk pages to avoid the risk of being seen as aggressive shout. For example, an alternative I have been using with my friends in the informal chat is the use of capital letters instead of inverted commas. Refer to the word "new" in the point B1 above. Informally I have used NEW instead of "new". I get it, still better to avoid it on wikipedia to minimize the risk of being misunderstood as shout.

C3. About the capitalization and skip-readers - 3: Capitalization (I think, but I am not sure, happy to be enlightened more on this topic if I am wrong), is part of wikipedia guidelines (optional) and not policies (mandatory). There are conflicting guidelines, for example guidelines on "good faith" (do not revert, discuss, enhance, or just leave it there) versus guidelines on "BRD" (be bold, just revert first, then discuss). Point is all guidelines are optional. Care must be taken to not issue any warning for the violation of any guideline. Just issue polite reminders. But see first, if even reminder is needed as the editor might be using the opposite type of equally permissible guidelines, as cites in my example. If no policy is broken, no rule is broken, no warning is to be issued, that is my understanding. Any warning given for the violation of optional guidelines is trigger-happy misuse of more severe "warning policy" and admin authority.

D. I avoid needling others first, but I push back harder if preachers themselves break the principals (in indirect or more subtle, disguised ways) they are warning me about on my talk page.

So far on wikipedia, I have never done any reverts, never took anyone to DRN, never warned anyone first unless they warned me on my talk page first, never . Basically, I avoid giving pain and stress to others. I either take their edits and enhance it or I just leave it. Only, twice I had talk page article talk page dispute with editors and in both cases I did not revert or delete their stuff as I felt it is too heavy handed to start slamming them with wikipedia policies and in the process run them off wikipedia, they frustrated me but I saw myself in them, let them go through their own learning curve even if they might have been on wikipedia longer than me. I am very docile and mind my own business usually. It is only when uninvited people get involved in unrelated non-DRN issue on my personal talk page,I push back on them mainly because of the principal of the reciprocal equal-terms, I also it is immature to interfere on personal talk page if not invited via DRN and/or warning process.

E. Hopefully you are open for me to show some blind spots. You used the word "Possesed?" Is it warranted to use that word? Are you open to see that unwarranted is unwarranted, be it from me or you? Wouldn't it be batter to use a neutral tone, "what led you to come back with a reply to an old post" to avoid becoming part of the problem.

F. Please understand all my push back on everyone has been based on this principal "uninvited people pushing me on my talk on an unrelated topic, which they were not welcomed via DRN, etc" yet they "self-entitled to preach and trigger-happy warn me with block on the violation of optional guidelines, while themselves breaching more severe policies of wikipedia". I have fought back against this culture of self-entitled self-righteousness lacking in objectivity (personal talk page is different from the article talk page is different from the article, all these need to be patrolled and engaged with differently with different level of threshold for engaging and/or escalating disputes.

G. About no one is going to criticise me for shady motives by using the discussion above. I find that anyone who has been on wikipedia with more than 10 or 20 edits, know about "good faith". People use it a lot, I have seen people using it to defend themselves and less to grant it to others. I did not find "good faith" to be a good enough shield from the potential misuse against me, specially . My cause of concern is magnified for the fact that everyone who decided to become "uninvited" "trigger-happy" part of this discussion on my talk page had nothing to do with the issue. issue would have been long dead, it would not have been an issue if people just keep jumping in. Just imagine, if people keep doing this, how much more people are likely to do much worse if there are some "real edit disputes" in future, I had been lucky to avoid those so far. In case of edit disputes, I simply do my homework, go back with more research-based logical edits. There might still be people who might come after me. I already had enough problems due to the helpful-but-so-unhelpful concerned-trigger-happy patroller-types keep jumping in on personal talk page. More people are more likely to jump in if there is

H. I felt they may be good people with good intention, but too jaded and too engrossed in wikipedia culture of trigger-happy excessive negative reinforcement. Once I push back and healthy boundaries are set, things might sail smoothly. I have provided lengthy time-consuming replies to all. I see that as investment.

I. I hypothesize that people who spend lot of time on wikipedia articles in fighting vandalism, doing reverts and patrolling might be more prone to (a) lose the objectivity and become subjective, (b) slowly become more trigger-happy with a much lower threshold for generating emotionally-distressing warnings, (c) incorrectly generate warning even for the violation of guidelines (optional pointers) where they should have used a polite reminder, (d) further make it worse by issuing warnings about guidelines (instead of gentle reminder) on others talk page without being invited via the DRN or similar things, (e) while incorrectly warning others for the (f) becoming uninvited part of the problem on others talk pages without letting people handle their issue, then escalate it into incorrectly issuing warnings for violating guidelines, (g) preaching, patronizing and warning (often incorrectly for violation of guidelines) . They get away with it all, becasue they know the ropes, loopholes, etc. Which further legitimises and reinforces this cultural rot. So they tend to do it more often, where it easily becomes habit and second nature.

I have a problem with this kind of mindset. it is harder to pin point, harder to prove, too time consuming and almost impossible for a new person to counter it, more so if they are not that IT savvy and have not had time to read all the cumbersome wikipedia guidelines, policies and processes. Those people just stay off wikipedia. This is how "good well-intentioned hardworking wikipedia successful and established volunteers" develop these blind spots without even realizing, and they easily regress into a widespread low-threshold subjective-trigger-happy self-righteous wikipedia culture of getting entangled into uninvited unwanted avoidable issue creation and further escalation (by warnings).

J. It is a good discussion to have, but very time consuming for me. We can continue to discuss more about bringing about the cultural change on wikipedia, something that I find distressing and I wish to use that as my contribution to wikipedia to make its culture better.

K. Super sleepy now, extremely late here in the night/morning. Due to this issue I have missed the lunch and dinner. My earlier longer message got deleted, had to retype a new message. I am keen on keep pushing the awareness about the harder-to-pinpoint-and-prove dysfunctional wikipedia culture. It is good discussion to continue, that is why I wrote such lengthy reply, so that all this turns into something good and productive for the wider good. For now, I am really dropping dead, can not keep my eyes open to review my comment. Really have to sleep. No save the draft option here. So I am submitting now. Read and reply as and when you have time. Good mornight.

Being.aussie (talk) 18:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

                         ________________________

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call

This volunteer roll call is sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at dispute resolution noticeboard. If you are still interested in assisting at DRN and are willing to do so by either handling at least one case per month, or by helping at administrative and coordination tasks on monthly (at least) basis, please add your username here. Volunteers who do not add their username on the roll call list will be removed from the volunteers list after November 15, 2017 unless it is chosen to have them retained for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. In case you are removed from the volunteers list, you may re-add your username at any time. However please do so only if you can and are willing to participate as described above.
Either ways, I would like to thank you for your participation and assistance at DRN so far, and wish that you will continue contributing to the encyclopedia and assisting when available.
The DRN coordinator, Kostas20142 (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)