Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

I responded on the article talk page - his (and Ginsbergs) positions regarding the organization are nuanced and require proper contextualizations. If the proper contextualization is too long for the lead, then no mention in the lead. Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 21:40, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lionelt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Jade Chu, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: member of notable band. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 03:29, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Society of Construction Arbitrators's talk page.. Salisian (talk) 17:11, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Chicken Hawk: Men Who Love Boys at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rlevse • Talk • 12:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's no trouble. Yes, anyone is allowed to create redirects or replace articles with redirects, but use common sense and judgment. Quarl ^(talk) 18:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, please do! I only put basic information so please improve it. Thanks! BS24 (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take another look at Template_talk:Did_you_know#CatholicVote.org? Thanks Smartse (talk) 23:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lionelt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Outwrite, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to journals or newspapers. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of Instinto Asesino at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lionelt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Gamofites, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article survived a prior deletion discussion. Try an AfD instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:02, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Notyourbroom's talk page.
Message added 23:19, 5 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Trackinfo's talk page.
Message added 20:35, 7 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The use of verbatim, unattributed quotations in articles is considered plagiarism. Whenever you incorporate the exact text of a source into an article, please provide appropriate attribution in the form of quotation marks, <blockquote>, or similar. Please note that addition of non-free text, without attribution as a direct quotation, is considered to be a copyright violation per se, even if it otherwise would have been fair use. (Excessive and/or unnecessary use of non-free text, even when correctly attributed, might still run afoul of the non-free content policy and guideline, and be considered a copyright violation.) Also, Wikipedia style guidelines discourage the excessive use of quotations, even when correctly attributed. All closely paraphrased text must adhere to the same attribution, non-free content, and copyright standards as verbatim quotations. I notice that you have added verbatim and closely paraphrased non-free text to Bill Andriette without attribution as a direct quotation, which I believe to be inconsistent with the previously described policies. Your text:

saying that the hatred of boy-lovers is a "reactionary ideology which the gay movement has happily adopted to burnish its own particular identity category."[1]

The original source text:

The hatred of boy-lovers, he says, is a "reactionary ideology which the gay movement has happily adopted to burnish its own particular identity category..."[2]

Your text:

saying his group's opposition to age-of-consent laws in is keeping with "the main tradition" of homosexuality.[3]

The original source text:

said his group's opposition to age-of-consent laws in is keeping with "the main tradition" of homosexuality.[4]

Please contact me if you have any questions regarding this matter. Also, if you have added other verbatim and/or closely paraphrased non-free texts without attribution as direct quotations to Bill Andriette or any other article, please rewrite this material in your own words, or remove it at your earliest possible convenience. Thank you. Peter Karlsen (talk) 00:29, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK project (nominate) 18:04, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted this particular edit (I don't feel strongly about it, but I think you're mistaken to assume that blogs are always unreliable), and policy seems to indicate to me that this is likely an exception. I've given a detailed explanation at the Talk page, but I figured I'd give you a wave to let you know what I did and why. Have a great day! --j⚛e decker^talk 00:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What I do know is that 2 reverts does not a war make; it doesn't even make 3RR. (Don't forget that the revert at 10/25 17:41 was per BLP.) Removed erroneous warning placed in good faith. Lionel (talk) 23:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP). What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 00:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Talk:Men who have sex with men.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

— SpikeToronto 19:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A collegial "heads up" that I removed that section, here's the diff [5] If those books really are about the Alliance Defense Force rather than about the beliefs of the head of the ADF, and that can be demonstrated with reliable sources, I got no problem with putting them back--but pages like this all too easily grow into the list of a hundred external links (which is what these more or less are) with everyone's favorite POV works. If I'm mistaken and either really goes into, say, the deep organizational history of the ADF, please accept my apologies and revert my edit. Thanks. --j⚛e decker^talk 01:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon! It was a real pain adding those templates and looking up the publisher & ISBNs. Lionel (talk) 01:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the old WP:ELNO #13! I know it well... Lionel (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the ACLU book. There is a running battle between ADF & ACLU, a battle with ample sourcing BTW. ADF wants to be the Christian version of ACLU. We really need to add a section on it. Anyway, the ACLU book is relevant. Lionel (talk) 02:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that--I do understand the effort, I've sourced quite a number of articles (my main pasttime here is sourcing unsourced BLPs), many with book references, and they are a hassle to fill out. Do you have reftoolbar? More info here: [6], it really helps deal with the cite template formatting, then I just go to the "about the book" section in Google Books at the book and most of the info can be cut-and-pasted from there. And as you describe it the ACLU book sounds very relevant, I'll take your word. Thanks for your understanding, I owe ya one, and I hope reftools helps ya. --j⚛e decker^talk 02:10, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! That's cool! Thanks! Lionel (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure! --j⚛e decker^talk 06:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I don't mention you by name, you should likely be aware of this discussion. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Lionel (talk) 02:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Opponents_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States&diff=next&oldid=394077090 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Opponents_of_same-sex_marriage_in_the_United_States#Hansen_is_not_reliable_source.2C_removed_since_she_is_incapable_to_make_these_sort_of_statements_on_her_website --Destinero (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Silly? Seems logical to me. Lionel (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is logical to you to use unpublished work from the personal website of person, who is not authority and recognized professional in the relevant field as was proven in several court rulings I linked, and opinions of this person finds no support in the scientific literatuere as every mainstream expert body from all the world document, then you are not capable to contribute usefully to the Wikipedia, simply since you are pushing unfounded marginal propaganda views at the odds with the reality and actual state of things. --Destinero (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote:

• In 2003 he successfully completed the Pure Life Ministries residential program, where he is currently employed, to deal with unwanted homosexual attractions

You cited a source which says:

• Mike Johnston serves as Director of Donor and Media Relations. He coordinates media relationships for the ministry and production of audio content including the podcast. In 1989, Mike founded Kerusso Ministries and spent the next 14 years presenting a Christian perspective on homosexuality as it relates both to ministry and public policy. He has been with the ministry since 2003.

I don't understand how you got from that source to what you wrote. How do you know that he completed a residential program, or that it dealt with unwanted homosexual attractions? Neither of those are in the source. Are you acquainted with the subject?   Will Beback  talk  00:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added better source. Lionel (talk) 02:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that, but do you think that is a reliable source for details about a living person's sexuality?   Will Beback  talk  02:20, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. His current employer is the publisher. They also have published his biography here. This seems to be a common practice to use corp bios for BLP. The sexuality status may be pushing policy a tad, but it's not detrimental in this case. And there's this. Anti-exgay sources also put him at Pure Life. Lionel (talk) 02:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you recently removed a lawsuit listed on Ex-Gay. It seems to have been relevant: "that many people have walked out of homosexuality into sexual celibacy and marriage through the help of Jesus Christ." - perhaps you confused the legal grounds for which the state won the lawsuit with one of the purposes of the ad campaign? Best, ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Saw the undo. And it's great to see someone's trying to clean up that article. As I guess you noticed, it needs work on both ends... uncited/exaggerated claims or lack of relevant ones. It's like people on both sides of the argument have each butchered the opposing viewpoints. ROBERTMFROMLI ^TALK/_CNTRB 00:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it. Lionel (talk) 02:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Speechless cover.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionelt. I'm not sure if you've been following the DYK nominations page discussions for the Homosexuals Anonymous nomination, but I just wanted to give you a heads-up that new hooks are being proposed and your input is welcome there. Thanks, 28bytes (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Materialscientist (talk) 06:03, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your good edits. Please keep up the good work.FrFintonStack (talk) 01:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Lionel (talk) 01:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Lionelt. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Günter Baum to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question. Thank you. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 07:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You said here the statement you removed was sourced, but there's a link, the link works for me, and appears to me to contain the quote. Anyway, maybe i'm missing something? Cheers, --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 03:17, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, figured it was something like that. Much appreciated, have a great weekend! --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 16:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionelt

I see you nominated Van Dykes for speedy deletion on the basis of notability. As you can see at Talk:Van Dykes, and you could have seen in the entry itself, the topic of that encyclopedia entry clearly meets Wikipedia's general and subject-specific inclusion guidelines, which give the topic a presumption of meriting inclusion in the encyclopedia.

If you disagree, please use a more appropriate means of conveying your opinions, such as AfD or discussion on the article's talk page (I note that you elected not to notify the article's creator—me—of your nomination, which is generally discouraged).

Regards, ^Bongo_matic 15:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.[reply]

The controversy section on the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship page has been the subject of many edits, but seems to have reached concessus. Please don't jump in and make radical edits to it without discussion. Santa Suit (talk) 02:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

youtube is not a reliable source per WP:RSEX. And because the content is contentious and relates to a living person, it must be removed per WP:BLP. Talking about it doesn't change the policy. Note that 3RR does not apply per [7].

Please write your explanation on the article's talk page, as requested Santa Suit (talk) 02:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Communications with sock STL1989

February 2011 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ex-gay. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular, the three-revert rule states that: Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. You are the one mis-quoting rules and asking for quotes from videos. I supplies a link which is required to prove he has conducted media interviews. Please desist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by STL1989 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: in fact, 3RR not violated on the page in question; request has been made of STL1989 to self-revert this warning Lionel (talk) 05:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply] February 2011 Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed. If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards. If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you. The tag was placed in good faith; I want to make sure the interpretation of the source is accurate; your arbitrary removal is disruptive: this is not how we work here at Wikipedia. STL1989 02:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by STL1989 (talk • contribs) TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: this warning may seem confusing. It is because I originally left this warning for STL on his talk page, and he merely cut and pasted it here on my talk page. That is why it makes no sense. I have asked that he self revert. Lionel (talk)

Thanks you very much. Looks like I could learn some editing tips from you, man. Kennethtamara (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you feel like discussing major changes to articles before unilaterally making them on the pertinent talk pages? _WM^O 01:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My changes have been minor and well within the spirit of WP:BRD. Lionel (talk) 01:42, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Minor? I don't see how you could say this [8] is minor, in case you hadn't noticed its moved back and forth a number of times. _WM^O 01:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the time I moved it, it seemed pretty straightforward and obvious. Afterall, it is how they are described in the lede. Anyway, I didn't notice the ping ponging until after I moved it. However, I see your point and you can rely on me to fully discuss any major edit I plan on undertaking, however I've noticed a lot of people getting blocked so I won't be spending too much time on these articles. You've probably noticed my light-hearted approach (8x10s). Lionel (talk) 01:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind moving it back? I don't feel like making it look like I'm edit warring. _WM^O 02:08, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you're gonna skip the "R" part of WP:BRD, it's time to discuss the move on the Talkpage. Lionel (talk) 02:13, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I saw that you, as the originator of the proposal for WikiProject Conservatism, posted some notices asking for participants. How about posting a notice on the Sarah Palin Talk page, as well as the popular conservative talk radio hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Mark Levin, Neil Boortz, and Laura Ingraham? I know that the Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh pages are high up on the list of most watched pages on Wikipedia, and I imagine that the others would be fairly high as well, with many active conservatives. Drrll (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, great idea! And Done! Lionel (talk) 23:25, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice personalized touch on the notices! Drrll (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain this revert? Your edit summary was insufficient, especially since you seem to be sympathetic to LAEC's conservative activist causes. -PrBeacon (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What part of "LAEC specifically desired for this editor to remain on the list" do you fail to comprehend? Be careful, my friend, when suggesting motives for another editor's actions: it could be construed as NPA. Lionel (talk) 06:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone seems to think everything is a personal attack... just noting that the list is gone so this is a mute point. :) _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LAEC's desire is irrelevant. ".. keeping a 'list of enemies' ...is neither constructive nor appropriate.". Editors who so easily conflate disagreement with personal attack have no business working on a collaborative project involving controversial issues. -PrBeacon (talk) 17:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invitation to work on the Conservative project. First, can you teach me how to use Whisperback? I'm not as smart as I was 9 years ago, when I first started volunteering here. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't work all that great anyway. It's an attempt to keep a thread on one user talk page. You're probably better off without it! That said, just edit a page and add {{wb}}. Simple as that! Lionel (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you just closed a talk-page RfC that administrator SlimVirgin started to try to settle a dispute at Right-wing politics. I took strong exception to that action for several reasons, not the least of which was that the "result" you offered was at odds with the !vote tally, which very clearly showed no consensus. I've reverted your closure. Please don't do anything remotely similar again. I've also taken the trouble to document the events that followed from your closure, along with additional reasons I considered it improper; see Talk:Right-wing politics#Non-admin super-vote closure of RfC (permalink). I would suggest that if you have any comments to make, that that same section of the article talk would be the place to make them; please make sure you've clicked on the "live" link I'm providing in this message, rather than the snapshot/permalink, so you don't inadvertently edit an old instance of that page, if you do choose to comment at article talk. This will be my only post to your talk page on this matter, but I did want to specifically request, here, that you not repeat any such an action in the future. Thank you,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I AGF, I find your reasons for reverting the close do not stand up to policy. If you disagree with the result, you should open a new RfC. I respectfully decline your requests and will enforce the close. Lionel (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, sorry, I've been bad at getting back to messages with all this PP drama swirling around. One the one hand, my mind was blown when I first found out but on the other, so much started to make sense. I wonder how often this happens on Wikipedia? I hope no productive contributors were cut out because of the range-block they had to put on San Francisco. - Haymaker (talk) 18:02, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of this page doesn't appear to qualify as notable under Wikipedia guidelines, in particular, WP:1E. Can you find any other information to show he's sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article?   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming I put it in article space, do you think there would be enough time to get it to DYK before it's nominated for AfD? It would be nice to get something out of all the work I put into it...Lionel (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question. If the article is already as good as it's going to get then it should be discussed for deletion. Is there anything else that qualifies this person for a Wikipedia biography?   Will Beback  talk  00:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you believe... I have lots of stuff to put in there?????? Lionel (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then put it in. I'm going to start an MFD thread, and those usually last about a week, so there's time to make whatever additions you think will help.   Will Beback  talk  01:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lionelt/James A. Forsythe, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lionelt/James A. Forsythe and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Lionelt/James A. Forsythe during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you.   Will Beback  talk  07:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lionelt, I thought the note was because he was just married and so after adding that fact, deleted the notice. I checked the bottom of his talk page before doing the deletion and because there was no other mention of anything, deleted the update needed notice. Later, you added your reason for wanting an update. Just wanted you to know I was not ignoring your request for update rather trying to clean up when I mistaken thought the update had been performed. --Javaweb (talk) 03:51, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Javaweb[reply]

No problem! I thought leaving the wikilink in the edit summary was enough - all's well...! Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't want you to think you're being ignored, but, as much as I'd like to, I can't comment because I promised to avoid confrontation (and I've almost lived up to it). I hear you, though. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:19, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No explanation necessary... Just good to have you back. Lionel (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your submission of ProtectMarriage.com at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Binksternet (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I left a question for you at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lionelt regarding File:LAJS1926.jpg.   Will Beback  talk  07:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a problem onto Commons... I'm going to try a different browser. Lionel (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can discuss it here. The file page says you created the 1926 image. Since it's professionally done, it's unlikely that anyone under the age of 10 could have made it, meaning you would have to be over 90 years old. I don't mean to pry into your actual age, but I assume there's a mistake.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something that needs to be fixed or are you really the creator of that 1926 image?   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't create it. I vaguely remember (it was a few years ago) pulling it off of a LA Times article. I'll check the Times archive. Lionel (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a a "fair use" picture then it should be hosted on Wikipedia rather then Wikicommons, and there will need to be different "paperwork". If you're still having trouble logging into the Commons I could start the ball rolling at that end, and you can upload the photo here.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I don't hear back from you I'll assume you want me to initiate deleting the file from the Commons.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed it. Lionel (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you now say it was published without copyright. Where and when was it published, initially? How do you know that there was no copyright?   Will Beback  talk  04:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I emailed the LA library for permission/licensing, and in their reply they stated they cannot grant permission/licensing since according to their legal department the image is not under copyright.Lionel (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Could you please forward that email to the permissions department? "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org". Then someone can properly update the copyright info.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it looks like the OTRS volunteers haven't yet registered receipt of the copyright waiver for his file. Please double-check that you've sent it.   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know you're busy with other tasks, but don't forget to send the letter to OTRS so the file is properly registered.   Will Beback  talk  11:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm afraid your recent edit at Catholics for Choice is inconsistent both with Wikipedia's general tendency to follow self-identification and with the existing status quo on categorizing Catholic organizations specifically. For example, the Society of St. Pius X has been condemned by a much higher authority than the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, but it is still categorized as a Catholic organization, because it identifies itself as a Catholic organization. Now that you're aware of your error, I hope you'll revert yourself. Have a nice day! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping this was an accident, but your recent edit removed content from Crisis pregnancy center. You removed the text "by choosing a name similar to the Fargo Women's Health Organization and," in spite of the fact that the clinic's name was part of the false advertising problem (rather than somehow unrelated). Refer to the text of the preliminary injunction, which the court upheld:

"... [T]hat the defendants do not falsely lull people that come to them for counseling into thinking that they are, in fact, the Women's Health Organization or the Fargo Women's Health organization, Inc. and that the defendants take no action or inaction which would lull people into believing that they are dealing with the Fargo Women's Health Organization, Inc. when they are in fact dealing with defendants or F-M Women's Help and Caring Connection..."

If you think there is a specific problem with the wording, would you like to discuss potential changes? Otherwise, please re-add the text you removed. Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The court's ruling clearly prohibited a "confusing" name: to describe as anything else is WP:OR. Lionel (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What wording would you suggest that includes the name of the real clinic, per the text I quoted above? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Women's Health Org should go back in, but in reference to the court ruling that Help's name was confusing.Lionel (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about "...from using a confusing name that might 'falsely lull people...into thinking that they are, in fact, the Women's Health Organization or the Fargo Women's Health organization, Inc.', and from advertising that they provided abortions"? (You'd have to add it in yourself, as it would be a revert if I did.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in case you didn't see on the article talkpage, I brought the USCCB thing to RS Noticeboard. Although I hope you'll read my comment above about why this step should be unnecessary. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made the edit as I proposed above, except I also switched the clauses (thought it sounded better) and added "a lawsuit by the Fargo Women's Health organization, a medical clinic that performed abortions" at the beginning of the paragraph so the similar name didn't come out of nowhere. ("medical clinic that performed abortions" was per the source.) Let me know what you think. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that people unfamiliar with what wikiprojects are will take it as a sign that Wikipedia is "admitting" that it thinks that Fox News is a Republican rag. Soxwon (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it's an issue, we could put a disclaimer in the FAQ. Lionel (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your citation doesn't support the text you added. It says only that the law mandates that a 24-hour waiting period. The actual law also requires that the patient certify to the doctor that she has read certain materials prescribed by the state of South Carolina. While these materials include (among many other things) the addresses of locations that provide free ultrasounds, that's a rather tenuous link, and is certainly not consistent with the text you inserted. Please revert yourself. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The South Dakota one is good, but could you possibly find a real source? KSFY has covered the bill. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionelt. I understand you can be outraged about what you perceive as a POV overtone of the article, but I'd advise you not to go out of control with your wrath. As I've told Rosy, one can get into some rather messy bureaucratic business in WP by being overly confrontational. This is regardless of how wrong and POV your opponents are. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was an extensive discussion on whether or not to use an image of an ultrasound. Please gain consensus for the use of an ultrasound image before inserting one. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you replaced the disputed image. All collaborations should be so productive! (Though I still wish we could get a picture of an actual CPC. Are you near one perchance? We have a picture of a sign for a CPC but it isn't very useful or informative.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The information you've inserted about CPCs moving away from the provision of false information is flat-out untrue, per the very source you cited. Please remove it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may have misinterpreted. The quote certainly doesn't say that CPCs no longer provide false information - and how could it, since the same article details the false information they provide? ("But facts are a problem when it comes to some of the medical information disseminated by pregnancy center volunteers. Many centers are still handing out flyers that link abortion and breast cancer--a link that's been discredited by national scientific panels." among other things.) The statement is still untrue. Please remove it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sense appears to be that they are moving to a new "medical model" for conducting business, but in the past many have utilized deceptive advertising, and some still do. Lionel (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The impression I get is that they try to put up the facade of being medical centers. The article says "new forms of persuasion that rely on the dispassionate language and technology of modern medicine. More centers are buying ultrasound machines, hiring medically trained staff, providing counseling on sexually transmitted diseases and taking other steps toward what one national leader calls a 'medical model' of service." It doesn't say they have rejected the provision of actual medical misinformation - far from it, it specifies the type of medical misinformation provided! I can see a way in which the content could be used, and it's interesting to see how methods have changed - however, you would have to write things that actually reflect the source, not something that's totally the opposite so you can make CPCs sound better. Personally, I think saying "CPCs try to appear as medical centers, while giving clients false information about the health risks of abortion and hiding from them the risks of childbirth" (which is what this source says) actually makes CPCs sound worse. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This may be illustrative:

For years, people have argued about the work of crisis pregnancy centers, which have been around since before Roe v. Wade. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, complaints about graphic videos, religious harangues, false medical information and misleading advertising led to investigations and, in some states, lawsuits against centers and their staff. Now, a growing number of pregnancy support centers--many of which are affiliated with conservative Christian networks--are rejecting old-style scare tactics...

Got it? Lionel (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I "get" that you're inserting your own personal spin on an article that not only doesn't say what you're claiming it does, but that actually says the opposite. Unfortunately, that violates a number of Wikipedia policies. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lionelt. Will you weigh in on this on the talk page, since it is your contribution? I ask that you do not revert until these issues are worked out. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really fathom what you're referring to with "stable version." There never has been consensus for "affiliated," not at any point in the article's history; perhaps you're mistakenly taking a version as "stable" because it stuck around for half a day due to 1RR? "Typically" was removed for grammar reasons (we already sad "with few exceptions" so adding "typically" as well is infelicitous). I've opened discussions in talk of "services" vs. "activities" and no one has objected to "activities," so if you're going to advocate it, kindly join and state your reasons rather than just reverting. Likewise the North Carolina quote. And why do you insist on including the Care Net quote twice, once in a section where, not being about legal action, it does not belong? It's already in the "Advertising methods" section, so it's not a question of whether or not to include it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a joke, right? But it's only March 17! Could you revert yourself and save it for April Fools' Day, when it might be more appropriate? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed several entries from the above article. In some cases, this was because the wikilinks you had created led to articles about completely different people. Even though this article is not a BLP, it still concerns living people so I thought it best to remove any source of contention. For the same reason, I removed all those entries lacking references. The "ex-gay" topic is contentious and I think this is one of those cases where we should be especially careful with verifiability and proper sourcing. I removed other entries on the grounds of notability. That someone chooses to be straight is not, I think, a sufficient reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Happy editing. LordVetinari (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't even know that the project you mention existed. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, List of ex-gay people. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Ex-gay#People associated with the ex-gay movement. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Ex-gay#People associated with the ex-gay movement - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your template added at the bottom of pro-life and I removed it because the article is not solely about American concerns. I looked at your editing history to see if you were adding the template to other inappropriate articles, and it appears that you are. I have reverted your additions to nuclear family and Anti-pornography movement in the United States because those articles do not have any established connection to conservatism. Those topics are claimed by liberals, too, so the template doesn't fit. It's like a flag stuck in the sand claiming territory, but the territory does not belong to American Social Conservatives. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please avoid 1RR violations on Abortion-related articles, per the community-imposed general sanctions. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Woa. I was editing a zillion artices & cats, working more or less in a vacuum, and thought I was adding the template for the first time! Didn't even realize it had been reverted. Lionel (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:American Social Conservatism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure of the backstory here, but expension by 5x applies whatever the size beforehand as long as after the erxpansion it is > 1500. Victuallers (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Yes you can, 2,3,4 or more editors can share credit, why do you worry about this? "Credit" is not in short supply Victuallers (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Its up to the nominator really - I can see that the credit may not be "fair" but life is short. I'd encourage you to move on and concentrate on making sure you feel good about all the credit you have received unless you feel someone is clearly and repeatedly breaking the rules. Victuallers (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC) The person who puts the proposed hook in the DYK queue is called "the nominator" and that person decides who the author or authors are Victuallers (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Pro-life movement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now moved to User:Lionelt/Pro-life movement. Feel free to move it (or I can move it) to WikiProject space if you feel as though having it in your own userspace does not encourage collaborative editing. However, by my reading of the discussion, the consensus is that this should not be used in article space until concerns about the "global nature" and placement of the template are resolved to some level of consensus. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Lionel (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. I reverted your addition of the new template to Live action; that's an article about live-action films/TV, you meant Live Action (organization).
2. ??

Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a stub. It can use all the help it can get. Besides, the nav box looked pretty there. Lionel (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PhGustaf has no sense of humor. No Filet for him. Lionel (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I mean I actually have no idea what you're talking about in that diff, even with the edit summary. It seems like a total non-sequitur. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know... Ah ha! There is POV in the article afterall! As it turns out placing the POV tag is justified. Etc etc etc. Lionel (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I disagree that it's a POV problem in that sentence - I just think it's not very aesthetically pleasing because it repeats the same words. But like I said, I just didn't want to remove anyone else's text; what do you think of the shorter and less redundant/obvious wording I proposed? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read through the section you deleted again and could see no reason for it to be deleted and so i have restored it because of this. Please give a reason next time. Thanks Jenova20 09:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have one! Maybe benji? - Haymaker (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I don't think his comment was directed at me. I hope he's a friend: I need all the friends I can get. Maybe he'll check out TFD. Lionel (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure that I'm the sort of person you want for Wikiproject:Conservatism. My political beliefs are all over the place. And the amount of time I'd have to devote to the project would be sporadic at best. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionelt. I'm Jenova20's adopter. I noticed your revert of his edit, and leaving of a level 1 disruption template. I'm a little unsure about how the comment was disruptive, as it not only matched the source, but it was clear that the names were not real. I understand the need to revert, but am not sure that the notice was inappropriate. I'm wondering if I'm missing something terribly disruptive? Also, given the length of Jenova's talk page and 3 months service, is a template which is aimed at brand new users really appropriate? "Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines." seems a little inappropriate to me. Worm^TT · (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Worm. Even though they been here 3 mos, they have demonstrated they know their way around. Online petitions are notoriously unreliable. And this is a primary source. And it's obvious that this source does not have editorial oversight. Jenova knew this. How? Because I tagged it as such. A tag which she removed. They justified the addition in their edit summary with this "Added a bit of fun to the article." They knew this was going to cause trouble. As a matter of fact, I believe I AGF and showed restraint, had this been an IP I would've left a vandalism template. Lionel (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see he'd removed a tag about the source, like I say, I agree with the revert. I'll have a word. Cheers. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel WP:AGF

Please do not refer to me as a she as it is not only unconstructive, but also offensive.

I did clearly add "Added a bit of fun to the article." to make it clear that i thought the edit would be in good humor as it offends no one.

I posted on the talk page twice before changing that section and you gave no input udespite reverting the section, at which time i posted on your talk page with no response and explaining my actions, again with no response.

You have gone completely overboard here as i have explained my actions from the start and you have ignored them completely until posting the notice on my talk page.

Jenova20 08:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have a female friend named Jenova: my mistake. Lionel (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at User Talk:Jenova20's talk page. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, it's sorted now.

Just try not to be so heavy handed in future cos i can forgive and forget.

Jenova20 19:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's a good idea to include opposition to pornography as a subcategory of the new "conservatism by issue" cat. Certainly it would deserve a mention in an article or perhaps a navbox, but you may notice that the category Category:Anti-pornography activists contains people like Andrea Dworkin and Sheila Jeffreys, who are not conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Put simply, this opposition cuts across traditional political lines: some people oppose it because they don't like sex and some people oppose it because they believe it degrades women, and while both those groups could fairly be categorized as "anti-pornography activists," they certainly can't all be categorized as conservatives. May I suggest removing it and focusing on other issues that are more definitely conservative (immigration, financial deregulation) and in the meantime perhaps asking at a WikiProject or two for help on dealing with this issue? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dworkin and Jeffreys pages are not categorized in the conservatism by issue cat. They are not in any conservatism cats. The New Right [9] as well as the Christian Right are involved in anti-porn. That is why the cat anti-porn was placed in conservatism by issue. This isn't about conservative people per se: anti-porn is a conservative issue, just as it is a feminist issue. It is any less a conservative issue because it is shared with feminists? No. The solution is to also place the anti-porn cat in feminism by issue. Lionel (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I explained, the Dworkin and Jeffreys articles are in the conservatism by issue cat, because they're in a subcat of it. Hmm...the same problem would exist if an "opposition to pornography" cat were put in between "conservatism by issue" and "anti-pornography activists," but at least it would be at one remove (and be better in terms of an organized categorization tree). (Splitting it into "Conservative opposition to/opponents of pornography" and "Feminist opposition to/opponents of pornography," or whatever wording, could be another option - though irregular, it may be a means of dealing with the way in which this messes up traditional alignments.) What do you think? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are in the conservatism-by-issue tree, not the cat. And, it's perfectly appropriate to be in the tree because they have adopted a socially conservative issue. Being in the tree in no way means that you are conservative politically. Another example of lefties who have adopted a socially conservative issue, but remained lefties nonetheless, is Dems For Life. The distinction between conservative people & orgs and socially conservative issues is an important one. Perhaps the cat would be better as "Social conservatism by issue," but I had hoped to add fiscal conservatism issues as well. Btw there is also a disctinction between conservatism and "conservative", but then that's another thread.Lionel (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Dems for Life example, added to the feminist anti-pornography activists, serves to suggest that a "Conservatism by issue" cat tree might be a problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Los Angeles County Young Democrats , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit at SBA List changed more than your edit summary of "tense". You ignored a discussion going on at Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List#Scholars and changed the first phrase to the second:

• ...pro-choice activists "concerned that their heroine is being appropriated," and scholars of nineteenth-century feminism pointing out that Anthony did not work against abortion and that the quotes SBA List cites are misattributed or taken out of context.
• ...pro-choice activists "concerned that their heroine is being appropriated," and a scholar of nineteenth-century feminism pointing out that Anthony did not work against abortion and that the quotes SBA List cites are misattributed or taken out of context. (emphasis added)

This is a problem of singular vs. plural, not verb tense. The larger problem is that you have not taken part in the discussion; you have not given your opinion about the issue of there being multiple scholars raising their voices on the issue, ones that NYyankees51 took out of the article. Your change to singular "a scholar" is against WP:NPOV in that it tries to lessen the impact of wider criticism by making it look small. Please revert your change. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Young Conservatives of Texas has been nominated for deletion at AfD. Your input as to whether or not this article meets Notability standards is invited. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To know, with absolute certainty, that society will evolve past you and leave you by the wayside? 98.246.154.135 (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the 30+ colleagues, and wikistalkers, who watch my talkpage with baited breath, who rush here every morning to see what's new with Lionelt, today is a momentous day for me. I was beginning to wonder if it would ever happen. I had almost given up hope. My thoughts occastionally drifted to the Proverb, "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life." Well, my longing has been fulfilled. My talkpage has been vandalized in the section immediately above. Not a particularly witty or erudite piece of vandalism, I must say, but I'll take it nonetheless. Maybe we can encourage 98.246.154.135 to come back and make a better showing of himself. Do not let my cavalier attitude deceive you: I am wounded, to the core. I may not recover from this. The blow, I fear, may be mortal. Anyway, many of you have probably already realized that this wanton, unprovoked and despicable act of vandalism presents a new problem for me: where is the "This talk page has been vandalized 1 time" userbox when you need it. Lionel (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a variety of 'em listed here. Cheers, --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Burkie Barnstar
		Thanks to Lionelt for the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism and this barnstar, and for your improvements to these articles.   Will Beback  talk  11:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really cool. Looks nice if I do say so myself. Lionel (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cottrell1.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. An image you uploaded has been listed for deletion discussion; see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cottrell Trio.jpeg. Thank you. Infrogmation (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there again, please let me know how I can help out in the collaborative effort you mentioned last week. I'm actually pretty inexperienced when it comes to getting articles up to GA standard but might be able to help out in terms of spadework, copy editing, etc. Cheers Jprw (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit, if you look, I had restored the "self described" consensus twice before. But Medeis reverted me, in the same manner the anon ips inserted the same material. I'm not saying they are the same person, but it does seem strange. In any case, I believe you know the editor in question, since he seemed to be asking for some reinforcement for removing the "self described" caveat. But, as you stated, the consensus was there for it. All of this background is for me asking why your edit states "Undid revision 425109720 by DD2K (talk)....", when you did not "undo" my edit? Sorry if this is nit-picking, but it is guidelines for edit summaries to be descriptive of the edit, and your edit most certainly was not an "undo". Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right! It wasn't an undo. Lionel (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and good luck with your current endeavors. Dave Dial (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain this. BelloWello (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a "not new user" it is important to understand the importance of being civil. While you may have read WP:CIVIL, you might not have had a template on your talk page. The template contains important information about avoiding incivility, and how to handle yourself when you are tempted to do so. The template is important to help you understand Wikipedia policies. I have remedied the situation. And by the way, Hope you enjoy the template, I hope you enjoy it. BelloWello (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel insulted by the idea that I have refused to engage in discussion. I have made numerous attempts to engage in discussion, as you can see in the Discussion history. Yet, I have ignored. I have not ignored you. Someone continued to insist on referring to Hay as a "teacher" because of his involvement in the Communist Party. I have added citations that are removed; I repaired the vandalism and have accused of engaging in an "edit war." The original lead rambled on about Harry Hay, lacked citations, included trivia and few relevant facts, and vague generalities. I have once again updated the lead in order to give a concise opening lead that provides a clear overview of Hay's life24.23.171.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

will respond tomorrow. BelloWello (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing whatever it is you are seeing at this reversion of the David Lane article taking out cited text. Can you explain on the article's talk page? It all seems so straightforward to me, like there is not any BLP problem. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a template and my concern on the Talk page on 4/27. Lionel (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that does indeed make it easier. I was not aware that they were back at it on that page as well as the one reported. Thanks for the head's up. Kuru (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's extremely inappropriate. Please redact it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a helpful edit summary, but thank you nonetheless. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to report an editor who is cussing me out on a talk page? You have more experience at this than I do. Thanks. Fountainviewkid 20:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:DR. Good luck. Lionel (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Maybe I'll just ignore like I have everything else. Oh and he accused me of being a sock puppet again. There's an investigation now into both of us. Thankfully mine's turning up nothing while his is mixed. Maybe at some point this will end. Fountainviewkid 3:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The user did not edit Southern Adventist University under the previous account name which I know about. He did not have any active bans or blocks. However there were problems on unrelated topics. I think he is trying to make a clean start, but I have warned him that his behavior also needs to change to avoid having the same problems again.   Will Beback  talk  06:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

His former account received lots of blocks in a short period. He has now been indefinitely blocked with the master account by a checkuser. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionelt, if you have missed the discussions around, please be aware that the Daily Mail has basically lost its reputation as a WP:RS for any controversial claims, such as the one you have used it for to replace part of your sex ring comment on the BLP noticeboard. I won't remove it again. I understand you have strong feeling about this but please take it easy with your accusations about living people on the BLP noticeboard. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility from User:Bryonmorrigan, he may be referring to you. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]