My Talk Archives

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

September 2011

FROM THE EDITOR

An Historic Milestone

By Lionelt

Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.

The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."

WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"

PROJECT NEWS

New Style Guide Unveiled

By Lionelt

A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.

I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.

---

ARTICLE REPORT

3,000th Article Tagged

By Lionelt

On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Following Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Good job on WP:Conservatism and The Right Stuff, even with a 'malfunctioning' robot. :) Toa Nidhiki05 03:06, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!!!!!!!!

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read your post on my talk page. Thank you. It's rare for me to get positive feedback from people, and it is always appreciated to have a person who will be on my side.

In regards to the Linda McMahon article, I honestly do not think it is possible for anyone to bring it to GA status. The research on her has been pretty good, and after all the work I put into her page and her 2010 Senate campaign, I'm confident the subject has been covered in detail. The page itself has been solid and free from any type of errors/issues for months too. But don't be misled: the issue with the page has always been appeasing users (Personal attack removed)

I know, I'm a bit much for most people to handle. I want to thank you for extending your help, and I will definitely let you know if I am in an editing dispute that may need a third person's point of view. I enjoy politics a lot, so you can expect to see me a lot on wikipedia. I am currently involved a lot on the Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012. I think this page could reach GA-status next year, but even if it never does, I am not so concerned.--Screwball23 talk 04:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have the utmost respect for both you and Collect so I'm not going to get into the middle of what seems to be a misunderstanding. I will say that you have made a huge difference at McMahon and you deserve to be recognized for your efforts. We can't allow a dispute over "magnate" to deter us. If you have no objection, I'll post a message at WikiProject Conservatism that you are nominating McMahon at WP:GAN and to provide all necessary assiatance and support. Let's git er done. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Lionelt, thanks for the cup of tea! I'll have to get out some biscuits now! I hope you're doing well :) With regards, Anupam^Talk 05:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,Lionelt,I appreciate it,I have it but not with brandy,pure tea,and pure things give pure taste.Thank you.Ehsan Sehgal (talk) 10:28, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Wow, not sure I'm quite the Cal Ripken of conservative wikipedians but I'd be happy to be interviewed. Warfieldian ^(talk) 14:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Saris718's talk page.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism, 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/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism 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. Binksternet (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still having issues with some changes being done. If I could have your input on the SDA template, I would greatly appreciate it. Thx Simbagraphix (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link to it..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Seventh-day_Adventism

Lionel, seems like you are on a little break, but if you could help out when you get back at the discussion on the SDA template, I would appreciate your help.Simbagraphix (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Seventh-day_Adventism

Portal:Conservatism, 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/Portal:Conservatism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Portal:Conservatism 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. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The inconceivable has happened. My userpage has been vandalized in a most foul manner [1]. The feeling of violation is overwhelming. I am beside myself with fear. I will have to take an extended wikibeak to recuperate, and overcome the mental distress with which I am afflicted. I think 5 minutes should give me enough time to heal and recover.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:46, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holy banana nut bread! I was scared just reading the vile thing. Who would do such a thing? Regardless, take whatever time you need (I'd suggest at least three or four years). You don't want to underestimate this sorta thing. I hear Spain is nice. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:08, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh. Espana. Sangria. Paella. I can already smell the saffron...– Lionel ^(talk) 07:14, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than happy to become your adoptee, but could you just clarify how it goes since each mentor has a different way; and what kind of edits do you specialise in? :) User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 11:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and also, i saw you watching some of my edits and the articles i have created; something that i cannot thank enough. Its nice to see someone on your side from time to time :) User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 11:53, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When you say What 3 goals would like to accomplish over the next 6 months , does that refer to real life or on wikipedia? User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 13:36, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry ive done it now :) User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 14:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Lionelt, thanks for the barnstar! I do indeed value compromise and think that it is an important aspect of working with others on Wikipedia. Thanks again for the commendation. It means a lot! With regards, Anupam^Talk 15:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Objectivist. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 22:33, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little busy, and I'm dreading the inevitable walls of text and gallons of industrial-strength detergent, but what the heck.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:15, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your advice on my page , much appreciated :) So far you seem like a really good mentor who puts a lot of effot into his mentee, unlike my previous editor; while i had a lot of respect for him , unfortunately he wasnt that active. By the way What was the result/your verdict of the questionaire ? User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 23:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are covering the WikiProject Conservatism MFD this week, see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-10-17/News and notes. I have quoted you by name. Do you have any objections? I will be watching here. JORGENEVSKI 22:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! My 15 minutes of fame! No objections. Two things, though... "many of the projects members indicated a desire to counter liberal bias." I think "some" is more accurate. And the MFD did not grow out of the bizarre ArbCom request. The ArbCom request was payback for reverting soapboxing by Objectivist. Which btw helped earn him a trip to RFC/U. TTFN– Lionel ^(talk) 23:45, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The MfD absolutely grew out of the ArbCom request by Objectivist. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge, there is another aspect to this story that needs to be told. The nominator, Binksternet, had been a member for over six months. He worked with the members side by side for months, tagging articles, posting on the talkpage, chipping in here and there. How do you go from being an accepted part of a group of people to calling them "undesirable?"

And what about editors like Toa Nidhiki05? He's hit his fair share of "roadbumps" on Wikipedia. When he joined he stated, "Never joined one of these WikiProjects before." This project is his home. A place to obtain guidance and counsel. A refuge. What would he do if his WikiProject was deleted? Eisfbnore wrote, "I have so far created three DYKs on Norwegian conservatives. Why not give me some more time to churn out a few more articles." What chance is there of someone creating WikiProject Norwegian Conservatism? Deletion of WPConservatism would leave these editors homeless.

Binksternet made a number of damning indictments of the group to which he belonged. He falsely accused the members of "political advocacy and vote-stacking." This was one of many falsehoods which were never proven. How do you defame the people you have been working with for over six months without evidence? Who does that? How do you look at yourself in the mirror? There is a word for a person who joins a group, is welcomed and accepted, and then spreads lies about them and does everything he can to destroy that group of people... – Lionel ^(talk) 20:23, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lionelt. I saw you post this in our comment section. It is interesting, and I feel ya, but I think the post is inadvisable. For a number of reasons it will not go over well I think. If I were you I would remove it and side step any potential drama. JORGENEVSKI 10:34, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part?– Lionel ^(talk) 10:42, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um. To someone who does not ascribe the same importance to Wikiproject membership that you do that post might reflect somewhat poorly on your position, and that page is going to get a lot of views. (I'm sorry if I am blundering around where I am not wanted). JORGENEVSKI 11:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to say, nice - however, I am no newbie to this encylopedia (I've been on since 2009), but I've never been as active as now and WP:Conservatism offers a great chance to help others with one of my key interests - conservatism. It is a home to me, and certainly to many other editors new to WikiProjects. Toa Nidhiki05 02:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon, my mistake.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you say this aritcle, Franco-Italian Armistice which ive just created would have a fighting chance at DYK? User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 15:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It will make a great DYK. I'll just offer my congratulations now... I checked it using DYKCheck and everythng is OK. You can get DYKCheck for yourself here: WP:DYKCHECK. It's a great tool. If you have a free image, add it, it will enhance the DYK. After you nominate the article, make sure to put the link my talkpage and I'll give it a once over. – Lionel ^(talk) 19:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, ive added an image; Could you elaborate on how to do a DYK check, since it looks rather confusing and im not that great with HTML (in this aspect) and also where do i post it for nomination?? User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 20:51, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On closer inspection the Full terms section may be problematic. While I'm not a (C) expert, it appears you may have used too much of that source verbatim. Anyway the DYK reviewers will figure it out. You can nom the article here: T:TDYK. A quick way to run DYKCheck from your browser is outlined here: Wikipedia:DYKCHECK#Using_DYKcheck_without_installing_it.– Lionel ^(talk) 08:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For your kind words of congratulations after noticing I had finished my MBA SeanNovack (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very thoughtful of you, Sean. – Lionel ^(talk) 19:40, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you help me fill in the form? Bit confused about hook etc; and what fact do you think would be the most relevant?

| article         = Franco-Italian Armistice
|    article2     = 
| hook            = ... that after the Franco-Italian Armistice was signed,  Galeazzo Ciano said, "Mussolini is quite humiliated because our troops have not made a step forward"?
| author          = Goldblooded 
|    author2      = 
| image           = File:1940FaguoLiuYue.jpg
|    caption      = Battle for France. Note Italian invasion in the south.
| comment         = This is my first time nomination, I have created several articles however i was past the time limit; my mentor Lionelt recommend i nominate this article as it would have a lot of relevance in wikipedia, paticulary since it has links with other first class articles such as Fall of France and Second Armisice at Compeigne 
| reviewed        = If you reviewed another article before listing this DYK nomination, put it here. Otherwise leave this blank.

User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 13:23, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Filled it in. The map is OK, but if you have a more interesting pic use it. (It doesn't affect getting the DYK on the main page.) Post this now. Don't delay. Don't worry about getting it perfect--if there are any errors a reviewer will fix it for you. – Lionel ^(talk) 19:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. i posted it yesterday here is the link, noone has attended to it yet though.

[2] User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 13:16, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clean up edits on Mission_America_(Columbus,_Ohio). Any good help with NPOV and copy cleanup is greatly appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BossDave01 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mention it.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[3]

User:Goldblooded ^{(Return Fire)} 15:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link for the interview questions, and changed some of the questions as you suggested; when I checked to make sure my questions appeared, I must have forgotten something because my questions weren't appearing. Any suggestions?(Regushee (talk) 22:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the post on my talk, however what is happening about the DYK? i dont think theyve responded yet :( User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 09:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did you perform step III here: T:tdyk#How_to_post_a_new_nomination? (If you didn't I doubt if it will negatively affect the nomination.) – Lionel ^(talk) 09:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's a good way mark articles for creation. What makes you think that LifeSiteNews.com would be a good topic for a standalone article, for example? A quick look on Google doesn't show much discussion of it and we only have a brief sentence about it in Campaign Life Coalition, which is a pretty short article itself. It'd make more sense to keep adding to it where it is and then split it off when necessary.   Will Beback  talk  23:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LifeSite has received coverage. They exposed bias abortion reporting at the NYT which received coverage [4] and was central to a Harry Potter incident [5]. Someone is going to have to go though their google hits to find coverage about them instead of stuff they publish. In general I don't see a problem tagging redirects. The banner template is specifically programmed to support redirects, and many other projects tag them. WP:WPUS has tagged 18,005 redirects. This category supports "redirects with possibilities" Category:Redirects with possibilities. That said, redlinks are a better way to mark candidate articles, but I think redirects can coexist with redlinks in this area.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, let's expand the articles to the point of splitting them off. It's not as if the project is short of tasks already. Tagging redirects is excessive.   Will Beback  talk  00:58, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and think it prudent. However, in general I think we can agree that it is a common practice and not prohibited by policy.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:04, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any evidence that it's a common practice. There are lots of things that are unwise that no one has yet had a reason to prohibit. WP:BEANS.   Will Beback  talk  01:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't because of those {{nowrap}} in ? Helder 16:35, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a moment to review the site policy on disruptive editing. Your recent comments to Talk:Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Bill are not productive. Continually demanding that other editors find ever more specific sources while failing to provide sourced support for your contentions does not advance the cause of crafting a serious encyclopedia article that fairly represents all reliable sources. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My argument is based on WP:OR and is completely within policy and your accusation is ridiculous. Claiming that it is a violation of WP:DISRUPT is preposterous. This complaint is so completely frivolous I had to resist the urge to delete it out of hand without responding. Your edit count indicates that you are an experienced editor and should know better, so I find it difficult to asume good faith and not immediately report you to ANI. However I will remind you, in case you have forgotten, that WP:NPA prohibits "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence". Now: stop wasting my time. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, even if he doesn't use the III, I needed some way to differentiate him in a way that doesn't point back to the dab (which wouldn't bother me particularly, but there're real people who seem to spend hours and hours of their lives piping disambigs). And obviously piping him to "jazz funeral" is no good. Chubbles (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assume the rationale behind linking to Jazz Funeral is it's where his picture is. The hat he's wearing is obviously the Tuxedo Brass Band. What about creating a redirect "Louis Cottrell (drummer)", make the target "Tuxedo Brass Band", and then add the pic to Tuxedo Brass Band. That should make everyone happy. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this article's history it appears that you have removed the same information several times and in each case cited an invalid rationale for doing so. I suggest that going forward, rather than doing a wholesale removal of information, you go to the talk page to discuss your concerns. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 23:46, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what "wikilawyering" is but I can read the policies that you're citing to support your removing the information and they don't say what you seem to think they say. So since you've misinterpreted several of these policies already I'm simply hoping that you'll not embarrass yourself again and talk about your problems with the article instead of imposing changes for invalid reasons. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, I don't know what your issue is with this article or this source but you really need to knock this off. 76.201.145.83 (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know if your allowed to upload a picture of yourself to Wikipedia? Oh and by the way i still havent heard anything back from that DYK, despite the fact that i posted it ages ago User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 17:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. If you did not take the pic you'll need licensing. Don't feel bad: my DYK from 10/10 is languishing too. Backlogged I guess.– Lionel ^(talk) 19:20, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

INTERVIEW

An Interview with Dank

By Lionelt

The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.

Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.

Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.

Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.

If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.

---

DISCUSSION REPORT

Abortion Case Plods Along

By Lionelt

The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page.

Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.

---

PROJECT NEWS

Article Incubator Launched

By Lionelt

Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.

WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.

We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

Grrr... That's Headley! What's a Mahem? Not really any fun without the y. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Whilst I removed the direct link to a copyright-infringing YouTube video on Pray the Gay Away?, it would actually have been OK to link to that Advocate site, because the video is actually embedded (and it is therefore YouTube that are the copyright infringers, not The Advocate - they're not hosting the video). We have to be reasonable about issues like this; it is unreasonable for editors to have to scan every part of a website for copyright issues before they link to it. Linking directly to the copyvio, though, is forbidden. Relevant info at WP:YOUTUBE and WP:COPYLINK. I see another editor has fixed the problem by citing it, anyway. Black Kite (t) 01:54, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the IP clearly typed himself into a block (I did try), we don't indefinitely block dynamic IP addresses; there's no point, because the person behind them will merely use a different one and the next person to use the blocked one will be inconvenienced instead. Black Kite (t) 19:27, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at AdamBMorgan's talk page.

Do you know how some people have on there user pages at the top a sort of directory thing. Such as this guy for example, User_talk:Cameron is there a way to design your own or something because the one i have currently (with the tab like things) is rather bland. User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 14:52, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed Black Kite responded.– Lionel ^(talk) 06:20, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Southern Adventist University you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Southern Adventist University for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 22:06, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Lionel, your tracking my edits, and improving them, is appreciated. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:17, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not being much help on the SAU article. The things needing fixing are not my strong points and it seems like there is more to accomplish than seven days allow. Any thoughts? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald, the remaining items are very minor. From #1: copy edit, lists, expand lead. From #4: 4 dead links, link consistency. All are easily handled in a few hours, and we have three days. I'll get over there... – Lionel ^(talk) 21:48, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be a difference re: when the seven days are up. The result is the same: Appeal when ready to do so. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 13:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I am a bit concerned that our reviewer is displaying some hostility toward those working on this article. I think we should work together to reach the goal. Negative attitude usually doesn't show good faith. If the one who decides is hostile, what can be done? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably just a misunderstanding. We got an extension. I think we should just fix what he wants, and if necessary just delete anything problematic. E.g. the assets. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Re the References: Some are standard (I have been working to that effect), but some seem to utilize a HarvNb system but it is imcomplete. I am inclined to use standard citations and remove the Bibliographic sourcing but don't want to do so unilaterally. Any ideas? I realize the seven days are up soon. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there a difference between 'Cite Journal' and 'Citation' of the journal?

• GA status has been granted. Your effort has made a difference and is appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second that motion, Lionel! and also thank Donald, Fountainviewkid, Simbagraphix and all who contributed, even BelloWello. Good job, everybody! --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have removed it (or at least massively changed it) simply because of the bias implied - guess there were two reasons. LoL! Regardless, good catch. I've been meaning to revisit that article to look for things such as that, but have gotten distracted on four other articles. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for stopping by! – Lionel ^(talk) 06:22, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I may or may not of pondered over this question before and i do apologise if i have already, but do you know how to create your own Wiki Project? I was thinking of doing a WP on The World at War , Which you probably already know if you saw some of my edits it was a TV documentary in the 70s about WW2 and it was among the finest of its kind. the WP could feature episodes, people interviewed (Since in 1973 of course many of the generals and other major players were still alive and well) etc. User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 23:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goldblooded, WikiProjects are generally for much broader topics, i.e. conservatism, military history, etc. You could try doing a task force under a TV/film project. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:46, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding on Lionels behalf, although it was a little more than "a one off documentary" , it took four years to produce at a cost of £11.4 million (which at that time was a record) and it was a whole series , i think there was around 24/26 episodes; and of course Nobody can ever again make a television series like it since most of those who bore witness before its cameras in the early 1970s/late 60s have now passed. By the way what is the difference beetween a task force and a project? Is it basicially a sub category and how do you actually create one? User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 11:23, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well Gold you've certainly come to the right place. As the creator of WP:WikiProject Conservatism, one of the most exciting and rapidly expanding projects in all of wikipedia, with almost 70 members and over 3500 articles, I am in an excellent position to speak to this question.

Keep in mind that a wikiproject is a group of editors. The first thing to consider is are there enough people interested in TWAW to sustain a wikiproject? Generally you need 5 editors. Secondly are there enough articles? IMO you need a few thousand. A taskforce is essentially a mini-wikiproject typically with fewer than 5 editors and/or only several hundred articles. IMO TWAW is too narrow to be a wikiproject, but would make an excellent joint taskforce administered by WP:TV and WP:MILHIST. You could expand the scope and add related programs such as one of my favorites: Victory at Sea. Now that I think of it Band of Brothers is another great series, although fictional. Anyway you get the idea. More info about starting a wikiproject: WP:WikiProject_Council/Guide#Before_you_begin. More info about taskforces is here: WP:TASKFORCE. And here is where you can propose a project or a taskforce: WP:WPPRO. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So basicailly you have to request it first? I suppose it would have enough articles about the people being interviewed and perhaps for each of its 24 episodes (and an expansion of the current aricle abotu it) so it may have a chance. Also would i be able to design it etc and how are they generally ran, like how do you organise your own wikiproject? User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 17:36, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to propose it, although it is recommended. It is one way to recruit members. To actually create the wikiproject/taskforce read Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Guide/WikiProject. The process is fairly straightforward. Create a new page, e.g. WP:WikiProject World At War, and add this template to it: {{subst:WikiProject|Name of project}}. Then customize the page for your needs. Next create a banner and start tagging articles. This will also help in recruiting. But before you invest all of this work, make sure you have editors who are interested. A wikiproject is a group of editors. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:50, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, perhaps i could post it on the WP millitary discussion page or whatever and see if anyone is interested but as i was pondering over this ive noticed they isnt a WikiProject on Facism (or at least none that im aware of) perhaps i could create one about that. Also in response to your compliment have you only just noticed that picture? Its been up there for at least a week or so! :P User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 23:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posting to MILHIST is a great idea. You will want to announce the discussion at WP:TV. There is in fact a taskforce WP:FASCISM, though inactive. Getting Fascism rebooted would be good practice. Um, yea, just noticed the pic. I've been busy with the Southern Adventist GAN. (I'm actually Catholic--it's a long story.) Did you know an editor slapped a POV tag on my DYK article and torpedoed the DYK? Just another beautiful day in Wikipedia. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a way that task force is pretty lame in its design, and how come it says at the top its a wikiproject but then in the title its a task force? Is there some way of "nuking" it and starting again or can i just simply create a new group? Since personally i believe its worthy of its own wikiproject not just a task force, and concerning your DYK that blows, but then again thats wikipedia for you; what was it about anyway? Mine is still waiting to be checked! User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 23:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be a wikiproject, but was recently demoted, primarily because it is inactive (noone objected). Just post a note at the talk page that you're gonna "nuke" it and if noone objects bombs away!!! Hahahahaha!!! You're gonna need a number of editors to support reinstating it as a wikiproject. Better to build it up before attempting this. See [6] – Lionel ^(talk) 23:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, well im sure it would be worthy of WikiProject stats since from the beginning of cilvization they has been facsists and despots. Also in wiki projects is there like "admins" within the wikiproject itself or can anyone edit it at any time, and if so what are the basic mechanics of running a Wikiproject? And finally a quick question what is the "village pump" is it basicailly a wikipedia forum? User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 00:20, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no admins but some large wikiprojects, e.g. MILHIST, have coordinators. A coordinator basically does necessary and routine maintenance--they don't operate on mandates. Anyone can edit a proj. There are 3 main functions of a proj: recruit members, tag articles, improve content e.g. promoting articles to FA. Yes, the pump is like a gigantic talk page: you go there when you want to involve everyone. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So do coordinators have any specific rights or is just on paper, and do you think i could enter a DYK for my latest article? User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 12:34, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this WP:MHC for detailed info. Egypt only has 719 chars and needs 1500. Other than that it will make an excellent DYK. Have you considered building a WP:portal? A wikiproject is a lot of work, with little recognition, and requires a long term commitment to make it a success. And you never know when a hater will come along and try to delete it! You can make a portal on a myriad of topics, design it how you like, and even obtain recognition for it in terms of WP:Featured Portal. A TWAW portal could be a stepping stone to a wikiproject. Anyway take a look at P:RIGHT. Can you guess who built it? I'll give you 3 guesses. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lionelt,

When you get a chance, come comment on the SDA templage change and see if we can put it in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Seventh-day_Adventism

Simbagraphix (talk) 18:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will like the changes, come check it out and see if any comments...Simbagraphix (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Seventh-day_Adventism

Here is the work page for the new template: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Seventh-day_Adventism/workpage

Wow, thanks. :) Toa Nidhiki05 20:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, Lionel. Thanks for the note on my user page about the Charmaine Yoest article. I have actually added some sources and done some cleanup now. And then at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Charmaine_Yoest I've posted an explanation of why I think Charmaine does in fact pass the Notability requirement. If you are interested in adding your opinion to that discussion, I would really appreciate it. Thanks. --ProLifeDC (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Conservatism

Suggest you post a neutrally worded notice at talkpages of related WikiProjects. — Cirt (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lionelt. I am considering proposing a WikiProject for the rock band Bon Jovi, and have absolutely no clue where to start or what to do if it gets accepted. You've always been receptive and friendly to me and my fellow editors at the Conservatism WikiProject, so I was wondering if you could give me some tips on it. Thanks. :) Toa Nidhiki05 00:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You need 2 things for a wikiproject: 5 editors to join, and a couple thousand articles. Looking at category:Bon Jovi I don't see the articles. You may however be able to get a taskforce (mini-wikiproject) off the ground. But you'll still need people to join. Another option might be to build a portal. A showcase of everything and anything Bon Jovi. Read the taskforce and portal links and we'll take it from there. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:09, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through the WikiProject Council:Guide and it says they are best for articles with thousands, or at least several hundred, articles. From what I've seen, musician WPs tend to be smaller - usually only a couple hundred. The smallest one I've seen, Wikipedia:WikiProject Evanescence, only has 51. Given that, I think a separate WikiProject is at least feasable, but I'd support a taskforce. A portal is an excellent idea.

I read through the two guides and I understand the goals and intents. What next? Toa Nidhiki05 02:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Try to find people who want to work as a group on BJ articles. Post a proposal here WP:WPPRO, and then advertise the proposal everywhere you can think of. The Bon Jovi page, their better known albums & singles, and at the music wikiprojects e.g. WP:ROCK. When you have 5 support votes we'll create the project.

Regarding the portal, follow the instructions here Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions. Once you get the foundation built, we can make it look nice.– Lionel ^(talk) 03:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the proposal and also started up the portal. Toa Nidhiki05 20:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Time to recruit members. Post advertisements of the proposal at WPs Rock, Metal, New Jersey, etc., and at the main Bon Jovi articles. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've advertised on all the above - I'll also do so on musicians WikiProject as well. I'll search through some of the Rock-related projects and taskforces to see if anyone identifies as a Bon Jovi fan or is interested in the group. BTW, thanks for the support and help. :) Toa Nidhiki05 02:15, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and extend invitations to users that have recently edited the Bon Jovi page. Toa Nidhiki05 14:34, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I appreciate your ideas about dual portals, and about the improvement of portals. I've started a new discussion with a specific focus upon increasing portal visibility on the portal discussion page here: Wikipedia talk: Portal - Ideas to increase portal visibility. —Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:45, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionel, I think today is the last day for the deletion discussion of Charmaine Yoest's article and if you are at able to add your view, whatever it may be, I would really appreciate it. Thank you, ProLifeDC (talk) 00:30, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionel, I have noted the discussion on listing conservative media and have come across one of interest, so far. I found it searching for citations about the Bibleman series: DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:11, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hendershot, Heather (2004). Shaking the world for Jesus: media and conservative evangelical culture. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. p. 51. ISBN 0-226-32679-9.
• Another idea: On my user page I am developing a virtual library of books I find interesting; usually those I cite in an article. This same approach can be done on a section of the Conservatism project. Any book of interest to conservatism; either conservative or otherwise could be included in the virtual library. This would help in research on various topics. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shaking wasn't received particularly well, may not be as valuable to conservatism as it is to Bibleman. How does this differ from your idea of a virtual library? – Lionel ^(talk) 05:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not much difference except, my virtual library includes anything useful or interesting to my editing, not just conservative media. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 06:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lionel. I'm really glad you came to you to tell that. I already asked for anyone who had interest to take a look at the article on the peer review and on the military wikiproject. I had no success with any. People here have no interest on Brazilian history. That's a fact. It's very hard to find soemone who is willing to read the articles. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth is the point of having something on the portal referring in the future tense to something that has already happened? Your portal isn't meant to be an archive of past DYK hooks as they appeared on the main page; it's meant to be helpful to readers in the here and now, and presenting facts in a confusing fashion like this isn't helpful. Bencherlite^Talk 09:13, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And now you've made Portal:Conservatism/Did you know/28 positively misleading - Holby City woman was a group targeted in the 2010 general election, not the next United Kingdom general election in 2015. Bencherlite^Talk 09:17, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I'm not particularly wedded to preserving the DYK. Curious, what do other portals do? How about bringing this up on talk and seeing what people think? – Lionel ^(talk) 09:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You liked it so much, I re-did it for you! --Kenatipo ^speak! 15:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You make this place funny. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This place makes me funny, too! (see next item) --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was toying with the idea of joining your Project, going and !voting "Support" and my reason for supporting was going to be: "because Lionel told me to!" ROFL! Are you shouting "I KEEL YOU!" yet? I'm going to nickname you "the Snowman" because it was about 62–0 when. Keep smiling! --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:11, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lionelt. Thank you for your support in my RfA. That said, and even though I am involved, I removed your message on WT:WikiProject Conservatism as canvassing: the message was formulated as an invitation to support (re "one of our own", "we wish him the best", etc) and is not appropriate. Best regards, and thanks again for your support, CharlieEchoTango (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed neutrally worded to me! Oh well... – Lionel ^(talk) 21:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionelt, I thought I clicked on the right place to join the project page... can you confirm that I did what I was supposed to and that I've been added? Thanks for the invite - I hope I did what I was supposed to! --PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PJ. Doesn't look like you were added. Try this: click . Go to the bottom of the editing window. Just below CharlieEchoTango type in the following: # {{User|Your_Name_Here}} (I am interested in working on...) ~~~~~

Thought I'd check back to make sure I registered successfully - I think I did this morning or last night. Thanks!--PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note but you're wrong: I am not making an edit with which I disagree. The previous discussions about the scope of the wikiproject concerned add anti-communism-related and fundamentalist religion articles. I continue to be concerned about the vague scope of the project and its overall size, but that does not mean that I think that we should not add even a single additional page. If I did, I'd be objecting to your continued additions.   Will Beback  talk  00:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We're not talking about "we"; we're not talking about me. We're talking about your statements and your actions. You wrote that the project has reached overkill. You just reiterated your sentiment in that you are "concerned about its overall size." Why then are you adding articles? Why would appear to be supporting expanding the scope to include far-right? Look: IMO you are being disruptive. You have been warned. You do what you have to do. And I'll do what I have to do. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is adding an article that is clearly about a conservative group disruptive? I'd also like to know whether you think the project has grown too large. If not, it would appear you deleted the banner just because I'm the one who added it. Can you answer those two questions for me?   Will Beback  talk  00:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned with your comment, "I'll do what I have to do". That sounds like a threat, and it raises the issue of ownership. If you feel so threatened by the tagging of a single article then maybe you're not keeping an objective distance towards the wikiproject.   Will Beback  talk  00:48, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Among other things, the contentious discussion on talk is predicated upon your tagging an article in contradiction of your statements about the size of the project. I do not think that the project has grown too large. I removed the banner--not because you tagged it--but because there is no mention of "conservative" in the article. I'm more of a "drive-by" tagger as it were. I'm not like TFD: I'm not going to spend half an hour researching an article's history through the ages to see if it is conservative. I use the same process to tag as I do when adding categories. A quick once over: if it's indicated in the article body then I put the banner on it. In addition the article explicitly states that they are far-right. And historically the project has generally excluded far-right. No threat intended: we are all colleagues here all working together to make the best encyclopedia we can. ;-) – Lionel ^(talk) 01:06, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you taking a more conciliatory tone.

Far-right and conservative are not exclusive terms and the project currently includes a lot of far-right topics. I ahven't seen any discussion about excluding them, but you're welcome to start one.

Many articles now in the project do not include the word "conservative" - how are we going to deal with those? Shall we remove the banners?

As for the Klan article, I'll go add the well-sourced connection to conservatism. I'll let you know you when I'm done so you can add the banner back.   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While I am all for improving articles, I have to admit I am a little uncomfortable with the appearance of editing articles merely to support a position in an argument on a wikiproject talk page. And in order to apply that project's banner. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:41, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be looking it backwards. The whole point of a wikiproject is to improve articles. If we improve the Klan article as a result of this discussion then we're fulfilling that goal.   Will Beback  talk  03:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, there's a couple of mentions of conservatism in the article already.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Will Beback, I saw this discussion and thought I would chime in. Usually a project banner should be placed on the article if the project itself is willing to work on it. Since WP:Conservatism is not willing to do so, the banner was probably rightly removed by User:Lionelt. Besides, the article on the KKK seems to be covered by a plethora of more relevant projects, such as WikiProject Discrimination and WikiProject Terrorism. I hope this helps. Respectfully, Anupam^Talk 04:04, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I've replied to your duplicate message on the Wikiproject page.   Will Beback  talk  04:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Will Beback, thanks for your reply. I've replied to you there as well. With regards, Anupam^Talk 04:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add (somewhat belatedly) that not all anti-communists are conservative; nor are all fundamentalists. To conflate these is to mislead the reader (and, some anti-communists and fundamentalists would say, is an insult to them). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2018

PROJECT NEWS

WikiProject Conservatism faces the ultimate test

By Lionelt

On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.

Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.

In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.

October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

---

DISCUSSION REPORT

Timeline of conservatism is moved

By Lionelt

Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

May I opt out of receiving The Right Stuff? Thanks. --Kleinzach 03:14, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll check with the bot owner. The way the bot works is that it scrapes every user off of the About Us page. We use a generic bot that has limited capabilities--the newsletters with the fancy subscription options are custom programmed. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to comment on this - RfC to move. Toa Nidhiki05 20:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionel, I don't think I gave a response to your invitation (a while back) to join the Conservatism project. I certainly don't know very much about Conservatism in the US or UK. But as you seem to be a fairly civilised bunch, and I am trying to find all the civilised company I can find on Wikipedia, I certainly don't mind being of help if I can be. But to repeat, my depth (and even surface) knowledge of the field is fairly limited to say the least. I have found myself at times rather caught in disputes with a long history. In view of the hand-slap recently received I would of course be limited to articles that don't overlap with my restrictions. Still if nothing else I'd be grateful to be part of a group, as I really need guidance on navigating wikipedia. DMSBel (talk) 11:14, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel, following posting the above I have asked if I might set up a new account to make a fresh start. I'll be taking a little break in any event, but will still be checking for messages.DMSBel (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We all get sidetracked from time to time and allow our passions to get the better of us. Fresh start sounds like something to give serious consideration. Being part of a wikiproject can help quell feelings of isolation editors sometimes experience. I'd be glad to help you navigate around--you know where to find me. – Lionel ^(talk) 10:17, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lionel, I hadn't seen policy about Fresh Starts but its been brought to my attention while there are sanctions against me I'll not be able to go that route, just a change of username is permitted. Probably just a short break will be sufficient for me to see matters clearly. Best.DMSBel (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could indeed add new projects, yes :) - Jarry1250 ^{[Weasel? Discuss.]} 12:13, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionel, these user-boxes that editors have, can anyone make one up? If I wanted to make one, for instance, This editor is interested in the writings of.... , can I just invent one? is there a page which explains how to make one? DMSBel (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think I have found the page I am looking forDMSBel (talk) 21:00, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 12:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates.
Message added 11:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—From Northamerica1000^(talk) 11:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

{{WikiProject Conservatism}} Why did you put WikiProject Conservatism on Talk:Climate change policy of the United States?

Did you intend something related to Conservation (ethic) instead? 99.56.122.24 (talk) 07:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Political activities of the Koch family for example? 99.181.137.218 (talk) 23:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I filed a post on him at WP:WQA and noted your advice to him therein. Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Lionel, you've probably noticed i havent been on much recently; i guess ive simply just been too busy really, what with exams and work etc but nevertheless i hope you are well and i wish you a warm seasons greetings for you and your family. Thanks mate. User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 12:31, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I wonder if we could have your response about this issue which I have raised on the Conservatism talk page here? Thanks. --Kleinzach 00:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to be dismissive, but your issues are not worthy of any response whatsoever. Your statement "the FAQ is not backed by any consensus" is just plain wrong as I demonstrated by the policy I cited. Your objection that the FAQ is "inadequate IMO" is an IDONTLIKEIT position and is worthless. The fact of the matter is I find your arguments "inadequate" and my opinion is backed up by your long list of failed proposals at the project talkpage. Furthermore I am very sketical of your motives in the wake of the bizarre nomination of RGloucester for project coordinator. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:05, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. My WP:AGF approach is obviously not working. Better for you to express yourself on the WikiProject Conservatism talk page. See you there! --Kleinzach 05:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KZ, I find your behavior troubling. Can we just let the people get back to their articles and stop this filibuster. Conservatism may not be the most popular opinion here on wiki, that is why it should be protected. --Guerillero | My Talk 06:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven Talk 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Lionelt. I hope you haven't forgot about the Duke of Caxias' FAC and your image review. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 11:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lionelt, sorry to bother. Do you plan to finish your image review on Duke of Caxias' article? --Lecen (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I greatly appreciate it. And even though most of my time is occupied by my website at the moment, I'll try to make some meaningful contributions in the year ahead.

Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored this, based on a request at WP:REFUND; but I concur that this in its current form is not acceptable. I thought you should be notified. --Orange Mike | Talk 22:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 04:08, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bump. ResMar 19:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An FYI, I added some quotes to the portal and closed the nom as a pass—congratulations! =) ResMar 03:44, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU!!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 10:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're back! I sent you a couple of emails because I was concerned about you, don't know how often you check it though. Hope everything's alright! -- NYyankees51

I'm glad you're back, too, Lionelt. We were getting worried. Hope you had a restful break. --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Thanksgiving". Thank you. --Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not involved in any WikiProjects so not sure exactly how they work and decisions are made, but a couple of recent bot edits at Sheldon Adelson made me wonder if that article shouldn't also be included in WikiProject Conservatism. Fat&Happy (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The barnstar is very much appreciated. I hope that I can continue to act in a way that doesn't make you regret having given it to me. John Carter (talk) 02:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Bill Andriette is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Andriette until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Nonogyro (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Day of Dialogue is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day of Dialogue until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Nonogyro (talk) 18:56, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Homosexuality and Seventh-day Adventism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Homosexuality and Seventh-day Adventism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Nonogyro (talk) 21:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the project would very much benefit if we had a few editors who would like to serve as coordinators, in a way similar to WP:MILHIST. I think you might well be one of the better qualified to do so. The things which I believe would be most beneficial would be using the talk page to indicate discussions of FA candidates and review, GA candidates and review, Requests for comment, and possibly a contest, as well as preparing a monthly "newsletter" indicating current activities and concerns. However, I do think that you might be advised in advance as to what some of the difficulties are.

• 1) To the best of my knowledge, there are few if any points of belief in Christianity which are not contested by at least one group within that field. This includes, I think, even the question of Jesus' very existence, which is I think somewhat questioned by some Anglicans, who seem to regard him as some sort of myth. And, of course, there are outside questions from the likes of atheists and agnostics. This includes even one atheistic admin here who started a discussion on an article talk page about how an academic who believes Jesus never existed should meet WP:RS because "we" (atheists) were being called "stupid" (by whom wasn't specified) and that atheists aren't. The bulk of the following discussion consisted of little more from that editor than a litany of the opinions expressed by New Atheists, and an apparent thinking that they couldn't be questioned, given their intelligence. Also, I think you may have already encountered someone who seems to be a bit POV regarding the Salem Witch Trials.
• 2) There are also several non-notable, or perhaps barely notable, Christian or other groups out there who have, and in some cases continue to, try to use wikipedia as some sort of advertisement for their beliefs. In some cases, these groups will point to individual academics who support their contentions, or self-published sources, and try to indicate them as definitive. In some cases, particularly the more academically obscure ones, it can be hard to establish that they qualify as fringe theories, because of the basic indifference and lack of attention they may have received from the academic community.

It is in large part because of these concerns that I am trying to get together a list of reliable reference sources, because I think they are probably among the only sources which, in some cases, can be used to indicate that some fringe theories are in fact fringe. Unfortunately, there are hundreds of such sources, and gathering them all on a user page will take me considerable time. Also, personally, because of the possibly difficulties in trying to improve non-sectarian articles, rather than articles specifically about individual groups, the few times I ran a monthly contest in the past I went for articles on individual groups as the subject, because I figured they would be the least potentially problematic. Anyway, I think you, and possibly History 2007, might be among the better candidates for coordinators, if you would want the posts. I have left a message on his talk page regarding this discussion here, as well as with Johnbod, who seems to be one of the defacto leaders of the Visual Arts WikiProject. He knows rather a lot about project management as well. I hope you all feel free to discuss the matter here or elsewhere, and, maybe, if you all see fit, maybe call for an election of coordinators in the near future.

I am very much honored, in particular because this invitation comes from someone who has done so much for the project. It would be impossible to follow in your footsteps, John, however I am committed to making WPChristianity the best group of editors in Wikipedia. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support this, although I suspect it will be hard to coordinate much in this area, where there is a wide range of disparate views. We don't do much "management" at the VA project, but it remains a useful voice here I think. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

ARTICLE REPORT

Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism

By Lionelt

On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.

Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline.

---

PROJECT NEWS

Project Scope Debated

By Lionelt

Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.

Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.

Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

DISCUSSION REPORT

Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum?

By Lionelt

Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.

The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

Great work on the Right Stuff this month. I remember reading somewhere that an overly detailed Wikipedia article about a political BLP (usually conservative and/or republican), is often used as a vehicle to attack the candidate. Other than being very watchful, how can we (as a Wikiproject), combat against such use of Wikipedia as a political attack tool? Perhaps create an essay, with potential elevation to a guideline (highly unlikely given my WP:SOLDIER experience), to help ward against such actions? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, RCLC. You're comments are timely and thought provoking. I would be interested in reading the document to which you are referring. To ensure BLPs are neutral, we first need to be able to recognize tactics used to manipulate them. Then countermeasures can be deployed. We should get to work on this ASAP. As we get closer to November the article for Obama's opponent as well as other candidates will come under attack. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well there are several non-wikipedia articles about the subject in reliable sources:

"Liberal Bias at Wikipedia?". NewsBusters. 23 April 2006. Retrieved 7 February 2012.

Mark Glaser (17 April 2006). "Wikipedia Bias::Is There a Neutral View on George W. Bush?". MediaShift. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved 7 February 2012.

Matthew Sheffield (21 August 2008). "SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat". Washington Times. Retrieved 8 February 2012.

Rowan Scarborough (27 September 2010). "Wikipedia Whacks the Right". Human Events. Retrieved 8 February 2012.

Matt Sanchez (14 May 2008). "Wiki-Whacked by Political Bias". PJ Media. Retrieved 8 February 2012.

The left is rather dismissive of the view from those on the right that there is a bias here on wikipedia, even if it's an unintentional imbalance as the Wikipedia founder has stated due to the slight demographic majority of left leaning editors over right leaning editors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please disengage from Roux's talk page; this edit summary here [7] is a little excessive, and considering that you are intimately involved in the dispute, your presense there is unlikely to calm the situation. It would be best if you just avoided commenting one way or the other. --Jayron32 05:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at Antoshi's talk page.

I missed it when I did my minor edits the other day, but I'm watching it now, and that kind of "criticism", if it returns, won't be there long. --Kenatipo ^speak! 00:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have encountered a similar problem as I have on these religion articles. If we worked together, we could clean up some of these articles. If you are interested, let me know. Also, what is the issue with Homosexuality and Seventh-day Adventism? Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take a look at the exodus talk page and comment on the two issues currently being discussed. Above the "bronze age collapse" break, they want to leave out my edits (most of them are softening the imbalance, like altering a claim that "scholars agree" on something to naming the scholar who personally holds that view). Below the "bronze age collapse" break I am arguing for them to restore my section on the Bronze Age Collapse, as it is directly relevant to was going on at the time.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as that section seems clearly original research, I asked you there to explain why you think it should be included. Qgs seems reluctant to go to WP:NOR perhaps mistakenly thinking local consensus would override it. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Lionel , ill reply to that email you sent me in due course but for now could you help me out a sec?

Having a bit of a dispute on The World at War page (check the history for details) but basicailly theres this user who has been rude to other editors,(along with not assuming good faith) and adding nonsensical edits and also reverting and reverting other peoples and my edits and has refused to compromise, While i agree my edit may be a bit debatable in its necessity he has already breached the 3RR rule and with being rude to both me and another user.

User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 22:49, 11 February 2012 (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. Mathsci (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the disrupted edits on the exodus and started a new discussion section at Talk:The_Exodus#Discuss_the_edits. Please comment when you have a chance.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Am actually going about trying to adjust the banner in a number of ways, to produce a greater consistency and logical arrangement of the subprojects. Part of that involves perhaps getting some input on the proposed changes of scope of some of the related project, as per the comments I made at WT:X. I think it would probably be very useful to get them all done at once, though, to minimize the impact of the changes, and would welcome any comments on the other proposed changes. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and a rather important one. Wekn reven 19:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, just dropping by to let you know that the above article yesterday reached GA status (second attempt). Regards, Jprw (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this user may be stalking/harassing you. I have noticed after researching his AFD requests, they seem to be centered around articles in which you have created/contributed to. If you should decide to take any case before an arbitrator/administrator, I wanted to let you know that I will stand by you as a witness if necessary. Please let me know, thanks. SaveATreeEatAVegan 07:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and thank you for the barnstar reward, my friend. The harassment of Wikipedia's vital contributor's is a serious offense, and I for one will not sit back and allow it to be tolerated. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication to our project, and I'm sorry you had to deal with such nonsense. SaveATreeEatAVegan 08:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Working Man's Barnstar
	Your non-stop efforts and tireless contributions do not go unnoticed. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication, friend. SaveATreeEatAVegan 08:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Very pleased to see the article easily survived the AFD. SaveATreeEatAVegan 12:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you take another look at the talk page for the exodus, specifically the bottom? I commented on PiCo's behavior on the most recent post by History2007. He seems to be purposely obstructing the discussion.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not revert warring. Please don't template me in the future, I consider it uncollegial. --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• True, I'm a relatively new user. But you should treat me based on my understanding of policy and experience not on the short time I've been here. Misrepresenting the edit-warring policy to a new user is hardly a great idea, and it's simply good fortune that I've read the relevant pages myself and therefore am undeterred. Regards. --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nah, this is my first account. I edited as an IP doing minor fixes since around 2006 or 2007, so I'm pretty familiar with how everything works. I thought I might as well create an account when I found some articles I wanted to do serious work on a few weeks ago, because it would be confusing for other editors (my IP addresses can be highly dynamic). But yeah, I consider myself a regular. People forget that IPs are human beings sometimes. Anyway, all the best. --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Btw, where's the signup list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism ? I wouldn't mind joining. --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tag team edit wars are still edit wars. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to my revert of the POV tag, there is a new issue on the talk page which justifies re-adding the tag. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there. I noticed that you had asked Rcsprinter to add links to the Conservatism portal to a number of articles. I believe that a number of those links are unwarranted, based on the topic's only tangential relevance to conservatism, especially when taking into account the broadness of certain topics. Here's a list of the ones I take issue with- please let me know what you think:

• Bonapartism
• Gerald Ford
• Fundamentalism
• Václav Klaus
• Political correctness
• Aristocracy
• Classical liberalism
• Cold War
• Counter-revolutionary
• Left–right politics
• Political spectrum
• Social order
• Social stratification
• Agrarianism

Thanks! johnpseudo 13:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks John for bringing this to my attention. Links were added to these articles because they have been assessed as Top or High priority. I didn't assess and do not know why some of them, e.g. Bonapartism or Václav Klaus, were given Top/High priority. Others are not only Top priority, but also appear on the core template: {{Conservatism}}. E.g. Social order and Aristocracy. I would say that those are excellent candidates for the link.

The bigger question might be what is the criteria for adding the link in the first place? From WP:ALSO: "links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant." So, links with "only tangential relevance" are permitted.– Lionel ^(talk) 21:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionelt, you may find this news item of interest to the conservatism project:

Baroness Warsi's strike at 'secular fundamentalists' as she meets Pope

By Nick Squires, the Vatican, 6:20PM GMT 15 Feb 2012

Baroness Warsi has hit out at "secular fundamentalists" as she met the Pope and concluded an historic visit of British ministers to the Vatican. The Cabinet Office minister and chairman of the Conservative Party gave Benedict XVI a personal gift during a 20-minute private audience – a gold-plated cube that opens up to reveal 99 tiny cubes, each inscribed with a reference to Allah. In keeping with the theme of interfaith dialogue, she also gave him a copy of the Koran which was translated by an East European Jew who converted to Islam and helped write Pakistan's constitution. "They were personal gifts from me," Baroness Warsi, the first female Muslim cabinet minister, told The Daily Telegraph at the Vatican on Wednesday. She also presented the pontiff with a letter from David Cameron, the Prime Minister, a message from the Queen and a copy of the King James Bible... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/vaticancityandholysee/9084631/Baroness-Warsis-strike-at-secular-fundamentalists-as-she-meets-Pope.html

Thanks for uploading File:A 090806 ducks01.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

• make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
• Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 17:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of just deleting paragraphs why don't you first look for sources? It took me five seconds to find sources for the material you deleted from Central Neighbourhood House. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your irritation, Vale of Glamorgan. On the other hand, I see why Lionelt was justified in doing what he did—the article has been tagged for "Needs citations" since August. In a case like this, where the info comes from the website of the organization the article covers, I think we should put a general attribution in the "References" section, like "The information in this article is drawn from the CNH website". It doesn't meet our requirement for 3rd party sourcing, but I'm an inclusionist. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, when we had a monthly newsletter for a very brief time, we ran a monthly contest to create and bring a new article up to DYK status. It seemed to work, although, admittedly, it only involved one person per month. I know MILHIST runs a contest, in which people who develop articles get points per article developed, based on a few set criteria. Maybe something like that would be the way to go, if we could come up with some sort of guidelines for points like they have. I very much doubt the Signpost would allow interviews to winners, though. There are at least 1000 WikiProjects and work groups out there, and they are probably interested in getting as many recognized as possible. Maybe a "thank you" in the next monthly issue, again, if we had a regular one, might work however. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Signpost was some serious reaching... Acknowledging the winner would work well in a newsletter--if we had one. Anyway, I'm going to check interest for the contest at the NB. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this page before doing next "merge" [like this.--В и к и T 20:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to remove Green's rebuttal because Christian Voice's blog is not a reliable source as it is a blog and self-published. WP:SPS states: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer", and WP:BLPSPS instructs: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" I am genuinely sorry about this: the initial claim could do with a response, but this cannot be it. If you can find one in an [WP:RS|RS]], please do add it.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moreoever, please stop removing WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS-referenced information that pertains to Green specifically in the context of his leadership of the organisation as "off-topic". I reiterate: firstly, the source mentions his leadership of CV several times and alludes to it in its title. Secondly, the Green and CV pages were merged due to a consensus of editors that Green and CV are two names for the same thing: what pertains to one pertains to the other. Finally, if mention of Green in this context is "off-topic", so logically is any mention of his leadership and background, which would deprive the article of vital context. We have already been through this on the talk page many months back: having failed to make your case there (and unsuccessfully trying numerous other lines of argument to have this information removed), it is not edifying to return several months later to remove a large chunk of fully-referenced notable information as if the debate over its inclusion had never taken place.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sincere apologies for that comment: checking the page again, I realise that you removed it only from the "controversy" section, where at some stage it had been duplicated, and not from the "leadership" section, where it had long resided.FrFintonStack (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Lionelt, thank you for your kind comments. It is nice to know that I am making a difference here. I may be absent for a while, only taking the time to edit periodically. I hope you have a nice evening. With regards, Anupam^Talk 02:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

RE: an in-line portal link as "political spam" — eye of the beholder, and all that, but with the long knives out in some quarters as to what is perceived as a POV-driven agenda at the Conservatism project, I hope you will give most serious consideration to my take on this. See Also links are not the place for in-line links to portals. The small portal icons are borderline. Project portals should be kept out of mainspace altogether, some might reasonably argue. best, — Tim //// Carrite (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lionelt. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

EB is a tertiary source. And it is reliable. The policy does not prohibit tertiary sources, however, if a secondary source is found EB should be removed and replaced. But not until such secondary source is added.

with

removed tertiary source per WP:RS " may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion") Eschoir (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions and subscriptions contact the Newsroom

testing 1 2 3 testing 1 2 3

(sees orange bar, messages crossed in transit)

Lionelt - I've started a thread on ANI regarding the recent newsletter distribution. I've not as yet mentioned you by name, but will soon. (Not in any sort of disparaging way, by the way.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove my name from further delivery of this spam newsletter. While I am a member of Project Catholicism I only accept newsletters from that project not others using their member list. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 03:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

—Anupam^Talk 03:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel, isn't the 1st revert at 20:59 18 February? That would give a total of 7 in a 24-hour period, adding 2 onto the front end of your 5. (When you've got him down, kick him, I always say!) --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:44, 24 February 2012 (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. See section Questions concerning institutional votestacking- "9-1-1 button". Drmies (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Issuing project invites to single-purpose promotional accounts? Not a good way to dispel concerns about your pet project being a canvassing machine. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I observed an editor who made questionable edits and gave them a Welcome message which has useful and helpful links to important policies. The article where I noticed them has a conservatism banner--I know of no better project to obtain guidance on how to become a productive member of the community. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Inviting editors who are blocked for disruptive POV-motivated editing to your WikiProjects is only going to strengthen the already strong case of users who are pointing out that the projects are serving as ideology-based hubs rather than interest-based ones. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without the guidance of experienced editors in his chosen topic area how can he possibly learn to edit collaboratively instead of disruptively? You and I both know that as soon as he comes off the block he's going to edit war again. You feel projects are votestacking machines. I find them to be supportive environments for improving articles and editors. Time will tell which one, or if neither, of us is correct. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could dispel some of these suspicions by actually providing guidance to the disruptive editors you want editing these articles, instead of showing them a list of articles they have an agenda about and letting them loose. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:41, 6 March 2012 (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. Esoglou (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hadn't myself noticed the load time for the above page, but I tend to agree with you that it might also be very useful if that page were streamlined a little. I suppose we could make the members list just a link to a separate page, and maybe do the same with the GA/FA articles, and so on. I guess it would be useful to know what specifically you had in mind. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The main page frequently will be the first exposure that prospective members have of the project. That initial experience will determine if they join or not. IMO it should convey to prospects that we are a group and that our group is the best in wikipedia; and it should do it without a lot of wiki-speak. The bulk of the "work" related stuff could be moved to subpages--regular members shouldn't have no difficulty finding the pages they need. The subpages could be accessed by tabs and a footer nav box. We might consider eliminating the sidebar on the main page. We could create a working design in a sandbox. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Filet-O-Fish has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –Grondemar 02:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. Haven't checked with the MOS on that one in a while. Sorry (and thanks), Dahn (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Praise from Caesar. If you would like to propose it, I certainly won't object - I tend not to propose my own articles for GA, because it is enjoyable to get genuine feedback such as yours. The only things are that the GA review process is getting slow these days, and also that, at this stage, I can't in good faith guarantee that I'll be around to fix the issues posed by the review (potential objections, questions etc.).

I was touched by the decision to include Nicolae Iorga on the Conservatism portal DYK. Brace yourself ;). Dahn (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here