My Talk Archives

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

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon FMPU... Baby needs a new pair of shoes!

2,538 measly hits AND I had a video on the homepage--someone call a bureaucrat--I have been robbed!!!

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		Great job with First Motion Picture Unit! Daniel Case (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From your past few edits i get the impression you're not assuming good faith. If you see an unsourced edit of mine, the least you could do is ask me to source it instead of plainly reverting me. I think your editing style is hostile and unconstructive. I have come accross this behavior of your at least twice in the past, but decided to ignore it. This is the third time. Your edits beome particularly unhelpful when they make mass reverts often in a short space of time. The fact you can make revert or delete in such a short space of time indicates you have not attempted to do research on an edit yourself and whether a passage is notable/plausible etc. My problems wih your edits can be roughly covered by WP:Etiquette, WP:Assume good faith, and WP:NPOV. Also, some other edits have complained about a such behavior from you fairly recently. I hope you amend these editing habits of yours. I will be watching your contributions. Pass a Method talk 11:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, in this edit you indicate you do not value the lives of gay people as much as you value black people. This shows your partiality and probably explains some of the above concerns. Additionally i have noticed some hypocrisy in your editing, for example saying "unsourced" but ignoring unsourced text fits your worldview; Or cherry-picking quotes as at I have a dream, but ignoring other texts with similar content. Another problem with your editing is that you believe others should justify inclusion of text even when the text is sourced without explanation. Pass a Method talk 16:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What silliness. Stating that what gays are going through now is nothing compared to what blacks went through is not stating that the lives of black people are more valuable than gay people. It's a statement of fact, that even many gay people acknowledge. Gay people actually get to have a life, even if not getting to marry in every part of the world, and are not going through anything close to the horrors that black people had to endure. And marriage isn't even important to all gay people. Freedom, on the other hand, which black people didn't have, is important to everyone. And it's funny that you admit you will be stalking an editors edits, after having warned another editor not to stalk you because it's WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Unbelievable. 116.247.86.34 (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, why dont you reply using your user account, and why do you ignore all the other points? Secondly, in a way, gays are going through worse than blacks, because whereas a black can find condolence in his family, or among peers or among his church/mosque/etc., gays often come from conservative/traditionalist families, or are not acccepted by their religious clergy, and many social groups exclude gays. For example you can probably go to any inner city in most countries and tell youths you are into cannabis and it would be socially accetable. But imagine telling people you're gay instead, it could be social suicide. In fact various polls confirm this such as a recennt gallup poll stating 96% would vote for a black president but only 68% for a gay and only 54% for an atheist. [1] Pass a Method talk 18:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, I never stated that I am Lionelt. There are people who watch others' talk pages, or don't you know that? And whether or not I have an account is none of your business. I'm certainly not obligated to respond to your drivel under an account. And your stating that "in a way, gays are going through worse than blacks" is quite possibly the most absurd thing I have ever read...if you mean "what blacks went through back in the slavery days." If you do mean that, I highly suggest you read up on exactly what slavery was like for black people. And don't tell me that you have, because I won't believe it. Gay people are free, and most of society is not out hanging them, skining them alive, burning them, telling them that they can't sit [here or there], etc. etc, etc... Not being able to find condolence from family, or among peers or among church/mosque/etc. is nothing compared to the horrors that black people went through during the slavery days. If you mean what both groups are going through now in the modern era, then I can understand your point. But otherwise, no. And the cannabis example is a bad one. What, are people suppposed to be condemned for being into cannabis? 116.247.86.34 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People are still legally hanged today for being gay. There is no country where you can leglly be hanged for being black today. Im not sure why you're drifting into 19th century history - my discussion is not about history but modern issues. If you stopped daydreaming and used your neurological receptors you would have realized i was speaking in a present tense (are, can etc.). I failt to see how you could translate my present tense sentence into "the slavery days". This says a lot about your grammatical skills. Also, i still think you're Lionelt, since you haven't denied it. Pass a Method talk 18:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People being legally hanged for being gay in the modern era is still nowhere close to all of what black people endured during the slavery days. It doesn't even happen in as many places as black slavery did. Everyone who knows the history of both plights knows this. It seems that you don't. And let's not forget that, unless a very effeminate gay man who is not thinking about "acting straight" (which many gay men have talked about), people can conceal the fact that they are gay. People cannot conceal the fact that they are black unless they have a good amount of European blood in them and actually look white, which is to their benefit if facing a person who is racist against blacks. And I stated that "If you mean what both groups are going through now in the modern era, then I can understand your point. But otherwise, no." And I stated that because it was not clear that you were talking about the modern era for both groups. Lionelt and others were talking about what blacks went through during slavery compared to what gays are going through now. So it's only natural that a person would assume that you are speaking of the same. It only looks like you're backtracking to me. Not to mention, resorting to insults when you can't hold your own during a debate makes you look... Well, you get the point. But just to touch on one of your insults, you shouldn't be talking about anyone's grammatical skills, given your constant typos. And what you actually meant is "comprehension skills" anyway.

And by the way, I don't care if you think that I'm Lionelt. As if it makes sense that he would respond to you as an IP on his talk page. And now, since you are trying to control my actions -- trying to get me to state that I am or am not Lionelt, despite the fact that anyone could state that I was clear that I am not -- I'm not going to bother explicitly stating that I am not. Whoop. 116.247.86.34 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I always edit under Lionelt. (And once in a while my pseudo-bot.) Mainly because I want the credit for my editcount. I'm knocking on the door ofover 20,000, you know. That said, I think 116.247.86.34 makes excellent points. Btw, have you gentlemen/women visited First Motion Picture Unit? I need to get 5000 pageviews and I could use your help. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that wikipedians are quite obsessed with edit counts. I fail to see the logic. I know many great editors with low edit counts and many awful editors with high edit counts. Pass a Method talk 23:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Obsessed? Just because I have my "Edit count" page on my browser toolbar and check it every other hour, make zillions of tiny minor edits instead of big ones, don't do any offwiki writing and use AWB to add wikiproject banners by the thousand doesn't make me obsessed. [preceding was humor] Regarding your other comment, well now you know a great editor with a high edit count.[preceding was slightly facetious but completely true] (Note to WP server: add 1 to my edit count. Thank you.) – Lionel ^(talk) 23:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pass a Method: I want to ask you something. I want you to take your time and consider your answer very carefully. I want you to be honest and not shovel BS. How you respond may affect the very foundation of Wikipedia for the foreseeable future: did you visit First Motion Picture Unit? – Lionel ^(talk) 23:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC) [In case anyone is counting--and I know I am--that was my 20,381st edit][reply]

Hi, just noticed that the DYK icons at the top of your page don't actually point anywhere, and simply say "user got listed on the main page". :-) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to judge/close the WikiGrail contest since it is over. Toa Nidhiki05 23:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to take a while to determine the winner. Looks close and I don't want to make a mistake. Gimme a day... :-) – Lionel ^(talk) 23:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are 5 min left according to UTC. And as Viriditas is quick to tell you even if you don't ask, we always do things according to UTC. We don't want anyone accusing me of violating the rules.  ;-) – Lionel (talk) 4:55 pm, Today (UTC−7)

Haha, we don't want that at all. Toa Nidhiki05 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ping.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to redirect Imam Husayn Shrine to Imam Hussein Shrine, but i can't coz it already has a page. How do you move such a page? Pass a Method talk 07:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Your edit here also removed my (now irrelevant) comment. This was almost certainly an accident, but I just wanted to check and see if there was another reason. Thanks! --Tgeairn (talk) 02:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accident. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/First colored senator and reps.jpg -- for stalkers who wanna know WTF this is all about – Lionel ^(talk) 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for Raeky's behaviour. I was trying to help out, but he or she seems determined to go off on some sort of odd crusade against... god knows what. I hope you like the restoration I did, anyway. If you missed the download button, here's a link to the full-sized version. http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/189/d/d/first_colored_u_s__senator_reps__restoration_by_adamcuerden-d56h6gm.png - You'll probably need to convert to JPEG to get it to upload; email me through the email service at User:Adam Cuerden if you need any more help - I'm pretty much retired, but will always jump on things related to civil rights movements. =) 86.139.213.143 (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious: controversy follows me whereever I go!!!!! Hahahahaha!!! No apology necessary, and the restoration looks nice, great job. But to be honest all I want is a bronze star. I've already uploaded a png (which I converted from tiff myself) and the tiff in addition to the original jpg and being honest again I don't care if the image is yellow, white or turquise. Now... what do you think about voting Support??? – Lionel ^(talk) 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Committee is shocked and disappointed that you failed to appear at this year's Chap Olympiad. Neither did you send your butler as your representative (permitted under the rules in extreme circumstances such as terminal gout, moustache mange or gusset-rot). Poor show, old chap. You risk being blackballed by the Committee for your snub, which I'm sure will be of concern to a fellow of your proclaimed testicular dimensions, hence this notification. Writegeist (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please be a good fellow and forward my sincere regrets to the Committee. You see a gentlemen of my phallic attribution is in great demand to perform one service or the other as the case may be and as need arises. And as chivalry demands, I am always one to oblige, and never one to disappoint. Love the link; my compliments sir, and my felicitations to Mrs. Writegeist, who I am certain appreciated your comforting and "maintenance" during the recent long and cold winter. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Exodus International. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you.

I am doing the review for the article you nominated. The review page is here--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are suggestions at the review page on what should be improved in the article before I believe it can pass.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Opinions on what I wrote on ItsZippy's page? I believe it is unfair for one user to get blocked for edit warring and not the other, and the mod was in the wrong for choosing sides. Lsufalcon (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are a much more experienced editor than I, so would you mind having a look at something for me? I think it's possible we are seeing some sockpuppetry. Check out this | user sandbox, and pay particular attention to the "possible signatures". I know you will recognize at least one of the handles. Belchfire (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing afoot here. He just likes Jenova's signature and is testing different versions. What is worrisome however is that noone at WT:LGBT has deleted that inflammatory canvass by Jenova. Jenova is using the wikiproject to further a battleground, and the members are eerily silent. Even approving? A wikiproject will be shutdown if the community views it as a vote-stacking machine. And while many would have no issue in WP:LGBT being shutdown, the repurcussions could affect a great many projects.

Don't think for one second that you or I could post something like that and get away with it. For you or I it would mean a one way trip to WP:ANI and a certain topic ban. Double standard? Naaawwwwww. Getting back to the article, don't be surprised if 635 editors "magically" show up at the article, lol. Don't worry... I have plenty of policy-based arguments up my sleeve, hahahahaha. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I didn't want to pursue that until I'd consulted with somebody more savvy than myself. Belchfire (talk) 16:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Justice007's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LioneIt,

I would like to discuss the reason for excluding the quotation from Lord Rothermere's Youth Triumphant editorial and have outlined my justification here. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

My discussion is intended to be in good faith and with no malice.

Thanks,

— Posted by Luke Goodsell, 08:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Started Talk:Krista Branch/GA1 with a few suggestions and a provisional no vote. Hope my suggestions help. If you can, please take a look at Angelus Silesius (an article I've been working on recently) and tell me what you think. I'm planning on putting this up for GA later this week. Thanks. --ColonelHenry (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You have a new message at ColonelHenry's talk page. --ColonelHenry (talk) 05:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionel. A few weeks ago, issues were raised at my talk page regarding your behaviour. I've spent the past few days looking through your history and I've found a couple of disturbing trends. The biggest problem is with your misrepresentation of sources.

• Exodus International - You suggested that the company sees homosexual behavior as sinful, whereas the source stated that the company maintained that "sexual activity prior to heterosexual marriage" was sinful. You've attributed more to the comment than was said, and missed off other parts.
• Straight pride. You suggested that Steve Nelson of Huffington Post categorised Straight Pride as a First Amendment issue. In fact, though he mentioned First Amendment, he did not categorise it such, he was commenting on First Amendment claims of high school students.
• Confidence Men - Daily Mail reporting on Washington Post excerpt of a book based on interviews. The original subject denies it in the same source. You did the same at Anita Dunn and went on to add it in places such as Presidency of Barack Obama#Criticism and War on Women.
• Cristiada (film) - You attributed parallels which were not mentioned in source.
• Donald Harvey - You state he killed his lover, but the just states that he poisoned his lover, specifically suggesting he did not kill him.

When confronted with these issues, you appear to categorically deny that there was a problem, yet you do change the text to find compromise. I'm very much of the opinion that editors shouldn't be expected to apologise for mistakes (grovelling isn't a requirement), and finding a middle ground is an excellent way forward. However, because there are quite so many incidents and all from the past few months, I thought it worth coming here to ask you to please be more careful in future with how you represent sources, as repeating actions like that in the future is likely to lead to removal of your editing priveleges.

I don't want to be wholly negative - I've seen you do some excellent work on the encyclopedia. Not only with respect to your non-political articles, but also your hard work co-ordinating wikiprojects. Whether or not there is a left-wing bias on Wikipedia, it is a legitimate concern, and I thank you for adding some balance to the encyclopedia. Worm^TT(talk) 13:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I want to thank you, Worm, for bringing these concerns to my attention. The process of improving oneself is a never ending journey, and constructive criticism is crucial in this respect. Digging through contributions is a laborious process, and I assure you that your effort is not in vain, and has drawn my attention. With regard to the specific items enumerated, I assure you that in no instance was there ever intentional misrepresentation of sources. What we have here, in fact, is a misinterpretation of sources. After long consideration, I also speculate that my understanding of some of our policies may be erroneous. Originally I had intended to end my response here. However the recent vexacious behavior of Viriditas with regards to Romney makes it obvious that a detailed justification of every single one of my edits is required: which will be forthcoming. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:50, 22 July 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 "Thomas Sowell". Thank you. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:22, 17 July 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 "War on Women". Thank you. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kitten Montalban (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheezburger cheezburger!– Lionel ^(talk) 01:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments re: Boswell Montalban (talk) 09:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hey, I saw your recent comment with an aggressive stand so I thought of talking about it.

Please disclose whether you are the article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor, or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article ; WP:AVOIDCOI.

Now can you please explain what has made you so angry about it ? please tone down your comment on AfD thanks--DBigXray 21:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Being the "article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor" is referred to as "involved." COI is when you are closely affiliated to the topic of the article. In this instance for COI to exist all of the 3 editors in question would have had to have actually originated the term, worked for a government body to promote the term, authored a treatise on the term, etc. "Involved" and COI are completely different. COI is an violation which usually requires voluntary restrictions. If you edit an article that only makes you "involved"--that's not a COI. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I only quoted what was mentioned on WP:DISCUSSAFD and I see no good reason for you getting hyper on this. Thats all I would say. <sigh> --DBigXray 21:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you may have equated "involved" with "conflict of interest" and then linked to WP:COI thinking it is the same. It is not. You have to realize that for all intents and purposes WP:COI editors are prohibited from editing the article at issue. When you accused those 3 of WP:COI an implication was made that they should not be editing P. Z. Just say "involved" and everything will be fine.– Lionel ^(talk) 21:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

↑What he said. I came here to state that but Lionelt made the comment first. There is a big difference between accusing someone of having a conflict of interest and accusing them of being involved. In any case, I have rarely seen editors declare their interest in an article at an AFD. It just doesn't happen. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at WP:MCQ.
Message added 02:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney&diff=503240455&oldid=503232493, you said (source does not say that his policy is "confusing"). Well, actually, our article quotes the source as saying it's "unclear and confusing", and the source (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/16/top_senators_can_t_explain_romney_s_afghanistan_policy) says:

"Republican candidate Mitt Romney's policy on the future of U.S.-led war in Afghanistan war is unclear and confusing, complicating attempts to either support or criticize it during the campaign, according to leading senators from both parties."

I think it's very clear that you made an innocent mistake. Please revert it. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've requested that you be immediately blocked for continuing to misrepresent sources on purpose after being repeatedly warned. You may participate in the discussion here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stating that I intentionally misrepresent sources is libelous.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you're making changes would you mind rewording it so it sounds less like an advertisement for them? Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make it so you don't even recognize it! – Lionel ^(talk) 09:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just tag fairly. I see there's a citation needed tag appeared on their stance on homosexuality. If i see that only things like this are going to be tagged in an article about an organization that is anti-gay then we'll have a problem with bias and censorship again. Thanks and good luck ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 09:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the McMuffin, haven't had one in years. Have a nice day/evening ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 10:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with your edit Montalban (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Zindabad are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Comment like "all I have to say is Pakistan Zindabad!!!" doesn't contribute much to the discussion and just makes it off-topic. Please take care of that next time. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you think using this boilerplate warning did any good at all? Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

He can remove it once he has noted it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon Vaibhav, wasn't that a great zinger?!? The timing. The delivery. You know, a zinger is also a sweet treat. I'll give you one to show there's no hard feelings about templating an editor with over 20,000 edits. What's your favorite flavor: chocolate, vanilla or strawberry? – Lionel ^(talk) 08:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. :) See, I believe that regulars should be templated if they have done some mistake, although most probably it would had been unintentional. You must have noticed how heated this topic is, and the arbcom is already watching over it. Such comments can make the discussion off-topic. Feel free to remove the warning if you feel like, and sorry if you felt bad with that notice, it wasn't my intention to make you feel so. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got a chance to see Chief Oates on tv. He is a great man. I'm hoping more biographical information will appear online as the stories develop from breaking news to background information. I'd love to get the article to GA status. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Too expand on this, if we can get this too 2010 characters within the next 5 days, it will qualify for DYK. I'm going to leave a note to see if it will qualify as a formerly unsourced BLP (since the copyvio was unsourced and the reverted version had two broken external links which wouldn't count as sources. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Count me in. Btw I along the lines of WP:DCM I sent them an "official" media request from an "official" Wikipedia editor--I know they must be inundated, but maybe we'll get lucky. It worked with that cutie Lila Rose.

Thought you were good at noticing this kind of thing Lionelt? Stange that. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you two just stop your bickering? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not looking to bicker, i just found it odd he didn't notice it as he's good at noticing these copyright violations from what i've seen and he's gone through this tiny article recently ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 20:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jenova for the compliment--but I do not consider myself a (c) expert. In fact, I am always asking for help at WP:CQ. I'd like to take this opportunity to clear up a common misunderstanding. While it is a fact that I exhibit excellent grammar, an extensive vocabulary, impressive spelling, and in depth knowledge of classical literature, I am not a trained copy editor, nor is my vocation that of a professional journalist. In the real world I was trained in information technology, and my experience in formal writing for the most part is limited to the occasional research paper I wrote in college. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first part of your respons there actually made me laugh as i thought you were going to list a massive amount of incredible traits...Anyway just be a bit more careful with stuff like that. Thanks ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For all the stalkers, this image that I nominated did not get promoted to Featured Picture. As a Black person I wanna know why? Guess what: in case you haven't noticed, everyone in this pic is Black. Yes, as in African American. Previously known as colored. A picture of Black males. Need I say more?

On the other hand, this video I nominated, featuring a little white girl, is cruising to being promoted. It got enough votes after 3 days!

Or could the reason be political? The Black guys are Republicans, the video is Democratic.

Well? What's goin'on here? Do I need to call Jesse? – Lionel ^(talk) 01:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/First colored senator and reps.jpg there were outstanding issues that were not addressed in time for it to pass or receive additional support votes. I'm not seeing anything racist in the discussion or in the outcome. There may, however, be a bit of "recentism", in that the video of the girl is far more "notable" in terms of popular culture. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That whole copyright thing was just a canard. There is definitely a cabal right here at Wikipedia of young, white, Democrat women who are actively and deliberately discriminating against older Black males who happen to be Republicans. I will not rest until I have rooted them out and put an end to their nefarious operations. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Give me their names and phone numbers, I'll deal with them. :) Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that the image wasn't promoted. It's a wonderful image of historical significance. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First i've heard of being able to promote a video to featured picture status...i learned something today ツ Jenova20 ^(email) 08:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think the odds are that a profile of James Eagan Holmes will show him to be a religious conservative? Let's take a look:

1. Born and raised in San Diego, California. Attended school in an area known for voting Republican (Torrey Highlands, CA)
2. USA Today (via the Los Angeles Times) reports that the suspect was "deeply involved with his family in their local Presbyterian church".
3. Coincidentally, the July 20 attack on the movie theater occurred just days after conspiracy theorist Rush Limbaugh, on July 18, attacked the new Batman film for subliminally criticizing Mitt Romney. According to Wikipedia, "Limbaugh claimed that the 'Bane' character was a liberal conspiracy designed to attack candidate Mitt Romney's work with venture capital firm Bain Capital. Limbaugh stated that while 'Bain' and “Bane” are spelled differently it was a liberal media conspiracy to associate candidate Romney and the company he was president of with a fictional movie villain."
4. Even though there is no relationship between Bain Capital and the villain Bane, it is likely that the subsequent attack by Holmes has scared people away from seeing the film. Most interestingly, people who do attend the film will no longer be thinking about the villain Bane, but the villain Holmes.
5. The attack occurred around the anniversary of the 2011 Norway attacks committed by right-wing Christian extremist Anders Behring Breivik, with some commentators finding direct parallels (and influences) between the two attacks. Several articles (it is unclear if they are unsubstantiated rumors or not) have said that Holmes followed Breivik's plans for the attack, right down to specific details regarding preparation and armaments.

Any thoughts? Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, point 3 is clearly irrelevant since he appears to have been planning this for a long time. What is the significance of Holmes' status on the political spectrum anyways? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that point 3 is weak, but one could plan something for a very long time and simply wait for a "trigger", i.e. an opportune time to commit the act. Was Limbaugh's rage against liberals and Batman this trigger? How incredibly convenient that Holmes committed this heinous act during the opening of the film. If Limbaugh's conspiracy theory was true (it's not of course), then people will no longer associate the Bane villain with Romney, but with Holmes. The significance of Holmes's politics is that we know nothing about his motives nor any specifics about his background. Lionel and other members of WikiProject Conservatism often argue that liberalism is responsible for the decline of civilization, yet we see that religious conservatives like Breivik pop up all the time with no comment. See User:Viriditas/Right-wing politics and violence for some examples. Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the political views of any of these crazies, conservative or liberal, is irrelevant. They aren't accurate representations of their own political or religious ideology. Even extremists like Glenn Beck or one of the news anchors on MSNBC (I turn fox on and then turn it off, I refuse to turn MSNBC on so I can't name an anchor) are poor representations of their respective ideologies because they take it to an extreme. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take the examples of Anders Behring Breivik and Ted Kaczynski. Isn't understanding their political views an inseparable part of understanding their motives? In fact, it was Kacynski's political views that got him caught. His brother recognized his distinctive POV and turned him in. In Breivik's case, his right wing extremist politics motivated him to commit terrorism. Understanding political views of the suspects is not just an essential part of capturing them, but also necessary when finding ways to prevent the same crimes from happening over and over again. There are always going to be patterns, and one can recognize those patterns emerge, for example, in the discourse of right-wing populism which has superseded left-wing extremism in the last two decades. However, as a counterargument, based on the sources that are coming out right now, I think we might eventually discover that Holmes's family has a history of mental illness. Interestingly, while genetics can determine mental illness in some cases, it has also been shown to exert influence on political orientation. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noted that you deleted the LGBT category for Alan Chambers under the reason it fails to meet the WP guidelines, however, I have added some new information and recategorized Alan Chambers as LGBT. The fact that Chambers accepts that he has same sex attraction should be sufficient for him to be identified as gay, because the definition of 'homosexual' provided by Wiki doesn't say persons who explicitly [accept] themselves to be gay. So Alan doesn't have to accept that he is gay for him to be gay - The fact that he admitted to have the basic criterion of homosexuality i.e. to be attracted to someone of the same sex is binding.

I also see where he is categorized as an ex-gay even though the information provided states that he rejects the term 'ex-gay'. I also see where Frank Ocean is categorized as LGBT yet he has not used the terms 'gay' or 'bisexual' to describe his experience nor did he say he is presently active as a gay person - He spoke to his past experience. I consider this to be hypocritical - An encyclopedia is to give facts and so if a man has to say I am gay actively participating in gay sex for him to be classed as LGBT then the definition given by Wiki needs to be changed, and the many notable men and women who are categorized as LGBT but never 'explicitly' used the term, either because the term never yet coined, or for some other reasons, need to be recategorized.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemorej (talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You added an "undue weight" tag to the lead of Social conservativism, but you didn't go on to discuss it in Talk. If you won't explain your reasoning, I will remove your drive-by tag. Still-24-45-42-125 (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]