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.
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.
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.
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)
Please disengage from Roux's talk page; this edit summary here [1] 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. -- Jayron 32 05:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, and a rather important one. Wekn reven 19:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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. SaveATree EatAVegan 07:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
Your non-stop efforts and tireless contributions do not go unnoticed. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication, friend. SaveATree EatAVegan 08:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
Very pleased to see the article easily survived the AFD. SaveATree EatAVegan 12:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Tag team edit wars are still edit wars. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
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:
Thanks! johnpseudo 13:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Please read this page before doing next "merge" [ like this.-- В и к и T 20:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
— Anupam Talk 03:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
ICHTHUS |
January 2012 |
In this issue...
Please stop your disruptive editing and sanitizing of information on the Homosexuals Anonymous article. There is already a project to neutralise and improve the article and you could contribute to that productively on the talk page instead of being disruptive. This is a warning to work with us and not against us for the good of the article. Thanks Jenova 20 10:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been very quiet about the whole (self inflicted) drama regarding a certain "gone but still posting user". Even while he's sniped at me all over the 'pedia. But this goes too far: "Let's not let him fade away into oblivion without thanks from the group he loved". I really feel a need to interject here and point out WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I'm not trying to be a PITA, I'm not saying he wasn't a good editor, but... really? Let's get some perspective here. He's one editor that left in a huff because he pissed off a lot of people and didn't want to discuss a particular issue (multiple times with mulitiple editors, over *years*), and it's at least the second time he's left in this manner. I know this may trigger a flurry of posts on your talk page, and I'm sorry for that, but I felt it better to post it here than on the WPUS talk page. Best, Markvs88 ( talk) 12:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I think this could have been handled better. First, an explanation with the newsletter would have been good. Second, the link to unsubscribe could have worked (it didn't direct you to the correct list until I updated the shortcut. Third, broader input should have been sought after the bot was blocked, justifiably in my opinion, rather than filing a ANI complaint.
While I support the goal of encouraging users who have listed themselves as part of a project to "return to the project", using a bot to add newsletter to 100s of users was not wise. My spot check showed that many users immediately reverted the newsletter off their talk page. My suggestion is that you should remove them as well so that you don't get bad feedback again with the next letter, or at least say something like: this is an example to opt-in add your name here. I've never seen an opt-out system work well on Wikipedia. -- Trödel 13:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionelt, thanks for the invite to the WikiGrail, it looks like an interesting project. I have a couple questions before I sign up though: would I get credit for working on an article about Mormonism or a Christianity-based new religious movement like the Urantia Foundation? And what about an article on a politician who promoted a sort of Christian nationalism? Looking at the scoring page, I assume that if I got an article to GA in the past, but brought it to FA I'd still get points as long as significant work was done to get it there during the competition? (Thanks for the compliment on my talk page, BTW). Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you go over to the discussion board for "the exodus" and help with the dispute? Quarkgluonsoup ( talk) 19:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Toa Nidhiki05's talk page.
at Traditional Values Coalition. I was really thinking along the lines of a talk page right then. I feel that my point stands though, that Matthew 5-7 have zero gay content in them. Hers, (the TVC spokesperson) is the sort of reasoning that gets groups such as this put on hate lists. Carptrash ( talk) 16:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Straight_pride#Proposed_merge. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 04:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Day of Silence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abomination ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I removed the "support as nominator", no objection, I probably agree - but the RfC rules, unless I am totally wrong, are same as RM. No seconding oneself. If I'm wrong please restore. Ciao. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The edits I added provide context on the controversial nature of Jeffrey Satinover's writings. One of the references I added (the worldmag.com article) is an interview where Satinover explains his own views, in his own words. I fail to see how my edits violate policy, are potentially libelous, or are logically faulty. If you disagree with the edits, you must provide a rational and specific argument for the disagreement.
BRD policy says: "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miamibeachguy ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Miamibeachguy ( talk) 02:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)miamibeachguy
Sorry for forgetting to sign my above comment.
Happy to discuss my edits, but your claim that I "called 4 living people homophobes" is false, as explained on my own 'talk' page. If you have a reasonable argument that I have violated a Wikipedia policy, please explain. If not, your reversions of my edits seem rather arbitrary.
Miamibeachguy ( talk) 19:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)miamibeachguy
There is always room for reasonable editing, such as moving information to different sections within an article, but you have deleted huge sections of truthful, well-sourced, well-referenced information. I am willing to discuss reasonable edits; however, efforts to suppress information will not be tolerated. I have several questions:
1.) Do you consider the American Psychiatric Association to be a reliable source? 2.) Can you cite a rational reason not to include links to the websites and pamphlets of the organizations that continually cite Satinover's work? 3.) I quoted Satinover's writings directly, and you removed those sections. Why? You also deleted my synopsis of Satinover's book, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth." One what basis are you deleting quoted material? Have you read the book? 4.) You deleted everything in the article about Satinover's work on sexual orientation change efforts. Before I began editing, the article referenced this topic (saying he had been "criticized" for it), and you presumably had no problem with it. Why delete it now? 5.) You added detail about Satinover's testimony before the Massachusetts Senate Committee Studying Gay Marriage, saying that Satinover testified that "research shows that raising children in a same-sex household is deleterious to their well being and development." However, you failed to mention the fact that Satinover's views are outside the mainstream of the scientific and therapeutic community (notably, the American Psychological Association), and in fact there are studies that reach conclusions *opposite* to what Satinover claims (i.e., gay parents might be *better* parents overall). Why do you only include the anti-gay information? 6.) You characterize Satinover as a neutral "policy advisor" on the topic of homosexuality, but any reasonable reading of his writings shows him to be solidly in the anti-gay camp. His writings and testimony have only been used by organizations and individuals that seek to deny the civil rights and human dignity of people who identify as LGBT. If you continue to make edits that whitewash this fact, we can only infer that you have some bias. 7.) Are you Jeffrey Satinover himself?
Miamibeachguy ( talk) 15:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)miamibeachguy
Despite your help, Q has continued to remove the material about archaeology from the lead, so I've taken this to ANI and mentioned that you asked him to stop reverting. He seems to have difficulties in understanding how Wikipedia works, as well as problems understanding the sources he wants to use (eg suggesting we use Freund, thinking that Dever's book was minimalist, etc.). Dougweller ( talk) 11:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
PiCo is engaging in original research. He is putting the personal view of one scholar, William Dever, into the disputed intro as if his views represent mainstream scholarship when they do not. In fact, Dever's views are shared by very few scholars. PiCo is including Dever because of his personal assessment of Dever's reliability, which is by definition original research. I cited eight different scholarly works, some of which PiCo even agreed were good, that contradict Dever and show his views to be outside the mainstream. These sources all say what the views of scholars are generally. Contrast this with PiCo, who wants the view of one particular scholar to be included as representing "consensus". The article should mention the views of scholars generally, not one scholar in particular. PiCo and Dougweller keep reverting any edits that bring some balance back to the article. They are working together to introduce a strong bias into the article. As it stands right now, the article has a heavy bias. Quarkgluonsoup ( talk) 17:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey Lionel! I was wondering if you could adopt me and teach me how to edit! You've done a lot on Wikipedia and I'm sure I can become just as well adjusted! What do you say? :D -
Teammm
Let's Talk! :)
15:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been able to bring some other editors into the discussion. I invite you to comment here at Talk:The_Exodus#Intro. Quarkgluonsoup ( talk) 16:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully, they do. But there are other projects which have regular "assessment drives", which are particularly useful to note articles which have been substantively improved, but haven't had that noticed. Maybe in an upcoming newsletter we could discuss having an assessment drive. Also, I would welcome your input, and that of virtually anyone else, at the new discussion I am starting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Activity. John Carter ( talk) 21:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionel. Nice to meet you. At the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Seven Point Counter Proposal I was happy to note your positive suggestion [2] that a WP Advice page be set up using the Seven Points I have outlined. I will support your move and back you up in this regard (I am not familar with setting up such a page, so that is why I hesitate and would appreciate that you get it going. Thanks again, IZAK ( talk) 09:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited The Heritage Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jon Huntsman ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 18:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I created a sandbox version of the exodus page at User:Quarkgluonsoup/The Exodus/Draft. Please come over and make what edits you think would improve the page. Quarkgluonsoup ( talk) 19:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: your March 14th revisions to the entry for The Liberty Film Festival, the Liberty Film Festival is not actually related to either the American Film Renaissance or the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. The Motion Picture Alliance in particular was not even a film festival, and dates from the 1940s-1950s. The Liberty Film Festival also held an event in 2005 that was explicitly critical of the Hollywood blacklist, and of the Motion Picture Alliance's role in promoting it. User:Thorpe79 —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC).
Hi Lionel, just wanted to let you know that I've followed up one of your suggestions for improving coverage of The Heritage Foundation on Wikipedia: there's now Commons:Category:The Heritage Foundation and I've begun to add related images. This is the first time I've created a category (or even used Commons, for that matter), so I followed the instructions at Commons:Categories. Let me know if there's anything I've missed. Thanks, Kalkaska sand ( talk) 20:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Just because someone belongs to the Republican Party, that does not necessarily make them a conservative. Sometimes, quite the opposite is true: Brooke was known as a member of the liberal wing of the Republicans, and here is an even more extreme case. See also Talk:Edward Brooke#Conservatism; apparently once upon a time there was an "African American Conservatism" category (which doesn't seem to exist anymore), and someone protested it. The Brooke article isn't currently categorized in anything conservative (or liberal either, for that matter.) JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionel, Thanks for your note on the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa. I am currently gathering research and then will give GA status on the article a go. ShiningWolf ( talk) 05:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Straight Pride. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 03:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 26 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article October Baby, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 2011 film October Baby was based on the experiences of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/October Baby.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers ( talk) 18:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Lionel, I found this
[4] in a ref at the Russian version of our Straight Pride article. There's a stick-figure logo in the photo at the top of the page I found amusing.
--
Kenatipo
speak!
19:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, the Russian article mentions incidents in Romania and Israel as well as Russia, with refs. -- Kenatipo speak! 19:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Budapest is not in Romania. :) MastCell Talk 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
attack other editors, as you did on
Talk:Straight pride. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
Diff
Viriditas (
talk)
23:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article
Straight pride has an
edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use
the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. This includes edit summaries such as "Hetero Day in Canada!!! O Canada!!!!", and "ROMANIA! Noroc, comrades!!!!"
Viriditas (
talk)
01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Lionel, I respectfully object to your misleading sectioning of Worm's comments above. [7] Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, when splitting threads and adding new sections, "it is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments." Clearly, Worm was not talking about censorship, but your new section makes it appear that he did. Viriditas ( talk) 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Worm, with all due, your objections are subjective, even speculative. Regarding the changes, take a look at the additions. Each was a novel, unique addition to the article. The "D" part of WP:BRD does not apply because I did not readd the disputed material. The content I was adding was not in dispute.
Speaking of Dominus..., how do I go about getting a 1,000,000RR card? You never know when one of those will come in handy. – Lionel ( talk) 10:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionel, I have noted your interest in the Straight Pride article. The circumstances of the article has been changing quickly. The most recent seems to be a nomination for Speedy Deletion. Thought you would appreciate knowing, if you don't already. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 00:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionelt, another editor has made massive deletions of recent work on the Straight Pride article. We may need to seek protection of the article or use the RfC process to get beyond this edit war. Any advice you can offer as an already involved editor would be appreciated. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 16:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I added more links. Will you see if it meets the viability requirements? Theseus1776 ( talk) 16:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear User:Lionelt, thank you for the kind award. I was glad to help write the newsletter! With regards, Anupam Talk 20:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am an unregistered but frequent Wikipedia user and I noticed you have worked a lot in the Project and portal about conservatism. I found it very interesting and complete, but I think it still lacks information about latin american conservatism. There are important conservative parties in countries like Chile, Honduras, Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, where conservatism has played a large role in national politics. The Colombian Conservative Party was founded in 1849 and since that year it has been one of the most voted parties. Some important leaders of that party include Rafael Núñez, Álvaro Gómez Hurtado and Mariano Ospina Pérez. In the case of Chile, Honduras and Mexico, their current presidents are conservative. In Brazil, the conservative PSDB party is the main opposition. Latin american conservatism is influenced by the Catholic Church although ideas similar to those of the american fiscal conservatism and neoconservatism have gained supporters in the region. Adding information about latin american conservatism is important for the Project and Portal. I might consider creating an account here to work in Colombian conservatism.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Talk:Barack Obama. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Loonymonkey (
talk)
00:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, you may be
blocked from editing. April Fools Day does not justify Vandalism.
SMP0328. (
talk)
02:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI...you might not be aware, but we do everything on Wikipedia according to UTC. Viriditas ( talk) 07:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
{{subst:currentuser}} has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the fishy, gooey goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{
subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
- Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
~~~ has given you
a cup of tea. Tea promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{ subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Some tea to go with your sandwich =) - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This edit [8] is hard to view as anything other than vandalism. April 1st is not an excuse for an edit like this to someone you clearly oppose. It might be a good idea, particularly considering [9] as well, if you stay away from Obama related articles or at least make sure your edits aren't going to be considered contentious. Please note that this is just advice, but your edits this week are likely to affect how editors see any other edits you do on Obama related pages. Dougweller ( talk) 10:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Lionelt. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
I hope you have a wonderful Good Friday and Easter weekend. -- Guerillero | My Talk 17:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
HI L, as per you suggestion I submitted the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa for a GA review. Happy Easter. ShiningWolf ( talk) 11:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe I included one or more of The Four Deuce's attacks on you in a post at WP:WQA concerning his behaviour. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You are co-nominator at the above FLC. It has received multiple comments but none of them have been addressed. Could you indicate to me whether you intend to fix the issues or would you prefer to withdraw the nomination? Cheers, The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been on WP for a while. Glad to see some sensible things were happening while I was gone. Mamalujo ( talk) 16:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Timeline of modern American conservatism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Law and order ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, FYI, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_reliability a drive to slow down self-published book references is getting started. Would you like to join that project? Membership is free. History2007 ( talk) 21:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at File_talk:Reagan_Address_7-27-81.ogv's talk page.
7
08:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nancy Heche 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/Nancy Heche 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 high-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. West Eddy ( talk) 03:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Recently, you added Category:Anti-Christianity to the BLP on Dan Savage. Could you please explain why? Viriditas ( talk) 11:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
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. -Abhishikt ( talk) 02:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Lionel, my name is Carol, and I also took several photos at the Washington for Jesus Rally in 1980. It's my understanding that you are the author of the photos that are posted on Wikipedia? Did you take other photos of the rally? Everyone was smiling and pleasant. I was overwhelmed as to how genuinely kind and friend Hundreds of thousands of people ended the day in prayer. We were asked to all join hands, and in small circles,in faith, unity and love,as if we were one voice we all began to pray the Our Father. It was a day like no other. A little piece of Heaven on this Earth. A glimpse into the Kingdom of God. I would love to see any other photos you might have. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpyuno ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello lionel,
Perhaps you forgot to respond over at
WP:AN/I; I realise that you're quite busy writing about
Ronald Reagan. It would be helpful if you could comment on some of the evidence of anupam's pov-pushing, as you promised. It must be painful to realise that one of your favourite editors is just a pov-pushing sock. Or did you know all along?
bobrayner (
talk)
17:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
All Around Amazing Barnstar | |
Dear Lionelt, thank you for writing about the positive aspects of my contributions before the community; it means so much to me that words cannot describe. Throughout our interactions at Wikipedia, you have devoted so much in ensuring that the community is aware of my intention to make Wikipedia a better place. This barnstar is titled the The All-Around Amazing Barnstar and you deserve it because you are an amazing person. Your friend, Anupam Talk 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC) |
I just want to thank you on helping me find the right place to post stuff! I will do that from now on. Thank you, HotHat ( talk) 06:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You're right, they should talk more about the Bush recession we're still in recovery from. Obviously, we need another Republican to get us out of the economic crisis they created. Makes perfect sense. Viriditas ( talk) 04:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionelt, I saw you are accepting users for adoption and I think it would behoove me to have someone of your expertise and track record showing me the ropes as I (tepidly) move towards more advanced editing. I'm interested in making thoughtful, neutral, and accurate contributions to Wikipedia--especially in the highly contentious areas you specialize it. I'd really appreciate the opportunity to learn from someone like you. Thanks! Joseph Steven ( talk) 05:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Lionelt, a little decorum goes a long way around here and leaving comments like you did are unhelpful but if it makes you feel better then go right ahead(for the record I wouldn't be at 3rr and you should know this). You clearly are conversant with Wikipedia rules and as such you must also be aware that you are conducting a slow edit war. You invoke WP:CCC yet offer no new argument that I can discern. The areas you are contesting have been discussed before and you are merely trying the same thing by rewording your argument. This is the way I read it anyway. If I am wrong about this I would appreciate it if you could expand on your comments so that I may understand how this is a different or new argument. Looking forward to your response. Happy Editing. Daffydavid ( talk) 08:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
In your Reagan speeches sandbox, you might consider adding to the table a column for speechwriter, if known. For instance, Peggy Noonan (Pont du Hoc speech), Ben Elliott, Peter Robinson ("Tear down this wall" speech), etc. [11] [12]
Binksternet ( talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Hello, I was wondering do you think this is notable under MUSICBIO. HotHat ( talk) 05:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you think this one is notable at all? HotHat ( talk) 07:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I had always been troubled by the inadequacies of the old template. I've run with it and implemented on Cross of Gold speech as well as Checkers, and will continue to expand them. Is there any chance a "results" or "aftermath" field can be added to the template?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionel, thanks for taking a look at my edit request on Edwin Feulner's article last weekend. I don't know if you've seen, but I replied to your question about the second citation: it was one that was already in the article. If you're able to, it would be great if you could add the references I supplied and maybe also fix the "Other Roles" heading added by another editor (from what I've seen here, I believe headings should be sentence case). If you're busy and there's somewhere else I could ask instead, let me know. Thanks, Kalkaska sand ( talk) 15:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
You may now want to have your say here about One Sonic Society. HotHat ( talk) 00:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The top of your page lists a featured article star that is broken and has "Sabotaged" spelt wrong. Just pointing it out. Jenova 20 14:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionel,
I've uploaded one of the articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article at that page.
Best, GabrielF ( talk) 14:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't re-add grossly insulting text about a living person which you did here at Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council. Thank you. Binksternet ( talk) 02:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's
biographies of living persons policy by inserting
unsourced or
poorly sourced
defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at
Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Binksternet (
talk)
02:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
A request for clarification from Bink was placed on his talk. He ignored it. In the mean time the post in question has been restored by another editor and multiple editors have provided substantiation of the post. Thus no BLP violation exists, this warning is void and carries no force.–
Lionel (
talk)
06:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
If you have the time, might you go over my contibutions HERE and check me for typos? Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The claim of it not being notable does not seem justified. Can you please elaborate or kindly remove the PROD? Thank you. -- Varnent ( talk) 07:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionel
Pacific Military Academy was shut down during the war years and taken over by the military as a barracks. I would presume the military took over more than just PMA for the purpose of war. Please refer to the following Culver City history link: http://www.culvercity.org/en/Visitors/CulverCityHistory/MilitaryAcademy.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.208.60 ( talk) 14:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Shrike ( talk) 13:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I am just curious does this qualify for DYK? HotHat ( talk) 05:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
You might want to check this out [13] William Jockusch ( talk) 02:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Justice007 has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{
subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
I set a poll up here, please contribute. -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 07:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionelt, there are some more comments and responses to your comments waiting for you at WP:FLC. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 23 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cristiada (film), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico as depicted in the 2012 film Cristiada has been compared to the Obama administration's birth control mandate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cristiada (film). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thank you from the DYK team at Wikipedia Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 18:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The source did not say what you did and so i have reverted your addition. Jenova 20 12:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited First Motion Picture Unit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Flying Cross ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you, if you're not an admin, have an admin look into this? Thanks! Swifty* talk 23:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for reverting a bunch of those controversial moves today. I was trying to revert some of the worst ones, but it looks like you got to a bunch of them before I did. Also, it looks like there's a discussion here that you might be interested in participating in. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 23:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Adjwilley's talk page.
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.
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.
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.
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)
Please disengage from Roux's talk page; this edit summary here [1] 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. -- Jayron 32 05:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Yes, and a rather important one. Wekn reven 19:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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. SaveATree EatAVegan 07:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
Your non-stop efforts and tireless contributions do not go unnoticed. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication, friend. SaveATree EatAVegan 08:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC) |
Very pleased to see the article easily survived the AFD. SaveATree EatAVegan 12:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
Tag team edit wars are still edit wars. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
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:
Thanks! johnpseudo 13:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Please read this page before doing next "merge" [ like this.-- В и к и T 20:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
(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)
— Anupam Talk 03:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
![]() |
ICHTHUS |
January 2012 |
In this issue...
Please stop your disruptive editing and sanitizing of information on the Homosexuals Anonymous article. There is already a project to neutralise and improve the article and you could contribute to that productively on the talk page instead of being disruptive. This is a warning to work with us and not against us for the good of the article. Thanks Jenova 20 10:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been very quiet about the whole (self inflicted) drama regarding a certain "gone but still posting user". Even while he's sniped at me all over the 'pedia. But this goes too far: "Let's not let him fade away into oblivion without thanks from the group he loved". I really feel a need to interject here and point out WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I'm not trying to be a PITA, I'm not saying he wasn't a good editor, but... really? Let's get some perspective here. He's one editor that left in a huff because he pissed off a lot of people and didn't want to discuss a particular issue (multiple times with mulitiple editors, over *years*), and it's at least the second time he's left in this manner. I know this may trigger a flurry of posts on your talk page, and I'm sorry for that, but I felt it better to post it here than on the WPUS talk page. Best, Markvs88 ( talk) 12:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I think this could have been handled better. First, an explanation with the newsletter would have been good. Second, the link to unsubscribe could have worked (it didn't direct you to the correct list until I updated the shortcut. Third, broader input should have been sought after the bot was blocked, justifiably in my opinion, rather than filing a ANI complaint.
While I support the goal of encouraging users who have listed themselves as part of a project to "return to the project", using a bot to add newsletter to 100s of users was not wise. My spot check showed that many users immediately reverted the newsletter off their talk page. My suggestion is that you should remove them as well so that you don't get bad feedback again with the next letter, or at least say something like: this is an example to opt-in add your name here. I've never seen an opt-out system work well on Wikipedia. -- Trödel 13:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionelt, thanks for the invite to the WikiGrail, it looks like an interesting project. I have a couple questions before I sign up though: would I get credit for working on an article about Mormonism or a Christianity-based new religious movement like the Urantia Foundation? And what about an article on a politician who promoted a sort of Christian nationalism? Looking at the scoring page, I assume that if I got an article to GA in the past, but brought it to FA I'd still get points as long as significant work was done to get it there during the competition? (Thanks for the compliment on my talk page, BTW). Mark Arsten ( talk) 19:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Could you go over to the discussion board for "the exodus" and help with the dispute? Quarkgluonsoup ( talk) 19:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Toa Nidhiki05's talk page.
at Traditional Values Coalition. I was really thinking along the lines of a talk page right then. I feel that my point stands though, that Matthew 5-7 have zero gay content in them. Hers, (the TVC spokesperson) is the sort of reasoning that gets groups such as this put on hate lists. Carptrash ( talk) 16:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Please see the discussion at Talk:Straight_pride#Proposed_merge. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 04:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Day of Silence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abomination ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 10:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi, I removed the "support as nominator", no objection, I probably agree - but the RfC rules, unless I am totally wrong, are same as RM. No seconding oneself. If I'm wrong please restore. Ciao. In ictu oculi ( talk) 13:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
The edits I added provide context on the controversial nature of Jeffrey Satinover's writings. One of the references I added (the worldmag.com article) is an interview where Satinover explains his own views, in his own words. I fail to see how my edits violate policy, are potentially libelous, or are logically faulty. If you disagree with the edits, you must provide a rational and specific argument for the disagreement.
BRD policy says: "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miamibeachguy ( talk • contribs) 00:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Miamibeachguy ( talk) 02:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)miamibeachguy
Sorry for forgetting to sign my above comment.
Happy to discuss my edits, but your claim that I "called 4 living people homophobes" is false, as explained on my own 'talk' page. If you have a reasonable argument that I have violated a Wikipedia policy, please explain. If not, your reversions of my edits seem rather arbitrary.
Miamibeachguy ( talk) 19:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)miamibeachguy
There is always room for reasonable editing, such as moving information to different sections within an article, but you have deleted huge sections of truthful, well-sourced, well-referenced information. I am willing to discuss reasonable edits; however, efforts to suppress information will not be tolerated. I have several questions:
1.) Do you consider the American Psychiatric Association to be a reliable source? 2.) Can you cite a rational reason not to include links to the websites and pamphlets of the organizations that continually cite Satinover's work? 3.) I quoted Satinover's writings directly, and you removed those sections. Why? You also deleted my synopsis of Satinover's book, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth." One what basis are you deleting quoted material? Have you read the book? 4.) You deleted everything in the article about Satinover's work on sexual orientation change efforts. Before I began editing, the article referenced this topic (saying he had been "criticized" for it), and you presumably had no problem with it. Why delete it now? 5.) You added detail about Satinover's testimony before the Massachusetts Senate Committee Studying Gay Marriage, saying that Satinover testified that "research shows that raising children in a same-sex household is deleterious to their well being and development." However, you failed to mention the fact that Satinover's views are outside the mainstream of the scientific and therapeutic community (notably, the American Psychological Association), and in fact there are studies that reach conclusions *opposite* to what Satinover claims (i.e., gay parents might be *better* parents overall). Why do you only include the anti-gay information? 6.) You characterize Satinover as a neutral "policy advisor" on the topic of homosexuality, but any reasonable reading of his writings shows him to be solidly in the anti-gay camp. His writings and testimony have only been used by organizations and individuals that seek to deny the civil rights and human dignity of people who identify as LGBT. If you continue to make edits that whitewash this fact, we can only infer that you have some bias. 7.) Are you Jeffrey Satinover himself?
Miamibeachguy ( talk) 15:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)miamibeachguy
Despite your help, Q has continued to remove the material about archaeology from the lead, so I've taken this to ANI and mentioned that you asked him to stop reverting. He seems to have difficulties in understanding how Wikipedia works, as well as problems understanding the sources he wants to use (eg suggesting we use Freund, thinking that Dever's book was minimalist, etc.). Dougweller ( talk) 11:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
PiCo is engaging in original research. He is putting the personal view of one scholar, William Dever, into the disputed intro as if his views represent mainstream scholarship when they do not. In fact, Dever's views are shared by very few scholars. PiCo is including Dever because of his personal assessment of Dever's reliability, which is by definition original research. I cited eight different scholarly works, some of which PiCo even agreed were good, that contradict Dever and show his views to be outside the mainstream. These sources all say what the views of scholars are generally. Contrast this with PiCo, who wants the view of one particular scholar to be included as representing "consensus". The article should mention the views of scholars generally, not one scholar in particular. PiCo and Dougweller keep reverting any edits that bring some balance back to the article. They are working together to introduce a strong bias into the article. As it stands right now, the article has a heavy bias. Quarkgluonsoup ( talk) 17:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey Lionel! I was wondering if you could adopt me and teach me how to edit! You've done a lot on Wikipedia and I'm sure I can become just as well adjusted! What do you say? :D -
Teammm
Let's Talk! :)
15:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I have been able to bring some other editors into the discussion. I invite you to comment here at Talk:The_Exodus#Intro. Quarkgluonsoup ( talk) 16:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hopefully, they do. But there are other projects which have regular "assessment drives", which are particularly useful to note articles which have been substantively improved, but haven't had that noticed. Maybe in an upcoming newsletter we could discuss having an assessment drive. Also, I would welcome your input, and that of virtually anyone else, at the new discussion I am starting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Activity. John Carter ( talk) 21:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionel. Nice to meet you. At the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Seven Point Counter Proposal I was happy to note your positive suggestion [2] that a WP Advice page be set up using the Seven Points I have outlined. I will support your move and back you up in this regard (I am not familar with setting up such a page, so that is why I hesitate and would appreciate that you get it going. Thanks again, IZAK ( talk) 09:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited The Heritage Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jon Huntsman ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 18:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I created a sandbox version of the exodus page at User:Quarkgluonsoup/The Exodus/Draft. Please come over and make what edits you think would improve the page. Quarkgluonsoup ( talk) 19:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Re: your March 14th revisions to the entry for The Liberty Film Festival, the Liberty Film Festival is not actually related to either the American Film Renaissance or the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. The Motion Picture Alliance in particular was not even a film festival, and dates from the 1940s-1950s. The Liberty Film Festival also held an event in 2005 that was explicitly critical of the Hollywood blacklist, and of the Motion Picture Alliance's role in promoting it. User:Thorpe79 —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC).
Hi Lionel, just wanted to let you know that I've followed up one of your suggestions for improving coverage of The Heritage Foundation on Wikipedia: there's now Commons:Category:The Heritage Foundation and I've begun to add related images. This is the first time I've created a category (or even used Commons, for that matter), so I followed the instructions at Commons:Categories. Let me know if there's anything I've missed. Thanks, Kalkaska sand ( talk) 20:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Just because someone belongs to the Republican Party, that does not necessarily make them a conservative. Sometimes, quite the opposite is true: Brooke was known as a member of the liberal wing of the Republicans, and here is an even more extreme case. See also Talk:Edward Brooke#Conservatism; apparently once upon a time there was an "African American Conservatism" category (which doesn't seem to exist anymore), and someone protested it. The Brooke article isn't currently categorized in anything conservative (or liberal either, for that matter.) JustinTime55 ( talk) 19:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionel, Thanks for your note on the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa. I am currently gathering research and then will give GA status on the article a go. ShiningWolf ( talk) 05:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war according to the reverts you have made on
Straight Pride. Users are expected to
collaborate with others, to avoid editing
disruptively, and to
try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 03:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 26 March 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article October Baby, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the 2011 film October Baby was based on the experiences of abortion survivor Gianna Jessen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/October Baby.You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers ( talk) 18:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Hey, Lionel, I found this
[4] in a ref at the Russian version of our Straight Pride article. There's a stick-figure logo in the photo at the top of the page I found amusing.
--
Kenatipo
speak!
19:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Also, the Russian article mentions incidents in Romania and Israel as well as Russia, with refs. -- Kenatipo speak! 19:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Budapest is not in Romania. :) MastCell Talk 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to
attack other editors, as you did on
Talk:Straight pride. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you.
Diff
Viriditas (
talk)
23:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article
Straight pride has an
edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use
the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. This includes edit summaries such as "Hetero Day in Canada!!! O Canada!!!!", and "ROMANIA! Noroc, comrades!!!!"
Viriditas (
talk)
01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Lionel, I respectfully object to your misleading sectioning of Worm's comments above. [7] Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, when splitting threads and adding new sections, "it is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments." Clearly, Worm was not talking about censorship, but your new section makes it appear that he did. Viriditas ( talk) 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Worm, with all due, your objections are subjective, even speculative. Regarding the changes, take a look at the additions. Each was a novel, unique addition to the article. The "D" part of WP:BRD does not apply because I did not readd the disputed material. The content I was adding was not in dispute.
Speaking of Dominus..., how do I go about getting a 1,000,000RR card? You never know when one of those will come in handy. – Lionel ( talk) 10:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionel, I have noted your interest in the Straight Pride article. The circumstances of the article has been changing quickly. The most recent seems to be a nomination for Speedy Deletion. Thought you would appreciate knowing, if you don't already. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 00:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionelt, another editor has made massive deletions of recent work on the Straight Pride article. We may need to seek protection of the article or use the RfC process to get beyond this edit war. Any advice you can offer as an already involved editor would be appreciated. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands ( talk) 16:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I added more links. Will you see if it meets the viability requirements? Theseus1776 ( talk) 16:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Dear User:Lionelt, thank you for the kind award. I was glad to help write the newsletter! With regards, Anupam Talk 20:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I am an unregistered but frequent Wikipedia user and I noticed you have worked a lot in the Project and portal about conservatism. I found it very interesting and complete, but I think it still lacks information about latin american conservatism. There are important conservative parties in countries like Chile, Honduras, Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, where conservatism has played a large role in national politics. The Colombian Conservative Party was founded in 1849 and since that year it has been one of the most voted parties. Some important leaders of that party include Rafael Núñez, Álvaro Gómez Hurtado and Mariano Ospina Pérez. In the case of Chile, Honduras and Mexico, their current presidents are conservative. In Brazil, the conservative PSDB party is the main opposition. Latin american conservatism is influenced by the Catholic Church although ideas similar to those of the american fiscal conservatism and neoconservatism have gained supporters in the region. Adding information about latin american conservatism is important for the Project and Portal. I might consider creating an account here to work in Colombian conservatism.
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Talk:Barack Obama. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you.
Loonymonkey (
talk)
00:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, you may be
blocked from editing. April Fools Day does not justify Vandalism.
SMP0328. (
talk)
02:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
FYI...you might not be aware, but we do everything on Wikipedia according to UTC. Viriditas ( talk) 07:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
{{subst:currentuser}} has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the fishy, gooey goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{
subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
- Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
~~~ has given you
a cup of tea. Tea promotes
WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day ever so slightly better.
Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a tea, especially if it is someone you have had disagreements with in the past or someone putting up with some stick at this time. Enjoy!
Spread the lovely, warm, refreshing goodness of tea by adding {{ subst:wikitea}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Some tea to go with your sandwich =) - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 23:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
This edit [8] is hard to view as anything other than vandalism. April 1st is not an excuse for an edit like this to someone you clearly oppose. It might be a good idea, particularly considering [9] as well, if you stay away from Obama related articles or at least make sure your edits aren't going to be considered contentious. Please note that this is just advice, but your edits this week are likely to affect how editors see any other edits you do on Obama related pages. Dougweller ( talk) 10:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
![]() Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite Hello Lionelt. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released. Please click
HERE to participate. You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC) |
I hope you have a wonderful Good Friday and Easter weekend. -- Guerillero | My Talk 17:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
HI L, as per you suggestion I submitted the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa for a GA review. Happy Easter. ShiningWolf ( talk) 11:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:
Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I believe I included one or more of The Four Deuce's attacks on you in a post at WP:WQA concerning his behaviour. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You are co-nominator at the above FLC. It has received multiple comments but none of them have been addressed. Could you indicate to me whether you intend to fix the issues or would you prefer to withdraw the nomination? Cheers, The Rambling Man ( talk) 08:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
I haven't been on WP for a while. Glad to see some sensible things were happening while I was gone. Mamalujo ( talk) 16:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited Timeline of modern American conservatism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Law and order ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Hi, FYI, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_reliability a drive to slow down self-published book references is getting started. Would you like to join that project? Membership is free. History2007 ( talk) 21:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at File_talk:Reagan_Address_7-27-81.ogv's talk page.
7
08:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nancy Heche 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/Nancy Heche 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 high-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. West Eddy ( talk) 03:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
Recently, you added Category:Anti-Christianity to the BLP on Dan Savage. Could you please explain why? Viriditas ( talk) 11:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
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. -Abhishikt ( talk) 02:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello Lionel, my name is Carol, and I also took several photos at the Washington for Jesus Rally in 1980. It's my understanding that you are the author of the photos that are posted on Wikipedia? Did you take other photos of the rally? Everyone was smiling and pleasant. I was overwhelmed as to how genuinely kind and friend Hundreds of thousands of people ended the day in prayer. We were asked to all join hands, and in small circles,in faith, unity and love,as if we were one voice we all began to pray the Our Father. It was a day like no other. A little piece of Heaven on this Earth. A glimpse into the Kingdom of God. I would love to see any other photos you might have. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpyuno ( talk • contribs) 07:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Hello lionel,
Perhaps you forgot to respond over at
WP:AN/I; I realise that you're quite busy writing about
Ronald Reagan. It would be helpful if you could comment on some of the evidence of anupam's pov-pushing, as you promised. It must be painful to realise that one of your favourite editors is just a pov-pushing sock. Or did you know all along?
bobrayner (
talk)
17:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() |
All Around Amazing Barnstar | |
Dear Lionelt, thank you for writing about the positive aspects of my contributions before the community; it means so much to me that words cannot describe. Throughout our interactions at Wikipedia, you have devoted so much in ensuring that the community is aware of my intention to make Wikipedia a better place. This barnstar is titled the The All-Around Amazing Barnstar and you deserve it because you are an amazing person. Your friend, Anupam Talk 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC) |
I just want to thank you on helping me find the right place to post stuff! I will do that from now on. Thank you, HotHat ( talk) 06:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
You're right, they should talk more about the Bush recession we're still in recovery from. Obviously, we need another Republican to get us out of the economic crisis they created. Makes perfect sense. Viriditas ( talk) 04:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionelt, I saw you are accepting users for adoption and I think it would behoove me to have someone of your expertise and track record showing me the ropes as I (tepidly) move towards more advanced editing. I'm interested in making thoughtful, neutral, and accurate contributions to Wikipedia--especially in the highly contentious areas you specialize it. I'd really appreciate the opportunity to learn from someone like you. Thanks! Joseph Steven ( talk) 05:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
Lionelt, a little decorum goes a long way around here and leaving comments like you did are unhelpful but if it makes you feel better then go right ahead(for the record I wouldn't be at 3rr and you should know this). You clearly are conversant with Wikipedia rules and as such you must also be aware that you are conducting a slow edit war. You invoke WP:CCC yet offer no new argument that I can discern. The areas you are contesting have been discussed before and you are merely trying the same thing by rewording your argument. This is the way I read it anyway. If I am wrong about this I would appreciate it if you could expand on your comments so that I may understand how this is a different or new argument. Looking forward to your response. Happy Editing. Daffydavid ( talk) 08:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
In your Reagan speeches sandbox, you might consider adding to the table a column for speechwriter, if known. For instance, Peggy Noonan (Pont du Hoc speech), Ben Elliott, Peter Robinson ("Tear down this wall" speech), etc. [11] [12]
Binksternet ( talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!
Hello, I was wondering do you think this is notable under MUSICBIO. HotHat ( talk) 05:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Do you think this one is notable at all? HotHat ( talk) 07:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for that, I had always been troubled by the inadequacies of the old template. I've run with it and implemented on Cross of Gold speech as well as Checkers, and will continue to expand them. Is there any chance a "results" or "aftermath" field can be added to the template?-- Wehwalt ( talk) 10:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionel, thanks for taking a look at my edit request on Edwin Feulner's article last weekend. I don't know if you've seen, but I replied to your question about the second citation: it was one that was already in the article. If you're able to, it would be great if you could add the references I supplied and maybe also fix the "Other Roles" heading added by another editor (from what I've seen here, I believe headings should be sentence case). If you're busy and there's somewhere else I could ask instead, let me know. Thanks, Kalkaska sand ( talk) 15:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
You may now want to have your say here about One Sonic Society. HotHat ( talk) 00:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
The top of your page lists a featured article star that is broken and has "Sabotaged" spelt wrong. Just pointing it out. Jenova 20 14:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionel,
I've uploaded one of the articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article at that page.
Best, GabrielF ( talk) 14:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
Don't re-add grossly insulting text about a living person which you did here at Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council. Thank you. Binksternet ( talk) 02:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's
biographies of living persons policy by inserting
unsourced or
poorly sourced
defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at
Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council, you may be
blocked from editing without further notice.
Binksternet (
talk)
02:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
A request for clarification from Bink was placed on his talk. He ignored it. In the mean time the post in question has been restored by another editor and multiple editors have provided substantiation of the post. Thus no BLP violation exists, this warning is void and carries no force.–
Lionel (
talk)
06:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
If you have the time, might you go over my contibutions HERE and check me for typos? Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
The claim of it not being notable does not seem justified. Can you please elaborate or kindly remove the PROD? Thank you. -- Varnent ( talk) 07:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionel
Pacific Military Academy was shut down during the war years and taken over by the military as a barracks. I would presume the military took over more than just PMA for the purpose of war. Please refer to the following Culver City history link: http://www.culvercity.org/en/Visitors/CulverCityHistory/MilitaryAcademy.aspx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.208.60 ( talk) 14:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
Shrike ( talk) 13:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I am just curious does this qualify for DYK? HotHat ( talk) 05:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
You might want to check this out [13] William Jockusch ( talk) 02:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Justice007 has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{
subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
I set a poll up here, please contribute. -- Jeremy ( blah blah • I did it!) 07:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi Lionelt, there are some more comments and responses to your comments waiting for you at WP:FLC. The Rambling Man ( talk) 09:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
![]() | On 23 June 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Cristiada (film), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the persecution of the Catholic Church in Mexico as depicted in the 2012 film Cristiada has been compared to the Obama administration's birth control mandate? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Cristiada (film). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Thank you from the DYK team at Wikipedia Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 18:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
The source did not say what you did and so i have reverted your addition. Jenova 20 12:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Hi. When you recently edited First Motion Picture Unit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Flying Cross ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Could you, if you're not an admin, have an admin look into this? Thanks! Swifty* talk 23:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Just wanted to say thanks for reverting a bunch of those controversial moves today. I was trying to revert some of the worst ones, but it looks like you got to a bunch of them before I did. Also, it looks like there's a discussion here that you might be interested in participating in. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 23:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Hello. You have
a new message at Adjwilley's talk page.