Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
Demiurge1000
Conservative Philosopher, good luck, and have fun. ---- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 11:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I may not be an expert in the specific subject area, but I do consider myself to be reasonably well versed in English, and I have a reasonable familiarity with the communication norms of Wikipedia. These were the nature of the edits, and I don't think I am out of line in making changes along those lines. Was there something specific in the changes that you objected to? Cheers, Andrew ( talk) 03:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it was a reasonable edit, and I see another editor did also. Dougweller ( talk) 05:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
|
Please accept this
invite to join the
Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel ( talk) 03:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Creation myth. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. You seem to have deliberately restored vandalism in this article claiming it was a 'helpful edit', which it clearly was not.
Dougweller (
talk) 05:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am only human, and can make a mistake. If the edit I restored was not helpful, then I apologize and I am sorry. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 00:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hounding, or following editors from article to article for the purpose of inhibiting their work, constitutes harassment. Please stop; further such behavior may merit a block. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 22:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- You made an edit I disagreed with, so I reverted you. Too bad. It happens to all of us Wiki editors at times, and you need to learn to live with it. Whether I reached the article in question by following your edit history doesn't matter, and your accusation of "hounding" and harassment is in itself a form of harassment. It also seems to be an excuse for the edit warring you were doing at that article, which could get you blocked. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 00:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and by the way, the edit summary you used ("i seem to attract the crazies, don't i?") is a personal attack, which could also lead to you being blocked. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 00:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for
your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. A contribution you made to
Talk:Abortion appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important
core policy. Thank you.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 18:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, your censorship of my talk post was reverted by another editor, so I suppose it's you who has Wiki policy wrong, not me.
Conservative Philosopher (
talk) 23:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, that other editor was in error.
WP:TPO is clear on the matter. It would of course be better for you to correct your own errors, but if necessary others may do so in cases such as this.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 05:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I looked up that page. There's nothing there that says you can censor posts simply for being politically incorrect, which is what you did. So your comment is BS. I won't say what I think of you, as that would be a personal attack, but I'll tell you this: You are now banned from posting to my talk page. Do not post here ever again, as you will get a nasty response if you do. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 23:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, that other editor was in error.
WP:TPO is clear on the matter. It would of course be better for you to correct your own errors, but if necessary others may do so in cases such as this.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 05:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Rosalind Hursthouse. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice 12:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Michael Levin, you may be
blocked from editing. Blanking large sections of an article is vandalism; do not do it.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice 21:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Now, KillerChihuahua, please let's be reasonable about this. Editors can often have good reasons for making an edit even if the edit seems strange. Perhaps I have not explained my reasons well enough, and I certainly regret that, but that doesn't mean that I don't have reasons. Some of my edits may have been mistakes, but they were not vandalism, so please don't call them that. I am new to Wikipedia, and it is easy for me to make mistakes. In fact, I would be grateful if you would go through my edit history carefully and check all the edits I've made since I started editing, especially the early ones, since it's possible that some of them may also have been mistakes (eg, you really should check my edits at Germain Grisez and John Finnis). For my part, I promise not to repeat any of the edits that you've called "vandalism", even though I don't agree that that's what they were. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 06:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the Rosalind Hursthouse article, I will reply to you on the talk page. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 06:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
You need to stop following Roscelese ( talk · contribs) around. Your behavior is textbook Wikihounding, and you've basically said as much. This is the latest example, and if doesn't stop, then either I will block your account or I will refer the situation to another administrator to act as they see fit. MastCell Talk 23:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- You need to explain what not following Roscelese around means. Does it mean that I may never edit an article that she also happens to have edited recently? Am I to be expected to go to the extreme of never editing any article that she edits, in order to show that I am not following or harassing her? Furthermore, could you please explain why you have not cautioned Roscelese about her habit of making attacks against me in edit summaries, as visible in the revision history of this talk page, where she implies that I am 'crazy'? Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 06:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I note that WP:HOUND says that, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." It was my intention to fix violations of Wikipedia policy, for example, the edit warring being done by Roscelese at List of opera genres. Roscelese's behavior is clearly problematic, so please explain how it is not legitimate to look at her edit history for possible violations of Wikipedia policy. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 06:52, 23 September 2011 (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. Van Isaac WS contribs 04:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
By
Lionelt
Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of
WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.
The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as ' no ownership of articles', and particularly ' no original research', will not necessarily apply."
WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"
By
Lionelt
A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it
here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration
here.
I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.
By
Lionelt
On August 3rd
Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is
Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to
Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was
Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were
Michele Bachmann and
Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was
Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.
By
Lionelt
The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.
Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained
WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.
Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with
WP:MILHIST and
WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at
WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.
Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.
If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.
By
Lionelt
The arbitration request submitted by
Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the
Pro-life and
Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of
Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the
Evidence page
ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that
DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on the
Workshop page.
Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.
By
Lionelt
Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy
restored to the
Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts.
Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.
WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.
We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.
By
Lionelt
On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.
Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.
In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.
October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.
Click
here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
By
Lionelt
Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was
nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is
Timeline of modern American conservatism.
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.
By Lionelt
Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin Andrevan was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including Winkelvi and the notorious MONGO.
Editors who faced Enforcement action include SPECIFICO (no action), Factchecker atyourservice (three month topic ban ARBAPDS), Netoholic (no action) and Anythingyouwant (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
- There is an RFC regarding Liberty University and its relationship to President Trump; see discussion
- Activist and commentator Avi Yemini is listed at AFD; see discussion
Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
By Lionelt
WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.
At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."
Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos
 | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a " boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:
- 53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
- "Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
- "Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."
In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here.
(Discuss this story)Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page — I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.
Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...
Finding your way around:
Need help?
|
|
How you can help:
|
|
Additional tips...
|
|
Demiurge1000
Conservative Philosopher, good luck, and have fun. ---- Demiurge1000 ( talk) 11:43, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, I may not be an expert in the specific subject area, but I do consider myself to be reasonably well versed in English, and I have a reasonable familiarity with the communication norms of Wikipedia. These were the nature of the edits, and I don't think I am out of line in making changes along those lines. Was there something specific in the changes that you objected to? Cheers, Andrew ( talk) 03:58, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that it was a reasonable edit, and I see another editor did also. Dougweller ( talk) 05:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
|
|
Please accept this
invite to join the
Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel ( talk) 03:13, 3 September 2011 (UTC) |
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at
Creation myth. Your edits appear to constitute
vandalism and have been
reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the
sandbox. Thank you. You seem to have deliberately restored vandalism in this article claiming it was a 'helpful edit', which it clearly was not.
Dougweller (
talk) 05:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
- I am only human, and can make a mistake. If the edit I restored was not helpful, then I apologize and I am sorry. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 00:29, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Hounding, or following editors from article to article for the purpose of inhibiting their work, constitutes harassment. Please stop; further such behavior may merit a block. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 22:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- You made an edit I disagreed with, so I reverted you. Too bad. It happens to all of us Wiki editors at times, and you need to learn to live with it. Whether I reached the article in question by following your edit history doesn't matter, and your accusation of "hounding" and harassment is in itself a form of harassment. It also seems to be an excuse for the edit warring you were doing at that article, which could get you blocked. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 00:57, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
- Oh, and by the way, the edit summary you used ("i seem to attract the crazies, don't i?") is a personal attack, which could also lead to you being blocked. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 00:59, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for
your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a
neutral point of view. A contribution you made to
Talk:Abortion appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important
core policy. Thank you.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 18:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- Well, your censorship of my talk post was reverted by another editor, so I suppose it's you who has Wiki policy wrong, not me.
Conservative Philosopher (
talk) 23:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, that other editor was in error.
WP:TPO is clear on the matter. It would of course be better for you to correct your own errors, but if necessary others may do so in cases such as this.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 05:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
- I looked up that page. There's nothing there that says you can censor posts simply for being politically incorrect, which is what you did. So your comment is BS. I won't say what I think of you, as that would be a personal attack, but I'll tell you this: You are now banned from posting to my talk page. Do not post here ever again, as you will get a nasty response if you do. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 23:39, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
- No, that other editor was in error.
WP:TPO is clear on the matter. It would of course be better for you to correct your own errors, but if necessary others may do so in cases such as this.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 05:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Please do not add commentary or your own
personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to
Rosalind Hursthouse. Doing so violates Wikipedia's
neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice 12:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Please stop your
disruptive editing. If you continue to
vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at
Michael Levin, you may be
blocked from editing. Blanking large sections of an article is vandalism; do not do it.
KillerChihuahua
?!?
Advice 21:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
- Now, KillerChihuahua, please let's be reasonable about this. Editors can often have good reasons for making an edit even if the edit seems strange. Perhaps I have not explained my reasons well enough, and I certainly regret that, but that doesn't mean that I don't have reasons. Some of my edits may have been mistakes, but they were not vandalism, so please don't call them that. I am new to Wikipedia, and it is easy for me to make mistakes. In fact, I would be grateful if you would go through my edit history carefully and check all the edits I've made since I started editing, especially the early ones, since it's possible that some of them may also have been mistakes (eg, you really should check my edits at Germain Grisez and John Finnis). For my part, I promise not to repeat any of the edits that you've called "vandalism", even though I don't agree that that's what they were. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 06:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
- Regarding the Rosalind Hursthouse article, I will reply to you on the talk page. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 06:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
You need to stop following Roscelese ( talk · contribs) around. Your behavior is textbook Wikihounding, and you've basically said as much. This is the latest example, and if doesn't stop, then either I will block your account or I will refer the situation to another administrator to act as they see fit. MastCell Talk 23:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
- You need to explain what not following Roscelese around means. Does it mean that I may never edit an article that she also happens to have edited recently? Am I to be expected to go to the extreme of never editing any article that she edits, in order to show that I am not following or harassing her? Furthermore, could you please explain why you have not cautioned Roscelese about her habit of making attacks against me in edit summaries, as visible in the revision history of this talk page, where she implies that I am 'crazy'? Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 06:45, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- Furthermore, I note that WP:HOUND says that, "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." It was my intention to fix violations of Wikipedia policy, for example, the edit warring being done by Roscelese at List of opera genres. Roscelese's behavior is clearly problematic, so please explain how it is not legitimate to look at her edit history for possible violations of Wikipedia policy. Conservative Philosopher ( talk) 06:52, 23 September 2011 (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. Van Isaac WS contribs 04:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
By
Lionelt
Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of
WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.
The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as ' no ownership of articles', and particularly ' no original research', will not necessarily apply."
WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"
By
Lionelt
A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it
here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration
here.
I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.
By
Lionelt
On August 3rd
Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is
Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to
Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was
Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were
Michele Bachmann and
Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was
Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.
By
Lionelt
The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.
Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained
WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.
Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with
WP:MILHIST and
WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at
WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.
Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.
If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.
By
Lionelt
The arbitration request submitted by
Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the
Pro-life and
Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of
Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the
Evidence page
ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that
DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on the
Workshop page.
Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.
By
Lionelt
Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy
restored to the
Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts.
Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.
WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.
We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.
By
Lionelt
On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.
Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.
In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.
October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.
Click
here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
By
Lionelt
Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was
nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is
Timeline of modern American conservatism.
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.
By Lionelt
Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin Andrevan was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including Winkelvi and the notorious MONGO.
Editors who faced Enforcement action include SPECIFICO (no action), Factchecker atyourservice (three month topic ban ARBAPDS), Netoholic (no action) and Anythingyouwant (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
- There is an RFC regarding Liberty University and its relationship to President Trump; see discussion
- Activist and commentator Avi Yemini is listed at AFD; see discussion
Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
By Lionelt
WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.
At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."
Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos
| Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a " boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:
- 53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
- "Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
- "Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."
In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here.
(Discuss this story)Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)