My Talk Archives

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It used to be a wikiproject, but was recently demoted, primarily because it is inactive (noone objected). Just post a note at the talk page that you're gonna "nuke" it and if noone objects bombs away!!! Hahahahaha!!! You're gonna need a number of editors to support reinstating it as a wikiproject. Better to build it up before attempting this. See [1] – Lionel ^(talk) 23:55, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Hey Lionelt,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Conservatism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

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

In addition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you taking a more conciliatory tone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May 2018

PROJECT NEWS

WikiProject Conservatism faces the ultimate test

By Lionelt

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

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

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

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

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

---

DISCUSSION REPORT

Timeline of conservatism is moved

By Lionelt

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

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

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

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

Discuss this

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

January 2012

ARTICLE REPORT

Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism

By Lionelt

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

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

---

PROJECT NEWS

Project Scope Debated

By Lionelt

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

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

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

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

DISCUSSION REPORT

Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum?

By Lionelt

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

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

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please disengage from Roux's talk page; this edit summary here [2] is a little excessive, and considering that you are intimately involved in the dispute, your presense there is unlikely to calm the situation. It would be best if you just avoided commenting one way or the other. --Jayron32 05:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)(Complain)} 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

with

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

(sees orange bar, messages crossed in transit)

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

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

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

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

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

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See section Questions concerning institutional votestacking- "9-1-1 button". Drmies (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

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

---

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

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 Jenova20 10:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? Are you insane? – Lionel ^(talk) 10:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some of the most recent:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuals_Anonymous&diff=480371863&oldid=480347205

Here you removed a reliably sourced section stating it had no sources, even though it had 2 and no one else had a problem with it. Someone reverted you after this.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuals_Anonymous&diff=479957749&oldid=479956272

Here you added a very POV section including "The vehicle to achieving freedom from homosexuality", which seems to be presented as fact and was again reverted by someone else.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuals_Anonymous&diff=479907668&oldid=479893460

Here's another where you tried to add very POV information that I reverted where you talk about homosexuality being overpowering and unconquerable unless people seek help.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Homosexuals_Anonymous&diff=479889192&oldid=479882614

Here you stated "Many participants in these programs report satisfactory results" with just one reference provided by this very organization and blanked out another independent reference claiming otherwise. This isn't even all of these edits, just the most recent ones you did.

So before labelling anyone else as insane i would start WP:AGF and either quit editing this page or be more productive while doing so.

Thanks Jenova20 13:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you done? – Lionel ^(talk) 00:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

First, let me clarify here and now I am not the Kumioko user. I say that because I have already been accused of it by another user because I took interest in the discussion and live within 500 miles. I think Mark is grossly downplaying his role in the whole incident. Why did I read the discussion? Because I saw the name Kumioko seemingly all over, I did, out of curiousity look over a lot of the discussions because as someone who has been Lurking for a while, I was going to create an account and decided against it after the whole incident. I'm not going to harp about this or that I only want to say that I think Mark is being quite insincere in their statements when he was one of the main instigators. I also don't get the impression that Kumioko was the one avoiding discussion. A very quick review of both users talk pages (and Kumi-Taskbot) and the reversions they both did to each other shows that although Kumioko could have absolutely handled the situation better there is no doubt that Mark was acting provocatively. I also do not think that they "Pissed off a lot of people", I think it was a handful of editors who refused to "discuss" anything that wasn't what they wanted. With all that said, I think that this discussion is of little meaning since its unlikely anyone in the project will do a Newsletter. 138.162.8.58 (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for your interest, Mark. Regarding article eligibility: "All submissions must bear a Christianity project banner on its talkpage." In the case of Mormonism, definitely. Urantia doesn't appear to be Christian, so on first glance I would say no. The politician, yes. FYI some of the subprojects have Assessment Departments that can make final determinations. Yes you'd get all of the points for the FA. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good to me then. The Urantia-related article I was thinking of was on the founder of the movement (William S. Sadler), who was an Adventist missionary before he started the group, so I think he could be covered by Wikiproject Christianity in that regard. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you go over to the discussion board for "the exodus" and help with the dispute?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can you encourage Quark to join in the discussion there and not just revert? Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My purposed edits for the exodus; to change the second paragraph of the intro from:

"The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[1] A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of books containing the exodus story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC and later expanded into a work very like the one we have today.[2] A minority of scholars assumes that this has yet older sources that can be traced to a genuine tradition of the Bronze Age collapse of the 13th century BC.[3]"

to:

"Currently, the traditional picture of the exodus has been questioned and modified, either slightly or radically, or it has even been downright rejected. A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of books containing the exodus story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC using earlier sources, and later expanded into a work very like the one we have today.[1] Conservative and traditionalist scholars often argue that the exodus narratives originated close to the event itself.[2] While no definitive archaeological evidence of the exodus survives, few scholars doubt that the exodus occurred.[3] Due to possible conflicts between the exodus narratives and the current state of archaeological knowledge, the most common approach among scholars is to date the exodus to the 13th century and argue that a smaller group left Egypt than the narratives appear to suggest.[3]"

I posted them on the talk page also.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the following revised into on the talk page:

"Currently, the traditional picture of the exodus has been questioned and modified, either slightly or radically, or it has even been downright rejected. A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of books containing the exodus story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC using earlier sources, and later expanded into a work very like the one we have today.[1] Conservative and traditionalist scholars often argue that the exodus narratives originated close to the event itself.[2] While no definitive archaeological evidence of the exodus survives, few scholars doubt that the exodus occurred.[3]"Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I just posted 8 different sources for my claim on the exodus and PiCo continues to filibuster.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please see the discussion at Talk:Straight_pride#Proposed_merge. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Lionel, I changed the link from Abomination to Abomination (Bible). ("Ev'rybody must get stoned!" ) --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Miamibeachguy (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)miamibeachguy[reply]

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[reply]

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[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

On the exodus talk page, PiCo admits the wide variation in scholarly opinion on the exodus, but refuses to allow the article to even mention the existence of that diverse scholarly opinion. He is engaging in original research by claiming that the evidence that one side (which, interestingly, holds the view that he does) claims makes them right, and so the other opinions can't even be mentioned. In other words, he wants the article to only mention the side that he thinks has the strongest case for being right, rather than for it to discuss all major scholarly views. This is by definition original research. He is simply enforcing a strong bias on the article, treating the other views as if they don't exist, because he can. Any edits I make, even trivial ones, are automatically reverted and he completely refuses to allow any edits but his own. Please assist.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hi Lionel. Nice to meet you. At the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Seven Point Counter Proposal I was happy to note your positive suggestion [3] 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)[reply]

The style guideline is here: WP:RELMOS. Let me know if this is what you had in mind. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lionel: Thanks for all the good work. I have read it and it seems generally that it needs to read a little more like a "manual" and not like a general discussion. I know that this is easier said than done. At the talk page I have added Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style#Reminder: Seven Point Proposal and please see this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style#Contradiction and resolution. I also think you should make the general discussion group more aware of this page and the discussion. Thanks again for all your efforts. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The sandbox version of the exodus article has been moved to Talk:The_Exodus/Draft.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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).[reply]

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)[reply]

Great job!!! One last thing: add an inter-wiki link to the category at the Heritage article. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

You (or AWB) added the WP:Conservatism banner to the talk page: [[4]]. Was this unintentional? JustinTime55 (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC) (This is a backup to my response on my talk page, just to make sure you see it.)[reply]

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)[reply]

Sometimes it can take a while to get a reviewer. You might ask for reviewers at a relevant Christianity Wikiprojects. Good luck!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 22:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards 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)[reply]

UNBELIEVABLE

• You are really audacious. At Straight pride you have committed one of the most egregious acts of censorship I have ever seen. If this kind of behavior is allowed to continue why even have an encyclopedia? We might as well just shut down the server farm now. Who needs SOPA when we have Dominus Vobisdu? You have presented NO POLICIES, NO ARGUMENTS, NO SUPPORT for censoring Straight pride.– Lionel ^(talk) 22:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• And btw have you heard of WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS????? – Lionel ^(talk) 22:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Lionel, I found this [5] 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)[reply]

Also, the Russian article mentions incidents in Romania and Israel as well as Russia, with refs. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Lionelt, I am enjoying to have a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich!.Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Budapest is not in Romania. :) MastCell ^Talk 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MastCell? Never have I ever known a ruder pest! --Kenatipo ^speak! 03:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, points for quoting my favorite musical. :P MastCell ^Talk 18:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's not true, of course—you're on a different list than the one that includes OM, MF and WMO, for example. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Well if you read the talk page you can clearly see that he baited and provoked me. I acted in self-defense. See WP:Stand Your Ground hahahaha.– Lionel ^(talk) 01:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, that isn't the least bit humorous. Second, don't call the kettle black. If you are old enough to edit Wikipedia, then you are old enough to take responsibility for your actions. You're not a victim, so stop acting like one. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Unless you can cite a policy regarding edit sums, I think I'll just flush this shit down the toilet. – Lionel ^(talk) 01:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:REVTALK. Keep it civil, use the edit summaries to briefly and accurately describe your edits so that editors reviewing their watchlist changes can acknowledge your changes, and treat others as you would wish to be treated. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's an info page which is as binding as a wet noodle. I could say something unkind about your failure here, but I'll keep it to myself.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL is a policy and it explicitly applies to edit summaries. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Just when this thread was about to bore me into a coma, I'll bite........ Exactly how do either of those edit sums violate CIVIL? – Lionel ^(talk) 02:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, review WP:REVTALK and compare and contrast it with Wikipedia:Civility#Edit summary do's and don'ts. Are you getting it yet? Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. CIVIL, which is a policy, applies to other editors. The edit sums you you cited do not fall under that policy because they were not directed at an editor. They do however fall under REVTALK, which I have ignored in the past, have ingored in the present, and will continue to ignore into the foreseeable future. But nice try, V. You don't mind if I call you V do you? I mean, after all of this quality time we've spent together on my talk, I think we're at that stage in our relationship where I can go for the "V". And you can call me........ Lionelt Hahahaha!!!!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 02:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. After you review Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, please refer back to WP:CIVIL, where you will discover that contrary to the civility policy, you made snide, aggressive comments in your edit summary about Canadians and Romanians which could insult editors from those countries. Please be more careful in the future. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern, V, but I'll take my chances. And I'll continue to make edit sums exactly like those which you take issue with until admins indeff me, arbcoms ban me, and the worst sanction of all: when bureaucrats lock me in a room with you for a month!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 02:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some confusion. You don't write edit summaries for yourself. You're writing them for the benefit of other editors. If other editors express issues with your use of edit summaries, then you should consider taking them to heart. Your recent edit summaries to straight pride consisted of "Hetero Day in Canada!!! O Canada!!!!", and "ROMANIA! Noroc, comrades!!!!" That's not an acceptable use of edit summaries. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lemme think about it... – Lionel ^(talk) 03:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about it. Hahahahahahahahaha – Lionel ^(talk) 03:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. In that case, if it does continue, then I will consider filing a user RFC. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Thank you. V. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find the edit summary inappropriate. The event occured in a small city in Canada and was not a nationwide event. In fact the city did not repeat the event. The "former mayoral candidate" Bill Whatcott finished fourth with 344 votes in a city of almost 200,000 people. He has been arrested over 20 times, and jailed and fined. The suggestion that he is representative of Canada is offensive. TFD (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Et tu TFD??? – Lionel ^(talk) 03:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I understood Lionel's edit summaries perfectly; nothing inappropriate about them. (I'm fluent in Canadian and Buda-Pestian, don't you know.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kenatipo, since Lionel's edit summaries didn't communicate anything in clear English to editors watching recent changes, what exactly is it that you understood? Please remember, intellectual honesty is required. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, K, neanderthal mendacity is required.– Lionel ^(talk) 04:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@V: that he was adding something to the article about incidents in Canada and Romania (or perhaps Hungary), of course! --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Just popping in here. Yes, edit summaries should be descriptive. Please be mercilessly polite to those who disagree with you, or even just want to take you to task for something. It means less crow to eat if and when others say that they were right and you were wrong. Your responses on your talk page do not seem to me to be fostering a collegial editing environment. WP:DTTR is not an excuse for ignoring feedback in such a manner. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Censorship at Straight Pride

• Lionel, I'm stunned by your behaviour yesterday. You made seven additions which were quickly reverted - because they were unsourced, poorly sourced, irrelevent or misrepresented the sources. Now, I've looked and I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning behind each revert, but the article is not meant to be a list of every incident with the words "straight pride" appearing. The larger problem is that of your behaviour, that you did not discuss ANY of those additions on the talk page - but instead warned two editors who reverted you [6] [7] about reaching 3RR. It certainly appears that you were placing statements in a controversial article which you expected to be reverted, for the purpose of disrupting the article. Those are battleground tactics, which I will not stand for. Consider this a formal warning, you may be blocked if you continue in this manner. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree.

• The sources--except one--were sufficient and on a par with the rest of the article. If someone had an issue with those additions they should've tagged them--not deleted them. Interesting that the only addition kept was the one about Budapest, which featured skinheads. Additions about college students exercising their 1st Amendment rights get deleted, additions about the KKK, skinheads, and fascists beating up gays are kept. Does this sound like a double standard to you? Does this sound like censorship to you?
• You don't seem to be in a kerfuffle about CJWithers radically altering the article and removing relevant content--without discussion beforehand. Since the pro-merge editors can't get consensus on the talk page, they're attempting to merge the article through editing. The community obviously doesn't want the merge--but they don't want to confront the pro-merge editors directly by editing the article.
• But what I find most shocking of all is that since you reviewed the article history why didn't you block Dominus since he is at 1,000,000RR?
• Please AGF. I have every intention of expanding and improving the article. But for the censorship going on at that article those additions would've been the seeds for expansion. Your assertion that I am only editing with the anticipation of being reverted is misplaced. – Lionel ^(talk) 18:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel, I respectfully object to your misleading sectioning of Worm's comments above.[8] 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)[reply]

Indeed. My point is not about censorship, but about battleground tactics. You appear to have added lightweight changes to a controversial article, not discussing any after reversion, but instead warning about people reaching "3RR". That was an underhand way of working and that is what I was warning you for. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was one of the tagged people and i only had 2 edits at that time, only 1 was a full revert. Thanks Jenova20 08:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 edits you posted on my page show 2 additions and 1 revert. If we are to count them all as reverts as you suggest then i could have had you blocked a long time ago since clearly the policy is on reverts of other peoples work other than good faith additions to the article in general.

You're interpreting it as no one can edit an article 3 times in a day and that can't be how the policy is applied. Jenova20 09:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you want to continue to class any edit/addition on a page as a revert Lionelt then you've breached that rule more than me any day on this article so quit being hypocritical. Jenova20 10:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe that Dominus has overstepped the edit warring bounds, then do feel free to take it to the right noticeboard. I would expect both you and he to be blocked if you do, but I could be wrong. Worm^TT · (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• Have you noticed the most recent AfD initiative? DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• NO WAY! NOT STRAIGHT PRIDE!!!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 07:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

• I have left a message on my talk page for your thinking. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 03:41, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added more links. Will you see if it meets the viability requirements?Theseus1776 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

FYI...you might not be aware, but we do everything on Wikipedia according to UTC. Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! – Lionel ^(talk) 07:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some tea to go with your sandwich =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I think I'll ice it--it'll go great with the Filet-O-Fish.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit[9] 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 [10] 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)[reply]

Totally disagree. And so does the editor who reverted writing "cute" in the edit sum. Please do not presume to tell me with whom I agree and disagree. Note that Obama and I are both Democrats. Also note that I added eight caricatures to the conservatism timeline. Which means I screwed over the right wingers 8 time worse than Obama. So there goes your theory about political motives. And lastly the portal is not in article space, so based on the "gentlemen's agreement" it is fair game. – Lionel ^(talk) 11:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The whole "but, but I'm a Democrat" thing is getting a bit old, Lionel. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It still has a few good miles left.– Lionel ^(talk) 11:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That dog don't hunt. Once people figure out you're referring to the Democrats in the United States prior to 1830 the joke wears a bit thin. Give it a rest, please. You're not a Democrat, as defined in the 21st century. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's a joke? Seems more likely to confuse than amuse. And portals are reader-facing space, and I'm sure you know that that is the main area of concern. "Portals complement main topics in Wikipedia, and expound upon topics by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject and its related topics." I doubt that you will get very far by claiming that there is some sort of basic difference, the whole point was that we want to remove these 'pranks' from pages aimed at our readers. And maybe vandalising Timeline of modern American conservatism is equal opportunity or something, but it's still vandalism. I trust you won't do anything like this again. I suspect that anyone warned this year or reverted as vandalism (as you were twice at that article, restoring it was an even worse idea than adding it) will be given short shrift if they do it again next year. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For good or bad at least people are talking about the portal. Most portals, this one included are rarely used by readers so this "joke" was largely contained within the editor community. Had it been done to the Obama article rather than portal it would have made a much bigger impression on the viewing audiance. It was a harmless prank along with the hundreds or thousands of others that both have and haven't been caught. Lets move on and let it go. 138.162.8.57 (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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. Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts. 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)[reply]

I hope you have a wonderful Good Friday and Easter weekend. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

• Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
  • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
  • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
• The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
• To activate your account: 1) Go to http://www.highbeam.com/prof1; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
• If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
• HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
• Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I'll work on the first bit sometime tomorrow. Toa Nidhiki05 01:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

nice careful detail work on the Timeline!!! Rjensen (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

He was in the news recently for a speech where some accused him of anti-religious speech...Not sure exactly how stuff like this works with BLP articles though. Sorry to butt in Jenova20 11:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that, but I didn't see anything anti-religious, which is why I asked. Maybe I was looking at the wrong article. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's POV really. Unless there's an indepentent source to comment on it. And then in that case it will probably be a religious source commenting. By the same logic i doubt i could label The Bible as being in a "hate-speech" or "homophobia" category even with reputable sources... Jenova20 12:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brother Lionel, you are a one-man bulwark against the rising tide of perversion. Whatever you do, don't take your finger out of the dike. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, the only thing important in this entire universe is where a man puts his penis and what a woman does with her vagina. When God goes to work, these tasks are at the top of his agenda, and really, nothing else matters. The sex lives of human beings take up most of God's time. After all, who needs star systems, planets, black holes, and gamma ray bursts? God's no dummy. Sex is more interesting than a boring galaxy, spinning around like a drain in a bath tub. "Hmmm", God mutters to Himself. I wonder how many times Lionel masturbated to that photograph of Bea Arthur today?" God has priorities, after all. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UN_FUCKING_BELIEVABLE!!!! You DO have a sense of humor, V. I just lost a $1.49 bet (the cost of a Filet-O-Fish on Fridays). I guess you aren't a hopelessly surly character afterall. Not enough to be invited to the Dept of Fun, but this vulgar and sacriligious rant is a start, as it were. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm disappointed in our Dan Savage article—it doesn't tell us his favorite santorum flavor. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

S_T_O_P!!! Favorite flavor. You're killing me! That was as funny as some of the stuff you unloaded when BelloWello got indeffed---the dancing on his grave stuff. You are a CRACKUP! – Lionel ^(talk) 02:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You know, this uncharacteristic outburst of humor from V reminds me of another tightly wound editor who had a similar lapse in analness. I was haranguing Binksternet about not having a sense of humor, and boy did he unload a funny. I almost choked to death on my Filet-O-Fish. Good thing Bea was there to perform the Heimlich. It was over a year ago. Bink hasn't cracked a funny since. Too bad. He showed promise. Maybe it's a lib thing. Always trying to change the world is stressful; bad for your disposition. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel, are you a fan of Lisa Lampanelli? Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Abhishikt (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]