User talk:CWenger

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

William F. Buckley, Jr. vandalism[edit]

That wasn't vandalism, I just forgot to cite it. Don't threaten me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.63.97.1 (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Changing a writer's primary subject from conservatism to racism is indeed vandalism. –CWenger (talk) 00:11, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

New Big Ten logo discussion[edit]

You recently contributed to Big Ten Conference. Your input is requested for the following discussion: Talk:Big_Ten_Conference#Which_new_logo_version.3F. Thank you. Levdr1 (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism at Internet Explorer 9?[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, CWenger. You have new messages at FleetCommand's talk page.
Message added Fleet Command (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Block[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

CWenger (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)


Request reason:

I think I was blocked mistakenly, then unblocked shortly afterwards, but I am still unable to edit any page but my own talk. When I go to my contributions page it has the red blocked box at the top. I have logged out, closed all browser windows, then logged back in to no avail. Please help! –CWenger (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

An autoblock was still active - should be cleared now. Kuru (talk) 20:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Google Chrome[edit]

Yep, I'm using the stable release of Chrome, and it is currently 11.0.696.16, and the BETA is currently the same version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ATR94 (talkcontribs) 17:52, March 27, 2011

Well, any idea why mine isn't updating? –CWenger (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Simpsons[edit]

Then find a place for it. Kingjeff (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

To be honest I would say nowhere. This seems like an obvious case of WP:RECENTISM to me. In a few weeks/months will anybody remember or care that one TV station decided to stop showing a few episodes? –CWenger (talk) 03:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It's not just about the show. The whole problem in Japan has made worldwide news. Kingjeff (talk) 03:07, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It probably would make more sense as a new section in 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami. It just doesn't seem that relevant to The Simpsons IMO. –CWenger (talk) 03:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I re-reverted what you un-reverted on Palestine[edit]

The explanation is that the paragraph is opinion from a primary source. While it's all fine and good to characterize it as an opinion, that's not what the paragraph is doing, and it does not contribute anything encyclopedic to the article while nearly lying to the reader that the author's characterization of Palestinean economics at the time was supported by any sort of modeling and data rather than being anecdotal. If you find numbers, models, trends, or something objective in the primary source, you can use that. I don't think you can revert it as-stated because that rhetoric simply doesn't belong on Wikipedia. See WP:NEUTRAL and WP:SOAP --Utopianfiat (talk) 20:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I am fine with that. I mainly just reverted the removal because it was completely unexplained by the editor as far as I could tell. Your interpretation sounds right. –CWenger (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Article for deletion debate[edit]

The article Young Conservatives of Texas has been nominated for deletion at AfD. Your input as to whether or not this article meets Notability standards is invited. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 16:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

I responded on my talk page. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 04:40, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Removing hyphens after -ly adverbs[edit]

Take a look at WT:AWB/T#Removing hyphens after -ly adverbs and see if that helps. Chris the speller yack 23:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Response to en-dash comments[edit]

Hi,

Just my two bits on some recent comments you made.

Rarity of "Mexican–American War": Yes, it's uncommon, but I believe that's simply due to disjunctive en dashes being uncommon, in which case IMO the discussion should be about disjunctive en dashes at the MOS, and not about this particular name.

Disjunctive en dashes seem pretty common in reliable sources like scholarly books and articles.

"Mexico–America War": This is apparently a spurious argument invented by PMAnderson. At least, he's never provided any evidence for it, and it's contradicted by RSs. As for MOS:ENDASH examples all use words acting as nouns (France–Germany border rather than French–German border), I did a search and found a style guide that actually uses French–German border as an example of disjunctive en dash. I have never found anything that suggests that part of speech is relevant. It seems that examples with nouns are the most common and just easiest to come up with. — kwami (talk) 00:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Style guides may not say this explicitly but it seems to be commonly understood that en dashes are not used with words acting as adjectives. There may be a few exceptions in reliable sources but this seems to be quite rare. And MOS:ENDASH reflects this in the examples it uses.
Bottom line: About 50% of reliable sources use Michelson–Morley experiment. About 5% (being generous) of reliable sources use Mexican–American War. There has to be a reason.CWenger (talk) 07:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Another point: MOS:ENDASH makes an exception for elements that lack lexical independence, e.g. Sino-Japanese trade. Presumably the same would apply to the element Franco. So are you saying it would be Franco-German border but French–German border? Seems unlikely that two phrases that similar would use different punctuation. (Disclaimer: I don't know what the difference between Franco and French is...) –CWenger (talk) 07:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, there is a reason "Michelson–Morley experiment" is more commonly dashed: There is felt to be a need to distinguish technical terms named after two people from those named after one person with a double-barreled name. There are even technical dictionaries which spell out (en dash) or (hyphen) after entries, just to be sure. Indeed, several style guides I've seen give personal names and numbers as their only examples of disjunctive dashes. As various users have pointed out, there really isn't much danger in misinterpreting "Mexican-American War" as a war among Mexican-Americans, if for no other reasons than familiarity and context. En dashes in such situations are therefore more a matter of stylistic consistency than necessity, and in a world where en dashes are commonly replaced with hyphens, the less need there is, the less likely they are to be used. There is a similar difference in usage compared to date and page ranges: hyphens between numbers can mean all sorts of things, so better to be precise. But we're an encyclopedia, so IMO it's best to be precise as a matter of course.
As for it being commonly understood that en dashes are not used with words acting as adjectives, I don't know where you get that impression. Certainly in English we more often compound attributive nouns disjunctively than we do adjectives, but we have several examples of adjectives in professional style guides, and no-one's been able to find a source to the contrary.
I don't know the reason for exempting prefixes. But it's easy enough to turn your argument around: Are you saying it would be France–Germany border but French-German border? Seems unlikely that two phrases that similar would use different punctuation.
kwami (talk) 08:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
But you have to admit that Franco-German border is more similar to French-German border than French-German border to France–Germany border. I assume the logic behind this rule is that when two nouns are used an en dash is preferred to show that they are distinct entities. But when you have an element that lacks lexical independence like Franco-, there is no possible ambiguity. I would argue that same case holds for adjectives with lexical independence like French. –CWenger (talk) 17:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, there is the possibility for ambiguity, and I have seen books which use en dashes even for things like Franco- when they are disjunctive. However, it's a common exception in style guides. I don't know the history of why. — kwami (talk) 22:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

For the record, I think the distinction you make sensible and is certainly one quite reasonable solution. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, CWenger. You have new messages at Hazard-SJ's talk page.
Message added 02:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, CWenger. You have new messages at Hazard-SJ's talk page.
Message added 02:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Obama citizenship[edit]

You might want to see WP:NPOVN. Dougweller (talk) 13:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, CWenger. You have new messages at Talk:J. C. Watts.
Message added 20:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gracias![edit]

Thanks for catching this [1], I had just noticed the overwritten comment when you fixed it. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 06:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

No problem! –CWenger (^@) 06:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Family Guy[edit]

I usually do write edit summaries. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:11, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Good news, everyone![edit]

The A-Class Review for the Frank Buckles article was closed and promoted just moments ago. I want personally thank you for your help on the article and hope to work again with you on the FAC in the near future. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 10:24, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your extinction restore on Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin seems to be on a wp:witchhunt.[edit]

Thank you for your extinction restore on Risks to civilization, humans and planet Earth. Special:Contributions/Arthur Rubin seems to be on a wp:witchhunt. He put this on my talk page User talk:97.87.29.188, stating he was playing "tag", acting with impunity. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Perfect game[edit]

Actually, it's a bit more complicated. One user, without discussion, unilaterally moved the page. Then someone started a discussion on whether to move it back. They had it backwards. It's Bold-Revert-Discuss, not Bold-Discuss, maybe-Revert. So I did the middle part of the BRD, but the discussion continued. I think it's fairly clear there's no consensus to put bowling at an equal footing with major league baseball. Anyway, I'm just cluing you in, as someone might complain. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:27, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

I see. Well, I think if somebody really wants it moved they should start a new move discussion. Thanks for letting me know. –CWenger (^@) 18:36, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
Yep. I toyed with refactoring it after I moved it back, but decided to leave it be, as it's essentially the same argument. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Incident[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Move war over typography of en dash versus hyphen regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.--Toddy1 (talk) 06:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

That's the syntax I was looking for....Thanks.[edit]

(On the Merge proposal link for Gary E. Johnson.). TheNgeveld 02:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I had to look it up too, at Template:Merge. –CWenger (^@) 02:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
PS-(apologies for the hyphens)- I like your user page. Both entertaining and informative. My 17-year old was impressed with Ron Paul during tonight's debate. Personally, I like the guy as a senator, and I think the theory's good, but I'm afraid of what might happen if someone with his energy and unyielding perspective had the power of the presidency. Anyway. Nice user page. TheNgeveld 02:53, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, and I guess I'll forgive you on the hyphens. :-) To be fair, I have reservations about some of Ron Paul's policies as well, particularly foreign policy and ending the Federal Reserve (these are positions I have come around to more recently). But I think government spending has to be the primary concern right now, given our current $14 trillion debt. He is the best person to deal with it, precisely because most people do not have his "energy and unyielding perspective", as you aptly put it! Oh, and he is a representative; his son Rand is a senator (the moderator made the same mistake at one point tonight!). –CWenger (^@) 03:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
In 2012, anyone who will undo the worst of this administrations usurpation of power get my vote. I knew Paul the elder was a congressman. Brain cramp. TheNgeveld 12:00, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Mitch Daniels[edit]

Thanks for you work on the Mitch Daniels article, I've been trying to improve it lately. Traffic on the article is spiking. 22:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks, as a distraction from article collaboration[edit]

Thanks for this inquiry about personal attacks another user has made on me, but I'd prefer to keep article talk pages for discussions about improving articles. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion around Abortion debate[edit]

Can you make your points at Talk:Abortion_debate#Starting_over where the discussion is currently taking place. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Great :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:22, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration[edit]

Cscr-featured.png
  • Ever feel like you're editing in a vacuum, and long for some camaraderie?
  • Do you want to improve an article and put a Featured Article star on your userpage but don't know how to get started?
  • Want to be part of a cohesive, committed team working together to improve conservatism one article at a time?

If you're interested in having lots of fun and working with great editors, click here and make history. We're now taking nominations. Lionelt (talk) 01:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Classical liberalism[edit]

You should respond on the discussion page. Projects should adopt relevant articles. An argument could be made that all ideologies have some relevance to conservatism, but then we would only have one ideology project. People interested in liberalism will no doubt look to the liberalism project for articles about liberalism. TFD (talk) 05:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Where on the discussion page? I don't see anything to respond to. Anyway, classical liberalism and conservatism are very closely related. In theory they should share the exact same economic policy, just like libertarianism, which already has a project banner there. If the banner was going in, say, the socialism article, I'd agree. But I don't see the harm in adding conservatism project banner if it might mean more people looking to improve the article. –CWenger (^@) 05:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Chris Christie[edit]

You've removed a section which I had reinserted and expanded on the basis of 'undue weight'. Don't see how a few sentences on something that has gotten considerable coverage would qualify, and certainly the fact that the governor reimbursed the state must be mentioned, but assuming for argument's sake this section is too long, I would think editing it rather than removing it would be more desirable. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 15:11, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Got your message, will reply on article talk page as time permits. I understand your point about using caution when assuming vandalism, but please understand my concerns about cited material removed without edit summary. 24.187.214.210 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I understand your concerns. I just want to make sure people assume good faith. I hope that will make it easier to come to a consensus on this matter. –CWenger (^@) 20:49, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Stephen Moore[edit]

Source: David E. Roop, Jr., Esquire THE ROOP LAW FIRM, PLLC 1604 Spring Hill Road Suite #460 Vienna, Virginia 22182 (703) 442-0040 - Telephone (703) 442-0035 - Facsimile — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongerone (talkcontribs) 12:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC) Why don't you email Stephen Moore at WSJ. He can be my Source. steve.moore@WSJ.com.

Also, I do not want my children's names to appear on line. Thank you.

Allison Moore sllisonmoore1@gmail.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongerone (talkcontribs) 11:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

I am Allison Moore, EX wife of Stephen Moore. I keep trying to edit this on his bio. Our divorce was final last week. You can probably read about it in the Style section of the Washington Post sometime. I appreciate you leaving my edits. Or you can write:

Moore lives in Northern Virginia with his three children. Do not include their names. thanks so much.

Allison Moore — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strongerone (talkcontribs) 12:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You still must provide a source, otherwise it is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. –CWenger (^@) 13:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Benedict Arnold (governor)[edit]

Wow, you must be a speed reader. That article had not been out there more than five minutes before you responded. Many thanks for de-captializing all the "Governor"s. Several of these articles had been red-linked with the capital G, so I left it in when I created the articles, thinking later that they should all be lower case. I didn't know how to fix it, so you've taken care of that little annoyance for me. Cheers.Sarnold17 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Matchbox-20/Post-grunge[edit]

Hi, sorry for not getting back to you sooner. I can understand the Matchbox-20 situation being somewhat tricky. I am aware there is the factor of their commercial "Alt"/Modern Rock radio association lingering. What it comes down to, for me, is that this is a common issue for many bands besides MB20.

Let's go back. We all know the story of Nirvana's "Smells like Teen Spirit", how it impacted the direction of the (decade-old) "Alternative" genre. Alternative became mainstream...but, if you'll notice also, mainstream became Alternative. Yes, the label went from being...pretty much what it implied, to a catch-all for almost everything that wasn't pure Metal, "classic rock" bands, black/urban music or eurodisco. Many bands became Alt. whose sound had nothing to do with it--sometimes even to the surprise of the artists!

Look at this list of bands, and think carefully about it (not to say you don't normally think deeply). They are among numerous who were/are lazily given the Alt-Rock treatment when other labels are far more suited:

  • The Black Crowes (Purely Southern Rock, Hard Rock and Blues Rock-influenced)
  • Dave Matthews Band (Jam Band with Fusion-Jazz and Bluegrass elements)
  • Blues Traveler (Jam Band + Blues/Roots Rock)
  • Hootie & the Blowfish (Soft Rock, Country/Americana and plain radio-ready Pop)
  • Counting Crows (Pop-Rock and Americana, influenced by Van Morrisson and Mike + the Mechanics. Hardly a formula for Alt!)
  • Goo Goo Dolls (Pop-Rock/Soft Rock on the Adult Alternative end, perhaps)
  • Creed (Stadium Rock/Hard Rock styled "post-grunge" ((more on this later)), debatably Christian Rock)
  • Sheryl Crow (Blues/Roots Rock, Folk, Soft-Rock)
  • Joan Osbourne (Pop/Soft Rock)
  • Alanis Morrisette (Pop-Rock/Adult Alternative with a tinge of post-grunge on JLP)

+

  • A lot of Nu-Metal or Industrial Metal (ie. Marilyn Manson, Korn, Rob Zombie, Monster Magnet, Fear Factory)
  • Punk "Revival" acts (who played pure punk or pop-punk, not punk-influenced Alt-Rock)

Most the genres listed here have histories older than Alternative's. Meaning, those artists for whom they are primarily styles, could have appeared before about 1980 and been received no differently than others in the genre. Usually "middle of the road" music is what they were considered. Safe.

So as for Matchbox-20: Even though for the purpose of commercial Rock relevance, there is maybe a tinge of "Grungey" energy on their debut, I would comfortably place them in the main category of commercial pop-rock.

Put it this way, Neil Young released a couple of albums during the 1990s in Grunge style. Taking his whole career into question, however, he cannot really be called a Grunge or Alt-Rock artist (despite influencing the genre). Billy Joel even released an album in 1980 containing punk/New Wave vibes, but surely, he's not part of punk and new wave legacy.

Music programmers never really knew what to do with the Alt. label. Possibly the problem is that those who were unexposed to the early, underground niche period had no background information to help them understand the style when it went mainstream. MB-20 are more in line with John Mellencamp or Bryan Adams. Bands identified as Alt, needed to show some evidence of influence in the punk and D.I.Y tradition...not the tradition of old school Rock/MOR. Theburning25 (talk) 06:53, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Continued: On "Post-grunge" as an Alt. Genre
(Sorry, I know this is already lengthy)
I'm of the belief that just around a handful of bands under the post-grunge title had proper Alt-Rock qualifications. Some of them were rooted in the proper Grunge period...others originated near that later transitional, but still Grunge-y period ('94-95). What's important to remember about this label, as noted in it's genre article: The term post-grunge was meant to be pejorative, suggesting that they were simply musically derivative, or a cynical response to an "authentic" rock movement.
The "classic" hard rock/metal sound was commercially suffering at the time, largely on the basis of the backlash toward 80s Glam. So a band pretty much would want to sound more like Nirvana an Pearl Jam in order stand a chance (hence MB-20's "Grungey" first album). As time went by and Grunge saw it's own demise, though, the feeling seemed to ease up. Nu-metal appeared, with it's Faith No More/Beastie Boys take on Metal which cited minor Grunge influence. Then of course the stadium Gods who would be Creed and Nickelback, and bands like them, popped up under the "post-Grunge" banner. Many of these acts were also playlisted as "Alt.", even though reactions towards these bands quickly grew to be similar to that of 80s Glam.
How do we explain the post-grunge label's association with bands like Buckcherry, Hinder, Black Stone Cherry and Saving Abel, bands who categorically are revivalists of 80s Glam Metal? It is obvious that aside some Eddie Vedder aping here and there, the origins of these bands is not in Alt. music.
So following about 1997-98--particularly marked by Creed's success with "Human Clay", it is safe to say that post-grunge ceased to be Alt. Instead it was/is more of a title for bands continuing where Glam/Classic Rock left off.
In conclusion, since I am stickler for genre and encyclopedic accuracy, I am adamant that including MB-20 and most post-grunge on the Alt-Rock makes it look embarrassing, like the product of uninformed amateurs. Theburning25 (talk) 07:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I more or less agree with you, but to be honest, it doesn't really matter. We are looking for verifiability, not truth. If reliable sources say Matchbox Twenty is alternative rock, they should be listed on that page, regardless of our personal opinions. –CWenger (^@) 04:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Excellent edit to Scott Walker article[edit]

It was true, of course; but not encyclopedic (and an insult to a harmless household product, as well). --Orange Mike | Talk 12:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, CWenger. You have new messages at Talk:Pearl River (China).
Message added 02:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Updated some of the data methology. You will see why. —HXL's Roundtable and Record 02:45, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Error Correction[edit]

Sorry for the alteration I made. It was not vandalism, it was a simple mathematical mistake. And thank you for catching this error and correcting me. 99.161.178.236 (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

No problem, sorry for the warning in that case. –CWenger (^@) 05:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, CWenger. You have new messages at Talk:Abortion-rights movement.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Sunburn (Fuel song)[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Sunburn (Fuel song) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No notability. Component charts only, not national. Completely unreferenced.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Barbecue sauce[edit]

Hi CWenger, the barbecue EL in question has been spammed recently into multiple articles. It was rejected as spam before. Moreover, the site has flagrant copyright violations (see Letterman's top tens in center column). This is reason enough to pull it out.

I'm not sure if the assertions on the talk page are correct. I tried using the Wayback machine tonight to see what language was being used at an earlier date and didn't find it. That aside, on AGF, I would give him the benefit of the doubt on that and we should perhaps rewrite like we would for any other copyvio. I would like to continue with my dialog with him for the time being on my talk page as there is the appearance of multiple accounts being used.

I'm also not quick to jump on charges of plagiarism when he appears to be doing precisely that on his website. Cheers,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 01:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

My apologies then. Go ahead and undo my revert or I can do it. I also wasn't sure what the editor meant by this edit summary: "per ... OTRS ticket 2011061910009237". Do you know? –CWenger (^@) 01:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem...one side effect of working on articles like these is that it makes you hungry...I'm working on dinner. :)
After different editors reverted the spam additions the other day, he says that he wrote OTRS. That process can be referenced here but I view that as trying to game the system and it leads me to believe that someone with experience at promoting websites (read paid editor) probably put him up to that as a way to try to get around being reverted.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I see. Presumably there is somebody who can check the OTRS and verify that this is a real request? Or are you suggesting it is a real request but done by somebody with a COI? –CWenger (^@) 02:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The latter.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 02:30, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I notice the IP address used by the editor geolocates to Chicago. Seems somewhat unlikely for a BBQ expert to be located there. –CWenger (^@) 03:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I've moved the dialog to Talk:Barbecue#External link request where other editors may join in the discussion.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 21:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Facebook public domain?[edit]

Hi! I was asking that is facebook a public domain or not? If it is, can you tell me how can I upload image from facebook? User:BrianZhukov 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, as I don't do much work with images, but I would guess almost certainly no. –CWenger (^@) 16:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. User:BrianZhukov 26 June 2011 (UTC)

abortion lede[edit]

Please visit the abortion lede. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

William F. Buckley Jr. and Race[edit]

Regarding your editing of my addition, you made a few points:

  1. My change gave "undue weight"
  2. My change used a circular reference
  3. I should use the talk page for discussion

Last point first: I have had a new section on the talk page for this article regarding this problem for a week now, yet this change is visible for less than an hour and it is immediately undone, and without a clear argument on your part.

Regarding the circular reference, my reading of wiki's page on this problem is that this policy is an attempt to prevent the occurrence of wikipedia fostering incestuous academic work. IE, wikipedia does not want to say that x is true because wikipedia says so, as opposed to some credible outside source saying so. However, my addition does no such thing. The objective here is to document the widespread accounts of supposedly authoritative research sources misrepresenting Buckley's position on a highly contentious issue in the United States. The especially slanderous label of "White Supremacist" by wikipedia for such a long period of time (the original paragraph which used the less offensive but still inaccurate phraseology of "supporting the segregationist South" was added the day of his death in 2008) must be mentioned in this context.

As far as "undue weight", I'm not really sure what that means. Can you be more specific? As I said, I have had a section in the talk page regarding this for a week now, and no responses have appeared there as yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frochi (talkcontribs) 07:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) As to the "undue weight" question, see WP:UNDUE. (And as a Southerner with a Goldwaterite background, I certainly remember Buckley as "supporting the segregationist South" for an embarassingly long time.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
To be clear, I don't "remember" anything per se, as I was born some years after segregation ceased to be a prominent issue. I can say that I am a Southerner, though not of any long-held particular political candidate affiliation. However, I do have access to the full text of the editorial in question, and in it Mr. Buckley plainly abhors segregation as a means of suppressing a group of people, in this case the black population. What he also objects to however, is the attempt on the part of some to abruptly grant the right of suffrage and other equality of outcome means as a crass political maneuver.
The phrase "Buckley supports the segregationist south", based on its construction, is meant to convey that Buckley supports segregation as an integral and necessary feature of the south, and this claim is not supported by the editorial in question. In fact, the editorial thoroughly refutes the claim.
If you can provide any evidence that Buckley supported racial segregation as a means unto itself, I'd like to see it.
--Frochi (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
PS - I read the WP:UNDUE section which CWenger linked in his undo. The topic is fairly broad, so the relevance to my addition is unclear.
--Frochi (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, sorry I didn't notice that you posted this material first at Talk:William F. Buckley, Jr. and sorry for the delay in my response. The discussion has picked up there so I am not sure this is necessary but I will explain my reasoning. First is undue weight. In this revision, there was way too much material of Buckley's views on race, and the Mein Kampf quote is really excessive. Compare this to say, his feud with Gore Vidal, which I would argue was covered more extensively in reliable sources. Second is the circular referencing. Wikipedia should never use itself as a reference. Discussing old versions of a page would be classified as WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, unless it was notable, in which case it would be covered by external sources. –CWenger (^@) 18:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation[edit]

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I took your advice re my problem with IE9[edit]

I felt that others may have noted this shortcoming and a discussionn about it on the IE9 talk page may have been useful but I have far less experience editing Wikipedia and do not know anything about computer programming so I will not argue the point.1archie99 (talk) 03:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I hope it didn't come off as rude. Anyway, as to your question, IE9 just merged the search bar with the address bar. When you type something there that doesn't look like a URL it should bring up a little menu with search options, including providers other than Google, which are installed just like in IE8 I believe. Let me know if you can't get it. –CWenger (^@) 03:49, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The Cleanup Barnstar[edit]

CleanupBarnstar.PNG The Cleanup Barnstar
You deserve a barnstar for the edit in Operation Entebbe where you changed "immidiatly came in his senses" to "immediately came to his senses". Dimension31 (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

DodgeBall[edit]

Although I understood why you trimmed down most of the specific examples I had included, I restored some aspects of the original edit:

  • The cite of the original legal complaint. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY: "Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source. In this case the first condition is met, and I feel it is acceptable to use the legal complaint in addition to the Times story since the latter can only sum up so much of the allegations, and may not always do so accurately; the reader deserves the chance to look at the original complaint as well.
  • The plaintiffs' allegation that Thurber had access to the script, since it means the suit goes beyond the mere striking-similarities argument. In fact, since Judge Scheindlin found that there were enough differences to make it a question of fact (I included the China thing since she specifically cites it (and a surprise counterargument) in her opinion, which I have also cited as a source, she ruled that the plaintiffs would have to prove that Thurber had access to prevail. It's relevant.

I do wish I could find out how this was resolved ... as usual, there's a big hoo-hah in the media from both sides when cases like this get litigated, but when everyone settles out of court (as they usually do, save Art Buchwald). So far I have found nothing. I have never believed that the absence of reliable reporting on the resolution of a lawsuit means that we shouldn't mention it if there is coverage of the lawsuit. Daniel Case (talk) 03:24, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing this. I agree with you on the first issue. As for the second issue, my concern is more about undue weight as opposed to keeping out specific points. It is hard to find much coverage of this event in reliable sources so we should limit this section to one short paragraph (some might argue it should only be a sentence). We could keep the part about Thurber possibly having access to the script, but I think we should leave out every all the details about the judge's decision. Just saying she ordered a jury trial is sufficient. If the readers want more details on her ruling they can read about it in the references. –CWenger (^@) 03:34, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome on the first count. On the second, I do consider the combination of federal court filings and a New York Times story to be the two sources that would establish it as a notable aspect of that film. Maybe we should search the LA Times or Variety archives? I can't imagine they wouldn't have covered this ... copyright infringement suits get filed after every hit movie, but it is very rare that they survive motions for summary judgement.

I'll trim back the detail, but I do think lay readers are owed some explanation of the reasoning behind a court decision. From my experience at WP:SCOTUS, I think most readers find legal language to be intimidating and dense. I'll see what I can do.

OK. The law firm that represented the screenwriters says it was "successful". One of Fox's lawyers said they "obtained a favorable settlement". I guess we can say it was settled out of court. Daniel Case (talk) 03:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

If there is information about a settlement then details about the judge's preliminary ruling probably isn't needed. All I ask if you keep the length reasonable. As an upper bound, it should be shorter than the first paragraph of the Reception section. Does that sound fair? –CWenger (^@) 04:05, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
I have it to that length. As I said, cases like these rarely get past summary judgement, so that should be noted although I have not gone into detail about why. (It has also occurred to me why there's minimal coverage of this and none from the LA papers and the trades ... the suit was filed and heard in New York). I'm happy with what's there now. Sorry we had to tussle over it a bit. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
No problem, and I'm fine with it as it is now. Glad we came to an agreement here. –CWenger (^@) 04:15, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Turtle website[edit]

Hi dear editor. I recently added an external link on the article about turtles to a website where it was possible to watch on live three pet turtles. The site was free and it was somehow enciclopedic as it was possible to see on real time turtles behavior. May you kindly tell me why you have removed? Thank you very much for your kind atention.João Pimentel Ferreira 14:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia's policy on external links (WP:EL) is quite strict. The site you added, while interesting, almost certainly does not qualify. I think it would fall under WP:ELNO #11. If you want a second opinion you could post a message at Talk:Turtle. –CWenger (^@) 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Municipality disambiguation[edit]

Hi, CWenger. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)#United States explains the disambiguation convention. Powers T 02:08, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! –CWenger (^@) 02:14, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your many helpful contributions to Wiki[edit]

I would like to thank you for your many helpful contributions to Wiki, especially on the Red Eye article. As you know, I have tried my best in the past months to make helpful contributions to that article, especially by adding reliable sources which were lacking on that article. Again, thanks for your contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedEyedCajun (talkcontribs) 08:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Great work re Scott Walker (politician)[edit]

Great work. I was editing the page recently and I can't believe I somehow missed that whole disgraceful paragraph. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I am not sure how I missed it for so long either. –CWenger (^@) 00:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
While the criticisms are of course all true, they were grossly violative of NPOV and had no place in the article. Good catch. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC) (who for obvious reasons stays away from that article)

Re:[edit]

Sorry, did not notice you only had three at the moment. I did not report you, so no harm done. Toa Nidhiki05 02:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Ron Paul[edit]

  • Ron Paul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Thanks for reverting my change. Probably due to the length of this article my edits were taking several seconds to be made so our close changes overlapped unintentionally. Cheers (talk) 07:23, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
    • No problem. I figured that's what had happened, it was being really slow for me too. –CWenger (^@) 07:25, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Alleged...[edit]

Hi, CWenger. Could I impose upon you to self-revert this 2nd revert of the day that you made on the TPm article? The article is under 1RR probation, but that isn't the reason I am asking (I have no intention of reporting an obviously good faith edit). You changed a lead sentence to convey that a number of racial ("spic", "nigger", etc.) and homophobic ("faggot", "commie homo", etc.) slurs were only "alleged" instead of reported, which is misleading and incorrect. They were all reported; and after checking the sources, there is certainly nothing "alleged" about most of them. The sentence you modified describes all of the slurs made at the health care protest that weekend, not just the "nigger" slur you seem to be specifically addressing with your edit. Thanks. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the message. Maybe I'm mistaken, but I was under the impression that 3RR and 1RR only applied to your own edits. As to the content, I see your point. The Washington Post source does report the homosexual slur as a fact, so we should reflect that, as we already do. But I also think it is important to convey that the slurs against the African-American congressmen are thus far unproven. The Hispanic slur is in a separate paragraph, about a different rally, so readers shouldn't associate the two. As I said in my edit summary, I think the best solution is to rewrite the first paragraph in the section. I think we agree that aside from the first sentence, the rest of the paragraph is fine. –CWenger (^@) 18:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Per the 2nd sentence of of the WaPo source, I've replaced the "was reported" wording, because that source actually reports that "The Post and other news organizations had reported a series of incidents". As for your concern that "it is important to convey that the slurs against the African-American congressmen are thus far unproven", I believe that is inaccurate. Accurate would be to say that those particular slurs are "contested" (mostly by people who weren't even there). One could say the gay slurs, at 2 separate incidents, were unproven because the recordings could have been doctored. One could say the "spic" slurs were unproven, because the websites where they appeared could have been hacked. One could say the "nigger" slurs were unproven because the several eyewitnesses could all have been lying. No, we don't convey that something is unproven simply because one person's arbitrary burden of proof hasn't been met - we convey what the reliable sources say. By the way, the spic slurs were made at the same health care rally (that is sourced), but in reference to immigration reform supporters that had arrived that same weekend for a different rally on the mall. That health care rally lasted all weekend, Thomas was there for 3 days of it, and we shouldn't confuse the readers.
I have a problem with this edit because it is not true regarding the racial slurs; the Washington Post just reports what the congressmen said. The only thing that is completely true is that U.S. congressmen said slurs were used against them, which is why I liked AzureCitizen's edit. Can you explain the issue you have with that version? –CWenger (^@) 19:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
That edit is true of the racial slurs; the Washington Post just reports that the Washington Post reported those slurs. I've addressed this more fully on AzureCitizen's talk page -- killing two birds with one stone. Xenophrenic (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
The source says the Washington Post reported "a series of incidents"—those incidents being Frank being called a gay slur, Cleaver saying he was spit on, and Carson and Lewis saying they were called racial slurs. In the next paragraph they are very careful to differentiate the Frank incident from the other two by adding "said", and we should reflect that. Writing "it was reported that protesters against the bill used racial and homophobic slurs" is inaccurate, unless you are saying the congressmen did the "reporting", which is confusing. (Man, I feel like a lawyer.) What do you think of my proposed edit? I think we can avoid this issue by simply not summarizing the reports. –CWenger (^@) 21:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Just between us, do you see any logic in claiming: Sure, some of the "loud and angry" protesters called the gays "faggots" and "homos", left swastikas on the Jew's desk and fax machine, called the Hispanics "spics" — but call a black man "nigger"?!? That's un-American, and I refuse to believe it happened unless I see it on 3-D Video with Dolby surround-sound! It makes no sense to me. I think the "it never happened" folks are doing a serious disservice to the movement and its image. It would make more sense to simply point out that there are idiots in every large crowd; denounce the acts as wrong and not representative of the movement; then get back to business. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I mostly agree with you. But I'm sure you would agree that fake allegations of such things have been made before. It's a natural inclination to contest such claims when there is no proof, lest you invite more of the same. And though we'll probably disagree on this part, I think the mainstream media gives conservative groups like the Tea Party a far more difficult time over isolated idiots in the crowd, so that's even more incentive to contest the borderline allegations. –CWenger (^@) 19:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
While "fake allegations" have been made throughout history, they tend to have some sort of reasoning and logic and goal behind them. If you just insinuated that several congressmen lied, I must now ask you to go one step further and explain why? I know you aren't going to suggest it was premeditated, because any idiot knows how easy it is to plant people in a crowd to stir things up and make sure it makes the news. Perhaps you'll suggest it was a spontaneous little deceit perpetrated by several congressmen? It doesn't appear so:
Breitbart insists they "made it up." If so, they're good actors. Roxana Tiron, a reporter for the Hill newspaper, said she was talking with a congressional staffer inside a House entrance to the Capitol when a "trembling" and "agitated" Carson said he and Lewis had just been called the N-word by protesters outside. "He literally grabbed me by the arm and . . . said 'You need to come out with me,' " imploring her to step back outside to listen to the taunts. Post reporter Paul Kane was nearby and witnessed Carson's reaction. "It was real. It was raw. It was angry. It was emotional. And he wanted it documented," recalled Kane, who said U.S. Capitol Police prevented them from going outside.
...and I am eager to hear what possible reasoning there could be behind it, and from people of their stature, no less. As for comments about "mainstream media", you've totally lost me -- the last time I checked, FOX News is the mainstream media, comprising more market share, ratings and coverage than any two other news sources combined. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I am sure walking through a crowd of people who are extremely pissed off at what you are about to do would not be a pleasant experience and would leave most people "trembling" and "agitated". And the reasoning behind it would be to subtly intimidate those who oppose the bill by claiming the opposition is only motivated by racism. Fox News is part of the mainstream media, but I think you'll agree their reporting is substantially different from the rest of TV news, i.e. they are significantly less critical of the Tea Party. –CWenger (^@) 21:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
It was too late to "intimidate" those who were voting against the bill, so perhaps the several congressmen were conspiring to lay the groundwork for the next hot political issue? I found the fact that Carson wanted to immediately drag reporters back out in the fray to witness it firsthand more compelling - that is not something a person who is "making stuff up" does. As for FOX News, I would agree that their reporting of the TPers is substantially the same as the rest of TV media, while their promotion of the TPers, at least initially, was substantially different from the rest of TV media. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Not to intimidate other congressmen, but the American public. You could perhaps imagine an analogous situation in which a Republican might drum up a story about a soldier treated poorly to elicit a sympathetic response for more defense funding, say. –CWenger (^@) 23:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

(Copied over from AzureCitizen's Talk Page so that we can get all three of us chatting about this in a single location)

I rarely take issue with edits made by AzureCitizen, as they are not only well considered, but they often have the additional valuable quality of being bulletproof when made during an ongoing "edit war" firefight. I must take exception with this edit, however. Please read the source to which that sentence is cited here, and pay particular attention to the first two sentences. AzureCitizen's choice of words is an improvement over using "alleged", but still falls short of 100% accuracy, as congressman Frank never "said" he was called slurs. They were witnessed by reporters, one was even caught on video, and the slurs then "were reported". Even the WaPo article takes care not to say "Frank said..." when it runs down the list of different incidents. Also note that the WaPo article states that the incidents were "reported", and goes on to explain that some accuse the Washington Post of "reporting" those incidents without proper proof. So I have returned the "were reported" text to the article. (I hope this also answers the question you asked of me on your talk page, CWenger.) Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Barney Frank didn't say it but Heath Schuler, another congressman, did, as is mentioned later on in the paragraph. So it is true but could be more informative. I suggest we just cut out the last half of the lead sentence in the paragraph: –CWenger (^@) 21:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

On March 20, 2010, before the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill was voted on, several black lawmakers said that demonstrators shouted "nigger" at them. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver said he heard the slurs and was spat upon. Congressman Barney Frank, who is gay, was called a "faggot".

It's "Shuler" - and no, Shuler didn't say it. He did, however, later, not on March 20, confirm hearing slurs. So it is not true. That prompts me to ask why you now suggest cutting out the true last half of the lead sentence?
Looking beyond that single sentence, I've been of the opinion that the whole section is in dire need of some serious rework. Rework that will probably make this discussion moot. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I suggest cutting out the last half of the lead sentence because the accuracy is questionable and the only way to make it acceptable would be to construct a doubtless awkward sentence that treats the anti-gay and racial slurs differently. I am suggesting we instead just sacrifice the summary part of the sentence and dive right into the facts. But I would be open to a rewrite. If you decide to do so let's start a new section at Talk:Tea Party movement. –CWenger (^@) 23:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break[edit]

Gosh, this one has some subtle nuances to it, doesn't it! As Xeno knows quite well, I often try to find some stable middle ground for all involved so that a cease fire is more palpable, but both of you have made calm, solid, and reasonable points that there are inaccuracies either way the text and issue has been framed so far. Before we continue, do we all agree on the following four items?

1. Using "alleged" instead of "reported" or "said" is inappropriate because it's being employed here solely for the purpose of casting doubt.

2. It is indisputable that both the homophobic slurs and the racial epithets incidents were "reported" by journalists. We even have a secondary RS that says they were reported, as Xeno pointed out.

3. Independent witnesses heard Congressman Frank being called a f*ggot, so rather than the text of the article saying "lawmakers said Frank was called a f*ggot", it is appropriate to say "Frank was called a f*ggot" in its factual context.

4. With the racial epithets, we have a problem lumping them in with the homophobic slur, given that the same level of corroboration is not present. As CWenger pointed out, the Washington Post pointed out a series of incidents and differentiated by adding "said," so we should probably follow suit in keeping that clarification as well. Or put another way, it would be more reasonable and fair to say that "it was reported that several congressmen said" rather than a flat fact "it was reported", given the inherent level of dispute over what really happened.

I'll stop there and let you both respond,plus I see CWenger is waiting to see what Xenophrenic thinks of his alternate wording proposal (above) as well. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Point #2 is somewhat borderline...but basically exactly what you said in point #4. –CWenger (^@) 22:55, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify, in #2 I meant that the incidents were reported (be it that congressmen heard the word n*gger, or that Frank was called a f*ggot), not that the reporters necessarily witnessed the offending incidents themselves. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Number 2 isn't in any way borderline. It's spot on. Our WaPo source (and I consider it a good one because it not only re-visits the slur events, it also examines the very reporting done about those events) makes clear that news sources reported on the incidents.
Demonstrators at the Capitol were loud and angry on March 20 as they jeered House Democrats preparing to approve landmark health-care legislation. Before the day ended, The Post and other news organizations had reported a series of incidents so ugly they were denounced by congressional leaders of both parties.
Our source then goes on to explain that (as AzureCitizen also points out in #4), while the same level of corroboration (recordings) is not present for the n-word slurs, eyewitness evidence does exist. Our source further indicates that the claims disputing those eyewitness accounts are dubious. The whole effort to remove or qualify sourced uses of "reporting" in the description of events appears to me to be an attempt to water down the credibility of those descriptions, in order to support the "it never happened" meme. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:32, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
All along you have agreed there is a different level of confidence in the Washington Post article concerning the anti-gay versus racial slurs. Now you seem to want to discount that. And I am still waiting to hear feedback on my proposed replacement that removes summarization of the incidents and simply states the facts. AzureCitizen, can I get your thoughts on it as well? –CWenger (^@) 23:42, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
All along I have agreed that all of the incidents were reported. Equally. The only "difference" I have acknowledged between the n-word slurs and the other racial slurs and gay slurs is the kind of evidence available — eyewitness versus recorded media. The WaPo source doesn't convey a lesser confidence, it merely neutrally concludes:
Breitbart's $100,000 challenge may be publicity-seeking theater. But it's part of widespread conservative claims that mainstream media, including The Post, swallowed a huge fabrication. The incidents are weeks old, but it's worth assigning Post reporters to find the truth. After all, a civil rights legend is being called a liar. That aside, there's serious money at stake.
As for your proposed reword that cuts out factual text, I asked (above) why you wished to cut out that text. Your only response thus far: "because the accuracy is questionable". Here is the text you removed: it was reported that protesters against the bill used racial and homophobic slurs at a rally at the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C. That is accurate. And it is verifiable (please read the first 2 sentences of our source). And it is the truth. And beyond all that, it was written by an ombudsman fully apprised of your position, my position, and the challenge to the reporting done on those events — yet he opened his detailed article by conveying it. And you wish to remove that text as inaccurate? I still do not see why. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Racial slurs were not reported. Alleged/unconfirmed racial slurs were reported. Or it was reported that congressmen said there were racial slurs. The title of the article is even "Allegations of spitting and slurs at Capitol protest merit more reporting"—that should tell us something. Anyway, the two of us arguing is getting counterproductive. I'm going to take my proposal to the talk page. –CWenger (^@) 00:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Just returned from going out for dinner and sat down to look in on this thread... I understand you've now transplanted the issue to a new section at the bottom of the TPM talk page which is bound to attract a lot more editors who will want to contribute their own two cents. I will add remarks after others have weighed in; in the interim, might I suggest we highlight with bold the text that we're proposing be changed? For clarity, as to the difference between the two paragraphs? Tell you what, I will make that edit right now so that you can see what I mean... please revert me if you think I've got it wrong, or if you think it's actually clearer without the bolding. AzureCitizen (talk) 01:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi "C" I wondered if I could get your input on the discussion here regarding the FNC Logo, I have an Editor who has engaged me in an unprovoked edit war regards to the FNC logo, Thanx Jetijonez (talk) 06:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

No, consensus seems to have been reached. Thanks for asking. :)Toa Nidhiki05 02:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by October 30, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion RFAR[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks, Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 03:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Carson Palmer[edit]

He is not on the active roster, he is not listed as reserve/did not report. Mike Brown says the Bengals are considering him retired. If he wasnt, he would of been fined $200,000 by the Bengals and he has not been fined a penny yet. I wont change the page back, but something needs to be done with the page because he is no longer a member of the Bengals and is also not a free agent. If guys are going to monitor these NFL pages, you might want to keep up on the news of the players, no offense to you, I'm just saying its frustrating to get my edits deleted that I either proved the information is correct or its common knowledge.

My concern is that saying he is retired is not really accurate. If you have a reliable source that clears says "he is retired" then I would feel differently, but the one you provided says the "Bengals will let Palmer retire", implying he is not currently retired. Right now I don't think he is being treated any differently than somebody in a contract holdout, and we certainly wouldn't consider them retired. –CWenger (^@) 00:43, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, he isnt listed on the roster anymore. They way I see it, is if at the beginning of the season if hes not traded or released, and he still off the roster, then he should be considered retired, and I recommand his article be changed to reflect that. Its not that he is a holdout but I understand where you are coming from though. I am going to change his roster status and add something onto his profile because he is no longer on the roster be any means, however I wont change him being a member of the Bengals.

Good Work![edit]

Barnstar of Reversion2.png The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Awarded for your tireless efforts to rid the encyclopedia, and in particular conservatism-related articles, of vandalism .
Lionel (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! –CWenger (^@) 00:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
As long as kudos are being handed out (and conservatism is being mentioned): While we occasionally cross ideological swords, I do appreciate that you argue civilly, coherently and productively; I just don't get much of a chance to convey that appreciation when I'm busy disagreeing with you. Best regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:36, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks Xenophrenic, that means an awful lot coming from you. Certainly the same kind words can be said about you as well. You have never made me doubt that your highest priority is building the best encyclopedia possible. Hopefully we will find more common ground in the future! –CWenger (^@) 03:50, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

iOS Guideline violation.[edit]

The iOS article, like countless others, violates the Wikipedia Manual of Style.

Why not fix it instead of making it worse by using a season that is correct for at most 10% of English Wikipedia readers? This is a very WP:POINTy thing to do. –CWenger (^@) 06:55, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
Why not fix it instead of reverting it back to the ambiguous version which clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines? I have fixed articles like this in the past. I have tried countless ways of doing it: "Late 2011", "3rd Quarter 2011", "Between September and November 2011", etc. People just revert it back to "Fall". Why should I, or anyone, spend my time correcting something if it will just be reverted in favour of ambiguity and ignorance?
To be honest it's just easier to undo than fix it. But if you're going to spend the time to change it, why not make it correct or leave it alone? –CWenger (^@) 07:07, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Category renaming[edit]

Hi CWenger. Saw your request at WP:RM to move Category:Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University alumni, but for some reason to do with the MediaWiki software, categories can't be moved normally like every other namespace. So when you a category that should be renamed uncontroversially (i.e. due to MOS:DASH or similar), your best bet is to list the category at WP:CFD/S, which is what I've done for Category:Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University alumni. If it sits there for 2 days without anyone contesting it, then a bot will perform the rename. Jenks24 (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I had no idea there was a different procedure for categories. Thanks for alerting me and taking care of it! –CWenger (^@) 00:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Coffee Party USA[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Coffee Party USA. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Talk:Thank You for Smoking (novel)[edit]

Hi! Do you think the closer of the move proposal's closing comment means that I can't start a discussion of the DAB move you suggested? I don't see why it would, since it wasn't really formally opposed, and it seems that 3 out of the 4 participants would likely support it, but I just wanted to ask to be sure. Thanks.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:38, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't think anybody would stop you or close immediately if you made the proposal, but the closing admin's comments suggest that they considered those arguments and didn't feel they had consensus either. Just my take... –CWenger (^@) 00:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. Hopefully we can get even more input this time.--Yaksar (let's chat) 00:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

RFAR on Abortion[edit]

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 05:14, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

AutoEd error[edit]

Hi, in this edit your changes included changing a hyphen to an endash in a DOI, which breaks the link. I'm going to report this upstream to the AutoEd talk page, please be aware for future use. Thanks Rjwilmsi 20:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I typically double-check my AutoEd edits to make sure it doesn't break anything but I guess I missed that one. It was just the one DOI (10.1002/1529-0131(199805)41:5<949::AID-ART36>3.0.CO;2-3) right? –CWenger (^@) 22:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:British war crimes[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:British war crimes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mark Steyn[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Mark Steyn. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 05:35, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

MySQL[edit]

Would you care to re-join the discussion about unsourced content and original research at Talk:MySQL? Thanks. I don't want to revert again because I will trip 3RR so another opinion would be very welcome. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 13:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ontario general election, 2011[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ontario general election, 2011. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 23:35, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Happy Belated Birthday![edit]

Just noticed... I guess userboxes are good for something afterall! – Lionel (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: September 2011[edit]

The Right Stuff
September 2011
FROM THE EDITOR
An Historic Milestone

By Lionelt

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

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

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

PROJECT NEWS
New Style Guide Unveiled

By Lionelt

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

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


Richard M. Nixon, ca. 1935 - 1982 - NARA - 530679.jpg
ARTICLE REPORT
3,000th Article Tagged

By Lionelt

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

Project Portal Join Archives Newsroom Subscribe Suggestions


Please comment on Talk:Comparison of orbital launch systems[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Comparison of orbital launch systems. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 07:38, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Astrology[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Astrology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ejaculation[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ejaculation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: October 2011[edit]

The Right Stuff
October 2011
INTERVIEW
An Interview with Dank

By Lionelt

6 Star.svg

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

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

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

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

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





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


UK Pro-life demonstrators.jpg
DISCUSSION REPORT
Abortion Case Plods Along

By Lionelt

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

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


PROJECT NEWS
Article Incubator Launched

By Lionelt

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

Wiki-commons.png

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

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

Project Portal Join Archives Newsroom Subscribe Suggestions


Please comment on Talk:Quotation mark[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Quotation mark. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 12:15, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Katrina Kaif[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Katrina Kaif. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Domestic violence[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Domestic violence. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed[edit]

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 04:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Palestinian people[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Palestinian people. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: November 2011[edit]

The Right Stuff
February 2012
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.

BurkeReflections.jpg

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.


TeaPartyByFreedomFan.JPG
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


Please comment on Talk:Art Pope[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Art Pope. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion[edit]

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! 12:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

Dispute over USB article naming[edit]

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 "USB". Thank you. --Crispmuncher (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état[edit]

Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:1953 Iranian coup d'état. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. RFC bot (talk) 18:16, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Abortion amendment request[edit]

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! 04:07, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

MySQL ACID Compliance[edit]

Hi, I seen you have been involved in a discussion around MySQL ACID Compliance on its Talk page. I would really appreciated your input on my comment. Regards 197.170.168.5 (talk) 15:53, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: January 2012[edit]

The Right Stuff
January 2012
ARTICLE REPORT
The Conservatism Portal-screenshot 02-07-12.jpg
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.

Me2011.jpg

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

Rick Santorum by Gage Skidmore.jpg

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


Abortion article titles notification[edit]

Hey CWenger. 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! 22:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Thomas Sowell Arbitration[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The request for arbitration was turned down by the arbitrators. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Discussion moved[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Thomas Sowell". Thank you.

Background: I took all mention of, and cites to, Media Matters out of the Thomas Sowell article. CartoonDiablo restored them. I took them out again, giving my reasons on the article's talk page. CartoonDiablo requested Arbitration but was told to go to a content noticeboard instead, then opened this discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. For more links/information, see "Talk:Thomas Sowell#Media Matters, again". Cheers, CWC 07:37, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested move of Côte d'Ivoire[edit]

There is currently a discussion on moving the article Côte d'Ivoire to Ivory Coast. You are being notified since you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Please join the discussion here if you are interested. TDL (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

Thanks,

PBS edited the Entebbe article in March 2012[edit]

Failing to achieve consensus, he 'sneaked back' and removed terrorist term.

Of course. Thanks for noticing and reverting. –CWenger (^@) 22:36, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)[edit]

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

  • Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
  • Research: The most recent DR data
  • Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
  • Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
  • DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
  • Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
  • Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 18:53, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

HCD article[edit]

Hi CWenger, I noticed on the HCD article, your profile is most connected with chemistry and therefore you would be the best resource to talk about expanding the article. I want to expand it more and would appriciate any input that you may have.Curiouschemist (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Curiouschemist, I just edited your additions. It looks like your GIF file did not get uploaded so that wasn't working. If you want to expand the article by all means go right ahead! I'm not on Wikipedia as much as I used to be but feel free to drop me a message again if you have some changes you want me to take a look at. –CWenger (^@) 04:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Operation Entebbe[edit]

Operation Entebbe, an article that your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. AIRcorn (talk) 14:31, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikiquote block[edit]

{{admin help}} My IP address is currently blocked on Wikiquote. I don't even have permission to edit my talk page or email administrators which is why I am posting here instead. If you look at my edits here and at Wikiquote I think you will see I have no reason to be blocked. I think I was part of the collateral damage from a range block that I don't fully understand. How can I get myself unblocked? Is it possible to make an exception in a range block? Thanks in advance. –CWenger (^@) 15:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I read more about range blocks and understand how my IP address got included now. But I think the range block needs to be more targeted. I am just on a typical ISP and nearly 33,000 IP addresses have been blocked. –CWenger (^@) 15:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I can't really help you. Perhaps comment on Cirt's enwiki or commons talk page? Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
On en:wp WP:IP block exemption can be used to allow a trusted account to edit through an IP rangeblock, that's probably possible on Wikiquote too. JohnCD (talk) 16:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Cirt just did exactly that on Wikiquote. –CWenger (^@) 16:24, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Good. I've turned off the "adminhelp", as the problem seems to be solved. JohnCD (talk) 17:04, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

re Wikiquote[edit]

Thanks for the query, I'll respond to this over at Wikiquote. — Cirt (talk) 16:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sermon on the Mount may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • * [http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6W.HTM Sermon on the Mount as heart of Gospel's Law

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

question about date templates[edit]

Hi. I noticed you reverted a number of date template usages in Civil War articles. Although I do not really care about how this eventually turns out, I was interested to know your motivation. Don't the date templates provide some programmatic data access to the starting and ending dates in an article? I thought that Wikipedia was trying to standardize this kind of data access. Hal Jespersen (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Hal. I reverted the changes in accordance with WP:DATERANGE. I would definitely prefer to use the date templates as well, but could not figure out a way to do that while following the MoS. I made the judgement that the latter was more important. I left a note to the editor who originally made the changes two weeks ago but did not hear back from them. –CWenger (^@) 19:15, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton move request[edit]

Greetings! A proposal has been made at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8 to change the title of the article, Hillary Rodham Clinton to Hillary Clinton. This notification is provided to you per Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate notification, because you have previously participated in a discussion on this subject. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Robert F. Kennedy may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • on April 4, 1968, following the assassination of [[Martin Luther King, Jr.]], Bobby misquoted<ref>[http://morec.com/rfk.htm RFK's version compared to 2 by [[Edith Hamilton] ]</ref> these lines from

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)