User talk:Oren0

Welcome to my talk page. Click here to leave me a new message.

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Oren0, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- JHunterJ 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. -- JHunterJ 21:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

WUSTL Project

Template:WikiProjectWUSTLinvite --Lmbstl 12:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Mars Article

Hi, I was reading your interesting Mars warming article, when I noticed it was getting changed. I went back to it and found that some people with clearly strong motives to promote Global Warming have effectively censored the article and removed any links or language which would show that the sun may be causing global warming throughout the solar system. -- Rameses 19:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to add examples of bias you have encountered by the pro-Global Warming crowd at SPAM LINK REMOVED...I am accumulating all of the evidence for various actions throughout Wikipedia for the pages, users, etc and your help with the footwork is appreciated. -- Tony of Race to the Right 14:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Climate of Mars

I was thinking that the article is looking good enough to remove the cleanup tag - what do you think, regards, sbandrews 00:21, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Valour

The Barnstar of Valour In recognition of your defence of NPOV and fairness. When one man stands tall, the backbones of all others are stiffened. Remember you are not alone in believing Wikipedia should be free of censors and bias. Good luck & many thanks. -- Brittainia 20:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

UBeR is being reviewed

Oren0, I just got this message from Uber, he needs our help: Hello, friend. I'd like to inform you of the attacks and claims made by Raul654 to the administrator noticeboard regarding my actions. I whole heartedly believe my actions are just and warranted. Please review the current situation. Thank you. ~ UBeR 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC) We should write our views of the situation with the proof to show the degree of frustration which Uber and we all are suffering. If we cannot save Uber from this injustice, WMC and company will simply extend this witch hunt to all who do not support their POV. Thanks, -- Brittainia 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Final Proof of conspiracy - Raul654 filed complaint just to "get this monkey off WMC's back"

The following is from my recent post, please go to the Admin noticeboard and post your views on this now exposed conspiracy by a group of Administrators. It is at: [1] -- Brittainia 05:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Raul654, this post [2] that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". The next step should be to stop this intentional diversionary complaint against UBeR and investigate your activities instead. Your entire group [3], [4], orchestrating these illicit activities should be thoroughly investigated by all those who have wasted a lot of their valuable time on your "getting this monkey off WMC's back". It is now clear that you yourself are guilty of most of the accusations which you have levelled at UBeR above, I believe that you and your co-conspirators should be permanently banned from editing global warming articles in order to stop the kind of bias, frustration and witch hunts which you are causing by your devious tactics. Everyone should know that this group are currently being investigated and exposed by a radio show for their hijacking of global warming articles as this group already knows [5] - thus they are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. -- Brittainia 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Removed picture from Vincent D'Onofrio

Hi Oren. As you're probably aware Wikipedia wants images that are freely available to anybody, whereas most publicity photos are still owned by somebody who wants to retain control. Wikipedia makes exceptions where there is no free alternative available (somebody's dead, for example, or to depict a character rather than an actor), but in the case of a living celebrity that's not a realistic argument - theoretically, you could attend a film festival or award ceremony and take a pic. See Brad Pitt for an example. Therefore the photo can remain on the character's page but not on the actors. (Quentin X 13:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC))

Comments for 2007 NCAA Men's Division I Basketball Tournament

Just wondering if you plan to leave some comments on the strengths/weaknesses of the article you rated. I'd like to make some cuts to improve to an "A" rating and would appreciate a second opinion. Hoof Hearted 15:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Proper!

Ty, never heard of a proper adjective before - but I have now - also learnt how to spell proper :) regards sbandrews (t) 00:18, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on Scientific data archiving

Please take a look at this Talk page, especially the part on "pseudoscience" and William's reverts. The POV of certain editors is preventing them from objectively dealing with the facts. The concepts involved are not difficult but they do take a little investment of time to understand. You may need to spend some time in the Pseudoscience article to be fully comfortable. I hope you are able to find the time to help out. Thanks! RonCram 15:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the best version now and comment on the Talk page. The best version is here.[6]RonCram 13:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Category:Wikipedians who support Israel

Re. your comment on my talk page - from my deletion message; " (WP:CSD#G6 content was: '{{db-xfd}}{{cfd-user}}Israel')", you can see that it was marked with a header for speedy deletion and that it was listed at WP:UCFD. You can see the closed UCFD entry here, where it states that the almost unanimous decision was to delete the category. The UCfD was not closed by me, nor did I vote in it. I've no interest in the category other than being the janitor who got the job of deleting it. - Alison^☺ 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Userbox suggestion

In view of the proposal to delete Category:Wikipedians who are skeptical of anthropogenic global warming, I'd like to suggest that adding a (list) link like this:

([[Special:Whatlinkshere/User:Oren0/GWSkeptic|list]])

to the end of the text in the box would make it much easier to find users who transclude that box. If the category is deleted, this would be virtually equivalent. --Athol Mullen 10:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Inhofe's blog

Would you please stop using Sen. Inhofe's blog as a reference to other than Mark Morano or Sen. Inhofe's views. It is not allowed under WP:RS - specifically WP:SPS. --Kim D. Petersen 19:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

An Inconvenient Truth

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --GreenJoe 01:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I warned her too. Thanks for pointing it out. I really want the two of you to work it out on the talk page first. I'm really not taking sides, I'm maintaining the "status quo." :) GreenJoe 02:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

deleting 'broken' links on The Great Global Warming Swindle

Deleting every single link to a well known national newspaper because they are temporarily unavailable seems rather drastic! I would suggest that mentioning that they seem to be broken on the talk page would be more appropriate. As it was I suspect the Independent server was down at 3am on a UK bank holiday.

Regards, merlin --Merlinme 09:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete every link to that newspaper. Some were working, and the site itself was up. This led me to believe that perhaps the links themselves didn't work at all, rather than it being a server problem. Oren0 16:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Understanding warm bias in the temperature record

I know you have an interest in global warming. As you may know, there are serious problems with the temperature record being biased by UHI or similar warming biases related to land use changes, etc. ClimateAudit.org is organizing an effort to photograph sites. Understanding the issue will help you be a better editor and improve the quality of Wikipedia articles on AGW. If you are interested, you could be a part of the effort. Please take a look here. [7] RonCram 05:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I will give you a few links that will speed you along when you find the time (if you can). The effort is led by Anthony Watts, a regular contributor to ClimateAudit.org. Some of the pictures indicate that increasing temperatures are probably a result of changes at temperature stations. The website is here. [8] Steve McIntyre fully supports the effort. [9] And so does Roger Pielke Sr. [10]RonCram 07:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

QL

List of episodes for xyz is a subject, "effects" (in my opinion) is also a subject.. so that should also be bolded, but I won't do it -- hurricanes aren't my thing. Matthew 19:03, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record

The Global warming controversy article needs to address the controversy around unwarranted government adjustments to the temperature record. I am hoping you may be able to help with this. Compare the historical temperatures ranges in the two images and relative changes to years 1935 and 1998. The image from 1999 can be found here. [11] The image from 2007 is here.[12] In 1999, temps for 1935 and 1998 were the same. However, by 2007 the temp for 1998 was considerable higher than 1935. I have done enough reading now to be convinced that the 1990s were NOT warmer than the dust bowl years of the 1930s. I believe alarmists like Jim Hansen are playing with the temperature record. In effect, these "adjustments" to the temperature record are done in order to create evidence of global warming. I need some help locating additional reliable sources on temperature adjustments. If you would like to participate in this effort, you can go to my User Page and click the "Email this user" button and we can discuss where this information may be found.RonCram 11:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

On the Scientists... page

Oren0, would you mind editing your poll answer to make the key word "Weasel Words" bold? It may sound ridiculous but Steve and Willy don't like it when I edit poll answers to be bold. Thanks. --Britcom 04:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama Roll Call

Hello, you are currently listed as a member of Wikiproject Futurama though you may be inactive. This seems to be the case for many members so I am sending this message to help renew interest in working on these articles. If you are still interested in working on Futurama related tasks please visit the wikiproject page to see how you can help. If you have time please also join in the recent discussions on the talk page, in particular I would personally appreciate comments on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Futurama#A new proposal for episode articles. Thank you for your time, hopefully I didn't annoy you too much. If you would not like to receive messages such as this in the future then consider removing yourself from Wikipedia:WikiProject Futurama/List of participants. Happy editing. Stardust8212 01:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirect of Exposed: the climate of fear

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Exposed: the climate of fear, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Exposed: the climate of fear is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Exposed: the climate of fear, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 07:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

recent edit on the AIT article lead

I agree with you that we should only mention the academy award thing once in the lead of the article, but it looks like we disagree where in the lead it should be mentioned. I know you and I were on the same page about not putting the word controversial in the first sentence of the lead but that it should be mentioned somewhere in the lead. I have the same opinion about the academy award thing. I think for the sake of neutrality in the article we shouldn't mention anything praising or that is critical of the film in the first sentence of the lead. I liked the second reference as well since it mentions the fact it won 2 academy awards. Let me know what you think :-) Elhector (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

My my you've been busy over at that article :-). Good work! I thought you might find this interesting. Elhector (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll go through that if I have time. I've been going through the recent UN open letter and adding any signatory who has a page and who I can find a suitable quote for. That's why you'll notice my contributions are alphabetical. The next step is to find skeptics who are notable and create new pages for them. Oren0 (talk) 17:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to the actual senate report. There's probably a lot of the same names on the open letter and the senate report but there may be some new ones too. Elhector (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting global warming studies and such

I have compiled a list from some info I found on the internet. You may find it interesting. The list I created is here. Elhector (talk) 21:42, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject St. Louis

Hello, I noticed you've made edits to St. Louis articles or that you are in some way connected to metropolitan area. I thought you might want to become a member of the St. Louis WikiProject. We've recently built the project page and started a drive to improve St. Louis related articles. Please take a look to edit an article or add one of your own. Once an article's status has been agreed upon, feel free to stop by and lend a hand in getting it to featured article status. Hope you can participate!

Grey Wanderer | Talk 21:06, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Problem with old Gateway computer after downloading new programs?

I have a 1997 Gateway computer, which I believe may have a problem editing wikis after downloading unrelated programs. What happens is that I make an edit, and and try to register it, and then wait... and wait... and wait... while Wikipedia seemingly doesn't "respond" on Mozilla Firefox (my preferred browser). So I give up waiting and go to the history section. The problem? Several words wind up blanked that I never intended to blank! what gives? This has happened on more than one occassion with more than one Wikimedia-based wiki program (Wikia, editthis.info, etc.) (Rebooting solves the problem, by the way.) 68.36.214.143 (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Just be aware...

Although I actually agree with the edit you made on IPCC, do be aware of Wikipedia's policies on editing on behalf of banned users. It's probably not a good idea to make a habit of restoring Obedium's edits. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really know the background here; I don't know who Obedium is nor did I know that the given IP was his. None of that changes the fact that your reversion of his edit brought my attention to some language that didn't belong in the article, and that's why I changed it. Oren0 (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK. User:Obedium/User:Scibaby is a banned user who has continually been editing Global warming and related articles using an army of sockpuppets. At last count he had used 23 sockpuppets over the past couple of weeks or so. He's been hopping IP addresses to evade blocks and letting his socks "age" to get around semiprotection (which prevents an article from being edited by anonymous IPs or by accounts less than four days old). Again, I agree with that specific edit, but if you consistently restore Obedium's edits it could raise eyebrows. Raymond Arritt (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bellamy

Re this,[13] it was indeed an accident. Your edit went in at 20:58 and mine was at 20:59. I've noticed that the system occasionally doesn't catch edit conflicts. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I figured as much. No harm, no foul. Oren0 (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"test edits"

i've received 3-4 reprimands already for an act of vandalism that was not even committed by me, but rather someone logged onto my account. since it's been reverted, i was wondering just how many more people would be wagging their finger at me? thanks. Wikifried (talk) 02:22, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Rock Band

Hey there Oren0. I protected the page per a request at RFPP. After going through the history of the article, it just seemed to me that there were disagreements going on, with several reverts and such. I understand you guys have a bit of a consensus going on, but perhaps a bit of discussion on the article talk page to figure out the issues could come in handy. Let me know what you think. Jmlk17 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry, I should've looked more careuflly at my edit. Just thought somebody might've missed it. Thanks for assuming good faith though. Discgolfrules (talk) 01:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Political position article summaries

Regarding your re-additions:

• Reverted 1 edit by 76.214.204.207; Re-add summarized positions to lead. WP:SUMMARY and WP:LEAD allow and require these types of summaries
• re-add summaries to lead per WP:SUMMARY and WP:LEAD
• Reverted 1 edit by 76.214.204.207; Re-add summarized positions to lead. WP:SUMMARY and WP:LEAD allow and require these types of summaries

to the lead sections of:

• Political positions of John McCain
• Political positions of Barack Obama
• Political positions of Hillary Rodham Clinton

and your comment "Removal of summaries of political positions":

your unsourced personal opinions that:

• "McCain is generally regarded as conservative politically."
• "Obama is generally regarded as liberal politically."
• Clinton is apparently neither?

and your false and unsourced claims that (your own personal) summarizations of the candidates' political positions

• "hit on the policies that the candidates reference most and those that reliable sources reference most"

and

• "gives readers the ability to get a quick summary" of
  • (your unsourced personal opinion) "of the 'major issues' without having to skim through" what are in
  • (your unsourced personal opinion) "relatively minor ones."

are violations of Wikipedia's fundamental absolute and non-negotiable WP:NPOV policy,

which trump WP:SUMMARY and WP:LEAD editing and style guidelines.

The articles in question all have a table of contents that gives readers the ability to get their own quick summary of the issues they consider "major issues" without reading the ones they consider "minor issues".

76.214.204.207 (talk) 22:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Oren0, I know that articles are supposed to have lead sections, but the political positions articles are the WP:COMMON and WP:IAR exceptions to that. The whole point of these articles is to give a full treatment to the positions involved, without trying to boil them down to oversimplifying or inaccurate one-sentence summaries. For example, you cannot coherently explain Hillary Clinton's position on Iraq in one brief sentence; as the article's section makes clear, it has evolved over time and includes some nuanced stances. The same is true of John McCain on the Bush tax cuts, and so forth. Let the full material speak for itself. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the WP:IAR position is the exact opposite. The lead is supposed to give a concise summary of the article; in this case a concise summary involves what their positions are on the key issues. As for the liberal/conservative things and the assertion that which points are major are unsourced, all of those things can be easily sourced if that's your problem. WP:NPOV doesn't require that all positions be treated equally, therefore it's perfectly legitimate to explain some in the leads but not others (see also WP:WEIGHT). Oren0 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, at least narrow your assertions. Say that Hillary is for an Iraq troop pullout in 2008, because she sure wasn't for it in some other years. Say that she's for universal heathcare in 2008, because she was for an incremental plan earlier, until Edwards pushed her in his direction. And so forth. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the articles were trying to convey the candidates' current positions (ie the positions they are running on) rather than their past ones. But fine, change that. I'm not of the position that my selected issue summaries were perfect, just that there should be summaries of the major issues. I think the assertion that choosing some positions violates WP:NPOV is ridiculous, it is no more a violation than choosing major points to include in any article's lead is. Is it an NPOV violation that Bush and Kerry are mentioned in the lead of United States presidential election, 2004 but Ralph Nader isn't? Is it an NPOV violation that Alaska and Hawaii are mentioned in the lead of US History but Kansas isn't? As editors, we have discretion to decide what parts of articles go in lead summaries and what don't. Disagree with my choices if you wish but I believe that disagreeing with our ability to add this info to leads at all is silly. I think that the idea that anything I added is unsourced is equally ridiculous, as all the info is right there in the article (see Wikipedia:LEAD#Citations) Oren0 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

No, these articles are meant to capture the political figure's positions over time. In other words, if a politician has "changed" or "evolved" or "flip-flopped" (take your choice of term), this is where we bring it out. Look at Political positions of Mitt Romney for a good example of this. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Who decides that a candidate is "generally regarded as" "conservative" or "liberal" or neither? 76.214.204.207 (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Reliable sources. I thought people might object to this part but I figured I'd include it anyway. Plenty of reliable sources make these characterizations: Barack Obama: Radical liberal - WorldNetDaily Obama is a "traditional liberal": CBS... I could go on and on. Oren0 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, just for your information, an op-ed column in WorldNetDaily is a crappy source, pretty much unusable for anything. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:18, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

I just picked results from the first Google page. We all know I could find numerous sources for this if need be. Oren0 (talk) 08:54, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Who decides what "the major issues" are? 76.214.204.207 (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

The candidates and media. I could find dozens of sources stating that the major issues in this war are Iraq and the economy, and therefore those are the statements we'd use. Or even better, go straight from the horses' mouths. Look at the major issues on the front of the "issues" pages on the candidates' websites, McCain, for example. Oren0 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Who decides how to oversimplify (and thereby mischaracterize) the candidates positions? 76.214.204.207 (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

We do, as editors. Look at the wall of text that is Barack Obama's economic position. We don't include all of it in the article's "economy" subsection; rather, we selectively take the positions that we believe to be representative of his position as a whole and only include those. Why is doing this in the lead any different? Oren0 (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'm willing to leave out liberal/conservative. That's not what we're talking about anyway. Oren0 (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I thinking correctly?

Hello Oren0, you may want to look here: Talk:Campus_life_at_Washington_University_in_St._Louis#Student_Union_merge_proposal. If the article gets merged, than ok, but there should be some debate. Am I out of line in feeling like this is borderline vandalism? --Lmbstl (talk) 00:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Should we get this mediated? There has to be some process for this. These guys don't want to discuss anything.--Lmbstl (talk) 05:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not keen on the threatening and authoritative attitude. Maybe I am overstating the need for consensus, but they are not attempting to work toward achieving it. Merging (and even deleting) the article may be in order, but deciding this without debate (along with editing articles to support a position) doesn't seem to be the way things work around here. It seems that they want the article to simply go away and are trying to do so as quickly as possible. I have a problem with the methodology.

As far as the article itself-- it does need help. However, once issues have been identified, there should be some reasonable time to work them out.

Thanks for your views on the issue, --Lmbstl (talk) 14:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting a WikiProject for students' unions and thought you might be interested in seeing the proposal. GreenJoe 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

WUSTL

I can see that things are spiraling out of control here, so I'll try to explain my actions a bit more thoroughly. I can see why it would look like I'm on a rampage from your point of view. So, this post is long, but I hope it helps smooth things over...

As far as the concern that I was canvassing, I came across User:Paddy_Simcox when I saw his AFD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Associated Students of Arizona State University and saw he was cleaning up the same type of articles I was working on, and asked if he would like to help. I don't think that qualifies as canvassing, which is usually "If you agree with me vote here on this AFD/RFC." I just asked for his help in merging this group of articles. Also, Paddy Simcox has AFDd a bunch of UK student unions, which I haven't touched (since I know US/UK student unions are different animals, and I know nothing about the British ones).

As far as the concern that User:Paddy_Simcox and I are suckpuppets, we are not. I can't really prove that unless you can find an admin to run IP checks, or whatever people do to check that out. Yeah, I see that he's only been around for a few weeks, and that prods are usually reserved for more skilled editors. That I cannot explain. Perhaps he lost his old password and made a new account. Maybe he's just a fast learner, I dunno.

As far as the list of AFDs, I am a very organized person, so I did keep track of the articles I was working on: User:RedShiftPA/Cleanup. I also keep a to do list (User:RedShiftPA/ToDo) and a list of thing I've already done (User:RedShiftPA#My wikipedia projects). That "cleanup" page doesn't mean I was issuing orders to anyone, just that I'm anal retentive.

I really don't have a vendetta or grudge against student government articles. Here's the (rather long and boring) story of why I started merging a bunch of these articles: As you can see from my contrib list, I almost exclusively edit articles in politics (especially PA politics). I was beefing up the College Republican article and adding a bunch of folks to the Category:College Republicans, when I stumbled across the article for something called "DUGBA" Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dugba, which was merged into the Associated Students of Michigan State University article [14]. It was an insanely well done article about their student government, but it was totally original research. I even tried to contact the VP to see if they wanted to save some of the history of the organization before it was merged (no luck with the email, by the way). So, then I worked with the original author User:Lovelac7 to merge it to the main MSU article Michigan State University#Associated Students of Michigan State University. You can see from his talk page that we worked very well on the merging process. From there I saw Category:Student governments in the United States and was surprised to see so many similar articles. And that is how I came to the WUSTL student union article.

But, in conclusion, I really think that student government/student unions are best served under the main article. Wikipedia can't be a hosting service for lists of former student government presidents and a server for constitutions. Anything that can pass WP:OR and WP:RS wouldn't be much more than a stub.

As far as my tactics go, I didn't foresee that merging these article would be very contentious. I now (very clearly) know that this is not the case. So, for assuming that, I apologize.Is there some common ground that we can find on merging these into the main article? I will post this on a few other talk pages of editor who are also in the discussion.