User talk:Christian1985~enwiki: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:46, 18 March 2012

Re: McFly Genre

Hey, no I don't think so. I request previously that the page had lock on it so only members could edit it but it was declined and it had even more edits than right now. I know it's annoying but the best thing we can do is give them warmings and hope they go away/get banned. -- Stacey _{talk to me} 16:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blackpool

Thank you for your message. I realise what the population of Blackpool is, I was born, brought up in and lived in the town all my life, and I know how it compares to other towns. However, it is not a large town, it is though an average sized town. Adding "large" is too subjective. The lead section has this about the town, stating that it is "the fourth-largest settlement in North West England behind Manchester, Liverpool and Warrington" which is ample to show its size. Thank you.--♦Tangerines♦·Talk 15:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Newspaper infobox

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Newspaper where a person who was actively pushing odd political affiliations for the Daily Mail tried to do an "end run" on the infobox. Note that "fascist" was ok by him -- I have no idea his ratinale, other than to accuse me of editwarring for putting in the cited "conservative." Thanks! Collect (talk) 11:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note the reverts on Daily Mail again. Collect (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC) Thanks, does that editor never give up, your sources are more than comprehensive and it has been changed again, I have undone the edit. Christian1985 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel at it again.

In Daily Mail, of course. He has also chimed in at WP:Requests for comment/Collect now in league with others -- asserting that I am editwarring on that article. Thabks! Collect (talk) 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, will he ever give up? Christian1985 (talk) 16:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He and his friends are running an exercise in votestacking without een following proper WP procedures. I will not silicit anyine to go there as it legitimazes a quite illegitimate exercise. Collect (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail

Warden has hit again. Gwen Gale has barred me from politics reverts for a while, so I am tied. GL! Collect (talk) 13:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reversions of vandalism are not subject to the 3-revert rule. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warden is not a vandal -- just a person with a very strong and persistent agenda (he even has tried editing templates to make a change in a page using them <g>). The Daily Mail is about as Tory a paper as the UK has -- but he was willing to have it labelled "extreme right wing" etc. rather than admit what it is to everyone else. As for who the IPs are -- that is anyone's guess. I suspect they may be ones with named accounts as well, as the pattern of edits is not that of a clueless newbie by a mile. Collect (talk) 19:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail and other IP vandals

In cases of persistant IP vandalism, you can either post here Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or request temporary page semi-protection Wikipedia:Requests for page protection - which might be the best bet for the same vandalism coming from multiple IPs. In cases of blantant vandalism, 3RR doesnt count for the remover of vandalism - I am not sure that in this instance I would have declared it "blatant vandalism" without having another editor on line back up the assessment. -- The Red Pen of Doom 00:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV/N

Friend posted there -- same gist as on DM talk page. Brand-new account only 2 hours old <g>. Collect (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail

Needs a controversy section, The Sun has one, in fact most articles do. Anyway, stop censoring the page just because you enjoy the newspaper. That's not what an encyclopaedia is, something that should be completely neutral, which you are not since you read the thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.17.30.120 (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT 'censoring' I am simply stopping unsourced POV material from being posted. People are posting untruths and negative material from biased sources that are not in accordance with WP policy. Blogs, open forums and Urban Dictionary are NOT reputable sources. The people who are posting this rubbish are not 'neutral' either they are just using the site to voice their hatred of the paper by deliberately posting negative material trying to smear the paper. Also I will be posting a controversy section on The Guardian if one if posted on the Mail. Christian1985 (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Also I will be posting a controversy section on The Guardian if one if posted on the Mail." And with this sentence I believe you sum up the problem with your attitude here. You seem to regard Wikipedia not as a factual resource, but instead as some battlefield in a fight between Daily Mail readers and Guardian readers. Of course the Guardian should have a criticism section, and I don't believe the majority of people who want a Daily Mail criticism section would want otherwise. They are both politically biased papers, and criticism of them is relevant. We are not here to censor what we perceive as attacks on our political ideologies, but to accurately record relevant information. It is undeniable there is a large amount of criticism for the Mail, and that should go in. By all means protect against the lies and bias, but don't try to conceal relevant information because you take it personally. Phunting (talk) 23:09, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments, I am not censoring information I don't agree with, everything I have removed is unsourced POV or material sourced from unreliable trash sites like Urban Dictionary. Also in many cases I find people who are posting these 'criticisms' are posting biased twaddle by interpreting articles to say what they want. Somebody once linked The Mail to the BNP once citing a Mail article titled 'Cheers as BNP Leader walks free'. That proved nothing as the article was not praising the acquittal of Nick Griffin but actually condemning the 'cheers' of his supporters. Material like that is what I have been removing. I completely agree they are both politically biased. Christian1985 (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree Christian on the subject. I am aware that a lot of rubbish is deleted. But at the same time, vast amounts of sourced, legitimate facts have also disappeared in the last 6 months.

As an example, I put up a brief bit about controversial stories, that had warranted a charge by the press complaints commission. Some of these charges the Mail had admitted, and apologised for. They were fully sourced and were deleted.

I'm not stating that every deletion is you, but there is a definite culture of centre right voters trying to protect the page, through deletion of edits —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.128.223.67 (talk) 19:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any content that has been removed by me is unsourced POV or from unreliable sites like Urban Dictionary, blogs and comment forums. I do not appreciate being attacked for following rules. I have made a referral to Editor Assistance. Christian1985 (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian. Whether it's you, or others, I think this is a wise move. I'm very happy to stand by my edits. As they were all verified. I think all edits and deletions need to be looked at very carefully. As deleting accurate edits is as much vandalisation as putting up false facts. Reading your comments above, this daily mail issue seems to be a long running thing, and the article seems to be very tightly controlled. I notice comments from "collect" above ,someone who seems to have been monitoring the page a lot, and has been banned for making politically motivated edits and deletions. Hopefully Editor Assistance will root out these sorts of people, who seem to be targeting the page.

For the record, I have also made the same referral for the page to be looked at, as well as a complaint on the editing history over the last year, in regards to edit reversals, and have asked for someone to look at it. Hopefully, between us, we will come to some resolution

20:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)~~

Fair enough I would like to see resolution. But there was no need for such personal attacks and false accusations against me. Also I have checked your edits. Making unsourced POV statements like 'anti immigration' is not fact, it is simply your opinion. Christian1985 (talk) 20:26, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian. If I offended you, I apologise. It's just very frustrating. My problem with your comment -"POV statements like 'anti immigration" - is the fact that the article already has words like "anti eu", "anti abortion", "pro monarchy". All unverfieid, and point of view.

Anyway, it's something that needs to be discussed. Pages should be edited on accuracy and whether the comments are verified. Not what a few people think should be going on there.

There's simply no justification for much of the deletions that happen. Again, this may not be you, but if something has happened, it has a right to be on there. No matter if it offends Mail readers or not.

~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmooney9 (talk • contribs) 20:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your apology, I agree factual content should be kept on, but I did not write all those anti-EU etc comments they have always been there. Another reason I monitor the page very closely is because my biggest concern is that of a small number of anonymous users who keep trying to link the Mail to the BNP. The Mail actively condemns the BNP but there are several IP users who use blogs and open comment forums to make these ridiculous accusations. Then when I remove them they hit back saying they were sourced. Urban Dictionary and open comment forums are not reputable sources. Thank you for your comment. Christian1985 (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian. I think a lot of the controversy follows the deletion of a "controversial" stories section. It seems to many, unbelievable that, arguably, the most fined and charged paper in the country, by the PCC (behind the Sun perhaps) doesn't have a single example of this. It really does paint a false picture.

You know, all papers print controversial stories. And most wikipedia pages have examples of them. Maybe they have been approached the wrong way in the past (maybe attacking the paper), but at the same time, I see nothing wrong in documenting a fair, sourced section of things like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cjmooney9 (talk • contribs) 10:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“also did not find any sourced information removed from June or July just unsourced comments like 'churnalism' and 'anti immigration'. I am simply mentioning this as a matter of interest. I notice the content you posted today like 'Daily Hate' and forthright stance on immigration, homosexuality etc, that is not verified information that is simply opinion"”

Christian.

My problem with this is your stance on deleting un-verified information is totally exclusive to things you personally believe.

As in, I’m reading the article. Statements like:

”The paper is pro capitalism, anti abortion”

“The paper is middle market”.

I’m perplexed how you decide that “anti abortion” is unsourced, but Ok, as it states the obvious. And yet “forthright stance on immigration” is immediatley deleted because it’s not verified.

Don’t you accept that most of the editing on the page, and deletions, tend to happen because a couple of people happen to disagree with the statements?

As in, how can the above possibly stay up, and yet you leave up “the paper is pro capitalism”. I’d state that you’re happy to state the obvious, unsourced, on attractive atributes of the paper, but delete anything negative?

Would you be happy for me to delete “The paper is pro capitalism, anti abortion” as it is POV, unsourced, and breaks Wikipedia rules?

Cjmooney9 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yes I would be perfectly happy for you to remove those statements because they are as you rightly say unsourced. But I did not write those other statements I am not the creator of this article. Like I say I agree though those statements are unsourced and wikipedia policy clearly states that unsourced material may be removed. Christian1985 (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do not edit people's comments unless absolutely warranted

Kindly refrain from removing or altering other people's comments, unless they are prima facie removable (like nonsense or trolling, for example). If you have a problem with someone's comment, contact an administrator. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 18:26, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed comments by a certain user aimed at me because they were making false accusations about me on a talk page. I did contact the administrators but they did not seem interested with my complaints. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 21:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the accusations seem false, dismiss them or whatever, or ask for some sort of mediation or dispute resolution. But do not remove legitimate comments. That's a big no-no. If in doubt, do not remove. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (Be eudaimonic!) 15:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals

Hi there Christian, and thanks for your work reverting vandals and reporting them :). Regarding your warning on User_talk:81.38.219.5, please try to remain polite at all times, even with vandals (while "don't you dare" isn't particularly rude, it's slightly confrontational, which is only likely to encourage the vandal). While this is hard at times, I find it helps the situation. You should also consider using the template warnings for clear vandalism. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your message, I will bear that in mind in future. Thank you for informing me. Kind Regards Christian1985 (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

POV Editing

This user is notorious for polluting Wikipedia with POV editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.59.247.74 (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't write abuse on my talk page, I do not pollute Wikipedia at all, I stop people like you polluting the site with your POV tripe Christian1985 (talk) 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Biased Author

As a conservative and a long time reader of Wikipedia, I think it is unproductive how this user has been stifling discussion, particularly on the Daily Mail description page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.129.25 (talk) 21:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT stifling discussion anywhere, I am NOT biased, I am protecting the page from the sort of POV rubbish people like you are posting. Christian1985 (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed the respective Daily Mail articles I think a new approach might be a good idea forward. There seems to be a particular clique of editors editing the page of negative comments in order to preserve its image rather than maintain balance. Christian try to respect alternative perspectives, even if they are wrong, and achieve a general consensus outside of the percieved clique, perhaps even seeking higher editorial intervention. I appreciate this is a sensitive topic but making reasoned editorial arguements rather aggressive language is more likely to garner support. I am not saying you are wrong with your edits, particularly of removal of blogs, but the language you use in justifying your edits makes it easier to dismiss your views as biased and judge them as stifling discussion. This is not an attack but a suggestion of a new approach. Wiki Drifter87.102.124.40 (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your comment, it is nice to see a fair comment for a change. I do agree there should be a balance, I don't have a problem with a balance. But there is a group of silly people who keep going around posting rubbish off blogs and biased left-wing websites determined to smear the Mail's name and that is what I am aiming to prevent. I do agree some of my tone is slightly confrontational but I am fed up of these users coming on my talk page and writing insulting comments about me and writing about me on articles as well. But thank you for your comment. Christian1985 (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

Per your report at WP:AIV I have deleted three revisions of your talk page. I don't feel I have enough information about this situation to block the account, but if you feel you are being harassed I could perhaps semi-protect your talk page for a little while? Please let me know. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your help. I will make a request for Semi-Protection. Christian1985 (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected for two weeks. Let me know if you have any further problems. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Christian1985 (talk) 19:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of semi-protecting your talk page again. Please let me know if this is not okay with you. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Littlejohn: Trenchant

Oops, sorry about that! As you can see by my edit summary, I meant to remove it as POV, but clearly forgot to! Thanks for doing it for me. :) Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 16:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, happy to help Christian1985 (talk) 20:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stop POV Editing

Me and many other Wiki fans think you are totally biased, and defend the Daily Mail in order to troll other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.162.136 (talk) 11:23, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you speak to me like that, if you write anymore abuse on my talk page I will make an official complaint. I am NOT biased, I am stopped biased material from appearing on the Daily Mail article, I am simply following Wikipedia procedure whether you like it or not. My editing is fair and within guidelines. Christian1985 (talk) 21:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares what an anonymous IP who shows his own biases feels <g>? It is quite clear who is doing the trolling on this! Collect (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be more professional

I have been taking looks at changes you make, and not very accurate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.147.83.176 (talk) 18:40, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not need to be more professional, there is nothing wrong with my edits so please leave me alone and do not post unconstructive remarks on my talk page. Christian1985 (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Block This Editor

He/(she?) purposely inserts untrue things on wiki, mostly far right conservatism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.162.238 (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring on Yellow Journalism

Please stop edit warring on the page Yellow Journalism and instead seek dispute resolution. You have surpassed the 3 revert rule already. thoriyan 13:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies but I am trying to stop this abusive user posting vandalism. This has been going on for months by different IP users and I have tried to warn them to stop but they are ignoring my warnings. He is now posting abusive messages about me, I have reported him but to no avail yet. Christian1985 (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, thank you for sticking to the spirit of WP. Try getting help earlier, though. thoriyan 13:21, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for your help. Christian1985 (talk) 13:22, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the IP 83.59.242.124 for 24 hours. Daniel Case (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. Christian1985 (talk) 13:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, any reason not to block Christian? I was planning just to give both a warning, and then block for any further warring, I personally think blocking the IP address but not Christian comes across as favouritism/unfairness, since both were edit warring. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but I was not 'warring' I was simply removing vandalism. The article in question has been vandalised by many IPs registered to 'Telefonica de Espania' and all I am doing is removing their unsourced POV. Then they retailiate by abusing me with abusive rants on my talk page. I feel there is no justification for blocking me. Christian1985 (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably, if the scenario was as described, with the repeated reinsertion of a claim not backed by consensus, this was vandalism reversion and thus exempt from 3RR. Daniel Case (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was, indeed, vandalism - and from a person who has used other IPs in the past for the same purpose. Collect (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really class calling the Daily Mail Yellow Journalism vandalism, I'm sure there are many who feel that it is Yellow Journalism, and therefore many who would be adding it to that page in good faith (i.e. not vandalism). If the problem was that the user was vandalising (which I don't believe it was), then block them for vandalising, not edit warring (as was done). Also, I wouldn't call the messages left by the account "abusive rants", not being sure if you're a man or a girl is not an insult, and no cause to go and yell at them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:02, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I feel it is vandalism, it is purely the opinions of these IP users. I am an actual Mail reader and I feel it is not yellow journalism, also the edits are completely unsourced. When I speak of abusive rants I was referring to them calling me a 'right wing extremist' among other thigns, I find such remarks very insulting. Christian1985 (talk) 14:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're bring your POV into it :D. So who's POV is actually correct? No one really knows, that's why we have our EW policy. Listen, the point I'm trying to make is it's not okay to edit war over something just because another editors POV conflicts with your own. Okay, they shouldn't have called you a "right wing extremist", ask them not to politely, if they continue get them blocked for personal attacks. Again, the point I'm making is, edit warring isn't justified because the other user insulted you. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not trying to edit-war I was reverting vandalism. As Collect pointed out this is a dynamic IP that has been doing this for months with the same edits. Also the edits are pure POV, no sources have been provided which breaches WP policy. WP is no place for opinions, material must be sourced. Christian1985 (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it was a POV, I personally think it's just your own POV that the Daily Mail is not Yellow Journalism, which you seem to admit to above; "I am an actual Mail reader and I feel it is not yellow journalism". Whereas the IP account is at least trying to provide sources for their claims, even if you (probably correctly) point out they fail WP:V - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to the Facts

It is entirely acceptable that you find the Daily Mail entertaining, but you need not let your personal preference cloud your neutrality and rationality.

Please stop violating the spirit and letter of wiki policy. You have been reported. 83.59.242.124 (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christian is following letter ans spirit of WP policies here. Meanwhile note that WP:3RR is a bright line rule which you have quite overstepped. Collect (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Collect, I have reported this abusive user but the administrators have yet to act. Christian1985 (talk) 13:19, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Christian1985 has also violated this rule, as another (neutral!) editor pointed out above. 83.59.242.124 (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I haven't because I was reverting persistent vandalism which is acceptable. You have been reported for your abuse and you will be blocked. Christian1985 (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Violation of TOS

I have reported you to admins for your repeated violation of TOS. Your edit warring and harassment will not be tolerated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.130.224 (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not violated any rules so leave me alone and stop harassing me with these abusive posts. I will be reporting you if there are any further posts like this. I have done nothing wrong Christian1985 (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you have done a lot wrong. I have seen you disrespect many peoples and to be not neutral! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.130.224 (talk) 21:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have not disrespected anyone, I have done nothing wrong so leave me alone or I will make a complaint of harassment. Christian1985 (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McFly ARE alternative rock

Now just because they started out as a beach boys-like band does not mean they can't devolp. A lot of people see them as a boyband, which they were at first (kind of), but that stopped in time for the second album. Imagine Wonderland being recorded by another band - actually no, imagine it exactly how it is but with the vocals removed and some other band credited on the front. It is a alternative rock record, trust me. The closest thing to pop on the album is "I Wanna Hold You". Just because a majority of people say they are pop doesn't mean they ARE pop. Everyone has different opinions on the genre but it isn't an opinion thing, it's just the way it is. Sorry if you think i'm disruptive but it's not like Warning by Green Day or Be Here Now by Oasis are pop rock albums.--77.99.231.37 (talk) 22:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. You are entitled your views but I disagree, Mcfly are not 'rock' in any way, shape or form. I do not feel they are anything like the Beach Boys. I have (unwillingly) heard Wonderland and as far as I am concerned it is not the slightest bit 'alternative rock'. We had a long debate about this on the Mcfly talk page and it was agreed we will stick with pop rock. Christian1985 (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why?

could you please stop the edit warring with other users, i think if you used a different tact and stopped insulting personally the liberals that dont like the mail, that you would be more effective. thanks! 99.35.57.97 (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not 'edit warring' with anyone. I am simply stopping left-wing rubbish from being posted on the Daily Mail article. It does NOT support the BNP, fascism or anything like that. I have not insulted anyone. I am the victim because people keep writing libellous comments on my talk page telling lies about me. I will thank you not to come on my talk page and insult me in future. Abuse will not be tolerated. Christian1985 (talk) 11:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More Trolling

Have briefly been referring to various edits involving yourself in the last few days.You quite rightly have removed and condemned some far-left wing trolling which has also contained much unacceptably foul and obscene abuse along the way over the last year or so.However from another standpoint, now some far-right trollers have been vandalising page edits involving you (81.97.21.6), making irrational and obscene remarks about 'commies'. You honorably removed one act of vandalism a few days back; unfortunately,another more vulgar act of vandalism took place yesterday which I have removed hopefully with your approval. We can't seem to win;one moment it's hard lefties, then hard righties! I'll try and keep an eye out for you for such miscreants from seemingly extreme viewpoints from both sides of the political spectrum (shame Blackpool didn't play Man United the other day,eh?) Hope such asinine,unacceptable comments can come to an end.Thank you. JFBridge (talk) 22:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thank you for your help. This trolling is getting out of hand. Christian1985 (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry to tell you I've just come across even more abusive and obscene right-wing trolling involving one of your edits on a different IP address (81.38.219.5) which I've removed and seems to involve the same culprit and took place a day or two back.Will leave it up to you if you wish to report to the administrators.Thank you JFBridge (talk) 22:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from forum shopping

You recently posted this to WP:AIV while the is a discussion on the same subject in progress at WP:ANI. You don't achieve anything by trying to use several noticeboards in parallel. Favonian (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The diff mentioned above also accuses your opponent of potentially libellous activity. Accusing people of such things begins to move into territory covered by WP:NLT which is not a good idea. I suggest you strike the WP:AIV complaint and let the discussion at WP:ANI, which is further developed, take its course. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relatedly, you wrote at ANI, "I am perfectly entitled to read and write on your talk page." Perhaps "the letter of the law" supports that, but you'll find that the norm here is that if someone has asked you to stay off their talk page, or you have reason to believe that they want you to do so, you'd be well-advised to follow their wishes in that regard. It's not at all uncommon for continued unwanted postings to a user's talk page to be construed as harrassment by admins. Just a word to the wise. Best, – OhioStandard (talk) 04:43, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A warning about a comment at AN/I? Had he posted the comment on the UT page, I could see the cavil - but AN/I was a perfectly reasonable place for the post. And you feel a user can tell you not to read their UT page? Really. Verbum sapiens satis est. Collect (talk) 12:10, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You Collect, I was not 'stalking' them or 'harassing' them I was simply warning them that the material they were posting was inappropriate. I see what you are saying about the 'libel' accusations. Thank you for your advice anyway. Christian1985 (talk) 12:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, there's my old friend, Collect! Thank you for the Latin; things always sound so much more profound that way. Christian did say, on Jenova20's talk page, that he felt free to continue to post there, twice, actually, and then a third time, at ANI. I was aware of all three, and it didn't seem especially important to me which I quoted. As to "you feel a user can tell you not to read their UT page?", well, I'm sorry, but that doesn't pass the giggle test for me, coming from so literate and intelligent a person, and I imagine you're just having your fun. No offense taken, but I'm not really interested in dancing with you this evening, so I'm done here. All the best, – OhioStandard (talk) 13:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um -- was your post meaningful in any way? IIRC, we have had very few interactions - assuredkly not enough to call me an "old friend." Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

Whoa whoa whoa. Christian, can you please be careful what you call vandalism? this edit whilst it should have been taken to the talk page or had an edit summary was not WP:VANDALISM, as it was clearly in good faith. I would also point out that there was a definite attempt to remove the POV from the previous edit, and the edit that Jenova made looked neutral to me. I would ask that you check the edit and see if you still think it is vandalism. Worm^TT 15:27, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference does NOT support the claims Jenova20 is trying to make. The 'reference' is simply a disclaimer/forum rules page you get on any website with open forums. He is trying to claim the DM is 'censoring' and 'filtering' comments they don't like, NOWHERE does the reference state this. I think it is vandalism. The Mail do NOT 'edit' comments at all, this is a false claim and constitutes OR. Christian1985 (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reference not only states that the mail actively filter comments, but also that the they may not appear and that some discussions do not happen for legal reasons. I understand you have had difficulties with the editor in the past, but reverting and calling the edit vandalism was uncalled for. Vandalism is a serious accusation and requires a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. This edit was made in good faith. Just because you disagree with it does not make it vandalism or even wrong. Worm^TT 15:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok maybe Vandalism was a strong term but the edit is still wrong. The reference does not state they filter comments and it certainly does not say they 'edit' (ie sanitise) comments. But it is still OR/POV. Christian1985 (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get involved in the content dispute just yet, but I'll offer a 3O if you two can't sort it out between you. Vandalism is an unfortunate term thrown around by some and taken very seriously by others, it's best to be careful using it - only in terms of "obvious" vandalism. It's not like we don't have enough of that. Worm^TT 15:42, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed.
Lionel (talk) 10:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion debate

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) 17:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jenova

Hi Christian. I'm afraid I cannot accede to your request. I do not believe Jenova has an attitude problem, so I am unable to tell him to drop it. I am willing to discuss his mentorship and his progress, if you like. Before I do, I would like to explain the situation as I see it. If it's a bit too long, I will summarise at the bottom of the page. (I will provide diffs for any of these points on request)

Prior to January, you had opposed a criticism section on the Daily Mail page, disagreeing with all criticism on the talk page.
On 24th January, you had a run-in with Jenova on the Daily Mail talk page. At the time, Jenova had less than 20 edits to the encyclopedia, and should have been considered a new user. As such, it was not surprising that he was unaware of the policies that surrounded wikipedia and due to his point of view, he saw an issue. Your response belittled him, calling him "ridiculous". I can understand that you may have felt there was a campaign against the Daily Mail page at this time, an article where you are the third highest editor, but your response was a bitey.
By 25th January, when Jenova started trying get sources on their talk page, you raised an ANI [1] to complain about soap-boxing. With the help of a few editors, including myself, the situation calmed down. Jenova moved his work to a sub-page, and you both walked away. During the argument, you both stopped assuming good faith with each other, and I doubt you will be able to re-attain that good faith.
Fast forward to 22nd February. Jenova tried to add information to the Mail Online article. His first edit was POV, and since you had stopped assuming good faith due to the previous argument, you viewed it as very heavy POV - reading between the lines of what Jenova wrote, so you reverted. His second edit was less POV, which you reverted as vandalism. You later agreed that "Vandalism" was an incorrect term for the edit.
After a discussion on the Mail Online talk page, you and I came to an agreement over the text, and it was added to the article. Jenova asked me to adopt them, as they felt they still needed to learn about the encyclopedia, which I accepted.
Between 22nd February and 30th March, Jenova worked hard on my adoption course (many questions of which I created specifically with Jenova in mind), and has come along in leaps and bounds. He came to understand concepts such as NPOV, what sources are correct and how to disagree.
On 30th March, after a run in with another editor on an article you had no involvement, you arrived on Jenova's talk page, complaining of "attitude problems" and that you were insulted by the word "thuggish". I told Jenova on his adoption page that I would let the argument play out without my intervention, because I wanted to see if Jenova could cope with a discussion where both parties have difficulty assuming good faith. You instigaged the discussion sooner than I had hoped, but I still felt Jenova was ready. I felt Jenova handled the situation very well and one of my other adoptees stepped up and asked you both to just walk away.
Two weeks later, when you found Jenova's adoption page, you raised the same arguments and effectively asked for drama. I replied and let you have the last word. Jenova went on to reply to your comments, asking you to stop talking to him.

And here we are. You've asked Jenova to apologise and take offense to many of his comments. I have not seen any blatent personal attacks from Jenova to you in the past six weeks, and Jenova has made no effort to contact you in that time. You however have made unsolicited comments about him on his talk page, his adoption talk page and my talk page. Now, evidently, I am baised, I've been working closely with Jenova and am inclined to see his point of view. Also, you are biased regarding Jenova, unable to assume good faith of his actions. I think it would be best if you walked away from Jenova, stopped interacting with him all together and removed his pages from your watchlist. As I suggested before, it's time to drop the stick and walk away from the dead horse.

TLDR version - You and Jenova are never going to get along. Don't expect him to roll over, or me to chastise him for something I don't agree with. It would be best if you walked away. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed 100%

We have never worked together Christian and never will, i would always work with someone else over you with the option.

I want all contact between us to cease completely and disrespecting that wish IS harassment unless it's absolutely necessary one of us needs to contact the other.

In either case i don't think Worm would mind being an intermediary?

Jenova20 10:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for replying WormTT, I do not agree at all with what you say personally and yes I do feel you are biased. You fail to see Jenova's clear attitude problem. Yes I may have overstepped the mark to begin with not assuming good faith but yes I do feel there is something of a hate campaign against the Mail. But there is no need for Jenova to hurl wild accusations at me saying I am 'sitting on the article' and 'sanitising' and then to accuse me of 'stalking' and 'harassment' which I find very offensive and excessive terms. It is clear he is far too stubborn to admit he is wrong and apologise so I will be avoding him but I stand by what I say, he has an appalling attitude. But he must remember if he posts on articles as a fellow Wikipedian I am perfectly entitled to question edits particularly when they are controversial and not be abused for doing so. Anyhow thank you for your message. It is just a shame Jenova cannot be more reasonable. Christian1985 (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More Abuse

Sorry to report I've come across more personal abuse (and very nasty and obscene to boot) regarding you and IP user 80.5.62.33;came across it just now and have removed it to previous edit.Personally am neutral but all including yourself entitled to political viewpoints in a democracy.PS:Sorry Blackpool were relegated,great entertainers.Thank you. JFBridge (talk) 12:46, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks very much for letting me know. There are some very nasty people on this site but thanks very much for removing it. Christian1985 (talk) 21:10, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collaboration

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)[reply]

Margaret Thatcher

Hi. Rather than removing material you don't like, could you please come to the talk page and discuss what you think the reference means? I am not going to accept the removal of well-referenced material which has stood unchallenged for months, but we might be able to come to a compromise. Thanks, --John (talk) 15:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, I did NOT remove it because 'I don't like it' I removed it with good reason. It is not well-sourced, it is OR/POV, I removed it for that reason and I have written on the talk page. Christian1985 (talk) 15:58, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't get upset, nobody is insulting you. I'm just having a hard time understanding what you mean as you seem unable to explain it properly. Please see what you can do towards this. --John (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not unable to explain anything. I have explained my reasons fully. Your 'source' does not state the claims you are making in the article and therefore is not acceptable, why is that so difficult to understand? I don't appreciate being spoken to like I am stupid Christian1985 (talk) 16:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[[Image:Template:LogoCon|right|80px]]

Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism!

We are a growing community of editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles related to conservatism. Here's how you can get involved:

Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
Check the Recent changes for vandalism and violations of the neutral point of view policy.
Add the project banner {{WikiProject Conservatism}} to conservatism-related articles, and assess them as well.
Join fellow members in editing our project-wide article collaboration (the current one is Michael Anton).
Cleanup some of the articles listed for cleanup.
Check out the to do list and complete some of the tasks.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.

And once again - Welcome!
- – Lionel ^(talk) 07:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Protest Songs and Street Party

At your suggestion, I have read the Discussion page for Margaret Thatcher and can find no discussion of these issues. The issues are factual and verifiable; neither of them are mere opinion or point of view. Prince_Philip_of_Greece (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment, please see talk page, I have just updated it. They are not factual they are POV/SYNTH. Christian1985 (talk) 11:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD A7 tag on Vermin Club

Hi, I've removed the speedy deletion tag you added to Vermin Club. A7 is for articles which make no credible claim of importance for their subject; in this case, the club counted at least one PM as a member and the rest of its membership looks to have been notable politicians; in addition, according to the sources it was mentioned in a memoir and had an article written about it. Your rationale, that the sources are unverifiable and the article poorly written, has nothing to do with the tag you added; A7 doesn't encompass either of those issues. We don't require sources to be available online, so citing a book or offline magazine/journal is perfectly fine, and if the article is poorly written, the correct action is to either fix it or to tag it for the appropriate cleanup - neither of these are issues that should or are addressed by deletion. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:32, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Miners' Strike 1984-85

Just seen your reply to comments made about you regarding above page.Agree that such overtly subjective opinions such as those from the anonymous miscreant involved are not acceptable, but instead of falling for the bait (don't worry,I've had this on Wikipedia now and again over the years), it may be better to quietly report such behaviour to an administrator or request a deletion of such unneccessary comments (Maybe the above is an ex-miner?).Good to see Lancs CC win at Stanley Park in Blackpool yesterday. Can they actually win the County Cricket Championship at long last? Thank you. JF Bridge, 19:10, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, yes I should have took more formal channels really but I get very offended at being labelled 'far right' which I am not and find it a very inflammatory term. Yes it is good news, I certainly hope they go all the way. Thank you Christian1985 (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over The Moon,Lancs just won the County Cricket Championship! They have gone all the way! All the best, JFBridge, 18:05, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.5.63.234 (talk)

Deletions Generally

Please can you ensure that if you're going to delete swathes of an article, that you have an appropriate reason for doing so. Currently you seem to be removing any source which you describe as "left-wing", as you consider them to be "biased". This is very far from being appropriate or within the rules of Wiki, and is certainly an NPOV issue. Regardless of whether you disagree with the politics of an individual (whether Stewart Lee (!) or Guardian journalists, for example), you can't simply remove references for that reason.

Similarly, you've deleted some established sections of articles suggesting they need to be dealt with through the Discussion section. On the same basis, removals themselves need to be discussed and justified - particularly where there are highly contentious removals. Marty jar (talk) 12:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm following up on the above and your report of vandalism by Marty jar, which I declined. First, please read WP:VANDAL--the term "vandalism" has a very specific meaning on Wikipedia (i.e., the intentional inflicting of harm on a Wikipedia article, like writing "I like poo" or adding false information on purpose), and Marty jar's edits don't match that definition in any way. Rather, I actually think Marty jar was on to something in reviewing your edit history. In several places, you have removed information because, according to you, the journalist is too politically biased. Well, that's not a call that can be made so easily. And even if the journalist was demonstrably left wing, right wing, communist or fascist, you'd still have to show that the article in question was not providing accurate information. The question isn't whether or not the journalist is biased, but whether or not the article the journalist wrote is biased. And even if it is biased, we may still use it, depending on the circumstances. In any event, Marty jar hasn't committed any vandalism, and xyr edits are not even disruptive, as the ones I read through conform to our policies. If you disagree about any of the specific edits, discuss them on the article's talk page (which is what we should always do when we have disagreements with other editors). If you have questions, you can post them here and I'll try to answer them. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also answered the question you left on my talk page. Qwyrxian (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christian - can I remind you that you've had troubles with calling things vandalism in the past (on this very page). It's really one of those things you've got to keep in check, as it's a loaded word here on Wikipedia. Worm^TT · (talk) 14:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to remain calm – I in no way intended to insult or attack you. I pointed out that you had removed a number of pieces on the grounds that you said the source was “left-wing” and therefore “biased”, which is not a justification for removing content according to Wiki guidelines. If a poster appears to have misunderstood guidelines, then it’s perfectly valid to clarify this point with them, and then to review any other recent changes where they’ve made the same judgement. There’s no need to personalise this and it shouldn’t get competitive - It’s about producing balanced and well validated articles. As a result I’m disappointed that you have apparently reported me for ‘vandalism’ for having reverted some of your changes, but would rather you reviewed edits in turn, making a judgement, and then an argument as to why you think your deletions should stand – I’ll be more than happy to discuss each with you. 194.176.105.141 (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Stuff: September 2011

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.

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.

The Right Stuff: October 2011

October 2011

INTERVIEW

An Interview with Dank

By Lionelt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

The Right Stuff: November 2011

August 2018

PROJECT NEWS

WikiProject Conservatism faces the ultimate test

By Lionelt

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

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

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

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

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

DISCUSSION REPORT

Timeline of conservatism is moved

By Lionelt

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

The Right Stuff: January 2012

January 2012

ARTICLE REPORT

Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism

By Lionelt

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

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

PROJECT NEWS

Project Scope Debated

By Lionelt

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

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

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

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

DISCUSSION REPORT

Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum?

By Lionelt

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

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

WikiProject Cleanup invitation

I've formatted the WikiProject Cleanup page to include members for those that are interested in joining, similar to how other projects have members. Since you've contributed relatively recently to the project's list page, I formally extend this invitation to join WikiProject Cleanup! I've also created a userbox template for members to use on their user pages. Thank you for your contributions to help improve Wikipedia! Northamerica1000^(talk) 08:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Margaret Thatcher/2

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Margaret Thatcher/2. – Lionel ^(talk) 13:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48– Lionel ^(talk) 13:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail

I am sorry for saying this, but you are simply right-wing scum. I suppose you worship Hitler and pray that someone will one day complete his “noble work”. I suppose that you think that homosexual people should be given the death penalty, and that potentially life-saving stem-cell research labs should be burnt to the ground. I also suppose that you wish that you could meet the person in this video “http://www.twitpic.com/5exbfg”, so that you can shake his hand, worship him, and tell him that he is amazing. I understand that you are a campaigner for the NF, BNP and EDL; however, I think that you are one of those people whose mother dropped him on his head, repeatedly, at a young age, so I cannot really hold anything which is beyond your control against you. It is scientifically proven that right-wing voters are less intelligent than left-wing voters (about the only article in your worthless paper that is not worthless drivel), so I know that this is difficult for you to comprehend. But If you send me your address I will be happy to send you a colouring-in book and some crayons.

So yes, of course I am using it as a derogatory term, I would like nothing better than for Northcliffe House to be burnt to the ground, preferably with your puppet master Paul Dacre locked in a cupboard inside. And do you honestly think that I care that I “offended” or “insulted” you? Good! If I could, I would come round there (and every other readers house) and slap you with a semen-filled condom, seen as you are a “Man of God” and think that all birth control is “evil”.

But none of this bothers you does it? Because you are probably sat there in your £30,000,000 Oxshott Mansion with your Beluga Caviar, Dom Perignon Champage, Macallan Whiskey, and fine Cuban Cigars. Thinking how superior and above me you are because you are so ridiculously wealthy, and money is the best way of measuring how good and morally sound a person is? You make me literally want to throw my guts up.

So in the words of Rage Against The Machine: “FUCK YOU I WON’T DO WHAT YOU TELL ME”.