User talk:SeanNovack

Welcome!

Hello, SeanNovack, 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:

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 ask your question there. Again, welcome! -- Infrogmation 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Patrick M. Novack

An article that you have been involved in editing, Patrick M. Novack, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick M. Novack. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. WWGB (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this article was deleted, however, have you tried to work on this in a user sandbox? If so, there appears to be significant secondary mentions of your father in multiple reliable source articles. It maybe helpful in establishing notability via WP:GNG, above and beyond that of part one of WP:ANYBIO, which should have been sufficient in this case (even if a consensus appears to have been built to state that part one isn't as significant as others may believe it is). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A site you may consider adding your father's details to

Hi, mate. It seems as if concensus will lead to your article being deleted. Firstly, please let me say that I'm sorry if this occurs. He clearly means a lot to you and I feel that you should at least be given the chance to develop the article before the decision is made. Secondly, perhaps you will consider adding his details to another site. I came across this site while trying to find the online citations for Silver Stars. Its seems that this site has quite a few. If you have time, please take a look at: http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/02_awards/04_ss.html. Also: http://www.homeofheroes.com/members/04_SS/5_RVN/citations/army/0_index.html. This site has many citations for Silver Stars, and lists most of the names of recipients. They currently do not have your father, but I believe that if you contact them and provide details, they may be able to include his name on the list. Hopefully this will go some way to preserving his memory. I hope this helps. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know if you have them already, but this site has information on how you can request copies of your father's citations (so you can determine the specific actions that led to his decorations). Please take a look at; http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/findcite.html#Obtain. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also include a bio of your father at this link: http://www.homeofheroes.com/myhero/index.html. Sorry, I don't mean to flood your talk page. I hope that these links will prove helpfu to you. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Meetup

2009

Proposed date: Saturday, October 10. Details under discussion.

Please share this with anyone who may be interested.

Delivered by Jonathunder (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FNC and the LA Times article
I am going to have to report your lang. and bias NPOV since you think this is your right wing site and using the Fox News article as a outlet. --Marlin1975 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh? In what way has my language been inappropriate? Since you are fond of claiming unsourced material, I'd like to see an example.Rapier1 (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fox_News_Channel#Attempted_Censorship_by_the_Obama_Administration
--Marlin1975 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay...I'm still looking for anything inappropriate. You may not agree that it was censorship, but that is a debatable point and is not one that is citable as "inappropriate". Still waiting for that rule stating that UserPages have to be NPOV Rapier1 (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
twins/metrodome
I think sandy may have been peeved over your removal of the 2 world series links. I basically merged both revisions. It's only 5 months till it is officially their home, I'm not sure it really matters. I don't have much of an opinion besides leaving the world series links in. -Ravedave (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notability of service award winners
Being a female award winner of a service award doesn't make you any more notable than being a Congressman or local alderman does. Getting significant, non-trivial, non-local third-party coverage, however, does. Both of these women as well as all United States Congressmen meet this test. Most Silver Star awardees and most local aldermen do not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:KentHrbek.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:KentHrbek.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.

On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 06:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
arbitration
You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:SeanNovack(Rapier1) v Marlin1975 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;

Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.
Thanks,
I have recently re-factored your comment at that page. Please note that the rule for replying to an Arbitrator is to reply under your own section (with subsections if needed). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The request was declined 0-6. Arbitrator comments suggested that you should try to pursue other dispute resolution steps.
For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Hrbek
As for a separate article, that's probably not the answer; it can be written in the 1991 World Series page along with the two others. If there's conduct problems elsewhere, I won't worry about that for right now. Form a surface read the current language does feel a little pov, but I haven't read through the sources yet so modifiers used may be justified. Wizardman 01:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that is feels POV, that's why I changed it to reflect the POV of Drew Coble's call and then cited the fat that it was controversial. what irritated me is that Marlin appears (from my aggravated point of view) to be coming in and trying to push a point of view simply because I'm taking a side. Rapier1 (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blyleven
Reply on my talk page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:MensaMemberLogo.gif
The use of this non-free file on anything other than articles is not permitted per WP:NFCC #9. Also, the use of it on List of Mensans lacked a rationale, which is required by WP:NFCC #10c. The image did have a rationale, but it was not for that article. Instead, it was targeted at the image. I removed the improper rationale. I also note that the use of the image on List of Mensans isn't really supported either, as it being a list article the use of non-free images is usually frowned upon. See WP:NFLISTS. Also, if someone needs to see what the Mensa logo looks like, they can refer to the main article.
I've re-tagged the image as orphaned. I also added tags noting it is without rationale and missing an appropriate license tag. I submit it's probably best to just let this get deleted, given that we already have File:Mensa logo.svg. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thank you for your diligence in this matter, but in point of fact, the image is not copyrighted, it's a trademark that Mensa clearly allows its users to use provided they are discussing Mensa and the word "Member" applies. I would be more than happy to include this information. I ask that rather than submit all this for deletion, you assist in prperly documenting what is evidently a fair use of a trademarked image by one that has the right to do so. Thanks! Rapier1 (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a member of Mensa, nor would I be. I have no vested interest and no means to access the image to verify its copyright status. Regardless, the parent image File:Mensa logo.svg is considered to be copyrighted so far as Wikipedia is concerned. Without provable, independent evidence that the image is in fact free of copyright we must consider it to be copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for the Barnstar, Rapier. I hope you are having a safe and happy Christmas/New Year. All the best for next year too! Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ryanverse
Hi Sean - thanks for your support on the Talk:Ryanverse page. I'd be interested in your further opinion here: Talk:Jack Ryan (Tom Clancy)#Merge from Ryanverse. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totalitarianism and Firearm Control
You have a picture of Adolf Hitler next to phrases like gun control and totalitarianism. Let's go over this. The NSDAP passed the Weapons Act of 1938 which reduced the age of permission of possession from 20 to 18. While it did require registration, the registration and regulation applied only to handguns--not even assault rifles. Further, it provided that the registration period be increased from one year to three. Although my Jewish grandparents were not allowed to own firearms, one could easily argue that gun control under the NSDAP was particularly light--much lighter than today's Germany or even modern America. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see. So your point is that because Adolf Hitler's Germany had official weapons policies that only banned handguns, it makes a difference to the 7,000,000 people the Reich murdered in the death camps or the millions of others that were forced into slave labor? Hard to own any gun of any kind in Dachau or Treblinka. Not quite gettin' where you're goin' here... Rapier1 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no that's not what I said. I was merely pointing out that handguns were to be registered and assault rifles not. Look, if you want to have a civil conversation, let's have a civil conversation. By no means does loud equal right. I would like to point out that emotion should not be flying. I lost my whole family who lived in Germany at the time, but in order to study and analyze history it is important to set aside emotion and partisan politics. Clearly I do not condone Adolf Hitler, but we're not talking about his genocide, we're talking about gun politics.
So, the reason I brought up a new section was to call out the irony that someone would insert an anti-gun control userbox with an image of Adolf Hitler, when his government had particularly weak gun control laws, or if not considered weak at the time, then weak compared to America's current gun control laws. In closing, I think my observation would have been non-existent had the userbox contained an image of a dictator whose government had the strictest of strict gun control laws. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
B & the PC
Have replied to you on my talk page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriate accusations
Wikipedia is funny in the way that it allows anyone with time on their hands to police pages they know nothing about. I suppose it goes both ways though. If a conservative can remove things that oppose his views other people can do the same which greatly diminishes wikipedia's worth to nothing as it propagates the user's bias and whoever gets the last word before the page is locked wins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.210.80 (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's also funny in that it allows people that do not identify themselves to post things like "known liar" on the article of a living person. This is considered WP:vandalism and is against WP:BLP. I suggested that you create an account (which allows you to edit on pages that are semi-protected), and that you refrain from making edits that are considered vandalism. I'll freely admit that my conservative bias affects how I edit - one of the reasons I list it on my userpage is for the purpose of full disclosure, I don't have to do that. But if you follow my edit history you'll see that I am a big fan of talking things out on talk pages, and that I'm a big believer in facts. If you have an example of where I allowed my bias to edit an article in such a way that went against verifiable facts, by all means engage me on that article's talk page and if I'm wrong I'll freely admit it. If not, you are engaging in the type of behavior you are accusing me of and making inappropriate (and unfounded) accusations regarding my editing. Rapier1 (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Silver Star
Please excuse my ignorance. Thanks for making it consistent. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! And nothing need be excused. We all have each other's backs here. Happy editing! Rapier1 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jesse Ventura
I don't like the guy, but your edit was a violation of WP:BLP -- see the link I put on the article talk page. Yes, he was accused of falsely claiming he was a SEAL, but that isn't the same thing as actually falsely claiming he was a seal. If as it seems the UDT team members are now accepted as SEALs, then we should say that. The book I've linked to can be used to rewrite it. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty neutral about the guy. Though his recent actions disappointment me, I was very impressed by his campaign and how he conducted himself as Governor (though obviously we didn't always agree, I voted for Coleman that year). The sources I found and cited state that he did claim to be a SEAL in his own published work (page 81, I believe), and so that is what I was using. If I am mistaken, please change the information and source, and we can have a discussion about that, rather than blanking it. Thanks! Rapier1 (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So... Does this thankless task ever get less frustrating? Just curious. V7-sport (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport[reply]
*chuckles* Nope! Have fun! ;-) Rapier1 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One of the issues we are having is that the editors we are working with appear to have a bias that we are fighting. User:Cs32en is a citizenof Germany and a supporter of a new investigation into 9/11, so naturally he's going to want to "protect" an American politicial that agrees with his viewpoint there. I have no clue what User:Weakopedia's problem is, but he seems to have a fixation on sources in general. In any event, sooner or later we will end up with a decent article, which is the point of this "thankless task". Rapier1 (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Saw you on the Atomic Bombings article and just stopped in to say hello. Hope all is well. V7-sport (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:GovJessieVentura.jpg
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:GovJessieVentura.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.

I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.

If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.

To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.

If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:Arne.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Arne.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.

On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use File:GovJessieVentura.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:GovJessieVentura.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.

On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.
Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mensa templates
Hello, SeanNovack …
FYI, I have updated the Mensa templates, such as {{User Mensa member}}, so that they all include {{User Mensa Life Member}} in their See also section … maybe Some Other Editors (besides just you and me) will now become aware of it. :-)
Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) _{22:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
Thank you! I still think it's silly that Wikipedia doesn't want us using the Mensa logo on the template, but that isn't my call. Have a great one! Rapier1 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Modern liberalism in America
I'm sorry that I didn't give an explanation. I reverted because I thought it was a heavy dose of "recentism" to conclude from one Rasmussen poll that there is no longer the possibility for a new liberal consensus (although many pundits and commentators have argued it's already here). It's also kind of completely out of context: Congress just passed the greatest piece of social welfare legislation since the 1960s. If anything, this is the highest tide liberalism has reached in decades.UBER ^(talk) 22:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. To address your points, I never stated or implied that there was no possiblility for a new liberal consensus. The article listed 5 year-old sources as recent and was stating that these polls showed support for liberal ideas. What I did was show that the polls that were "recent" in 2005 (as stated by the article) were not accurate today, and that now that the liberals have had been in power for awhile the polls are showing different results. To leave in 5 year old information as "recent" is disingenuous, it needs to be updated. Also, thile your opinion may be that the new Health Care law is the "greatest piece of social welfare legislation since the 1960's", it is a fact that current polls show that the majority of Americans were against it when passed. That is a rather important point as well. If you feel it wasn't sourced properly, I can accept that and I'd be happy to add more. To sum up: my edit didn't say that a new liberal consensus was "no longer possible", the article needs updating desperately, my edits were factual and sourced. I will be re-editing this soon. Thanks! Rapier1 (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you about the (mis)use of the word "recent," so I've gone ahead and made those changes myself. I have no problem including polls from reputable organizations, but we should probably consult beforehand about how to interpret their results. Polls right now, in particular, are in quite a bit of a flux. Rasmussen especially has a Republican bias, just like some other pollsters have a Democratic bias. It would be wrong to blatantly conclude from one Rasmussen poll that the liberal consensus has been somehow undermined. As for opinion on health care reform: the latest polls show that more Americans were glad that the legislation passed than those who did not favor it.UBER ^(talk) 04:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you
Thank you very much for the beautiful Barnstar. I really appreciate it. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Opinion needed!
As a frequent editor of American politics, I would appreciate if you put your two cents into the debate over the conservative support for President Obama in Talk:Public image of Barack Obama. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your efforts to improve wikipedia seem thoughtful and well put. Please see the accompanying discussion and edit to the lead of the New York Times as I've encountered some resistance form bias editors there who have no desire to keep wiki articles congruent with other articles in the same category. DeltoidNoob (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
University of Ottawa
Suggest you start a new article titled "Current Events at the University of Ottawa" or "2010 at the University of Ottawa" or other somesuch article title where trivia of individual singular events might be logged. I suggest this because one contentious incident on one evening involving Anne Coulter doesn't belong in a high-level overview of a 162 year-old institution, nevermind with a text volume of the same order as the entire text of its current "History" section. StevenBlack (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The incident is, as I said, notable, verifiable, and is not (despite your objection) given undue weight in the article. If you feel that it is too large compared to other sections of the article discribing this "162 year-old institution", then perhaps you should work to expand on any other history that the institution may have. Rapier (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Media Matters
If you've got the time, Sean, take a look at the recent edits Croctotheface made, some of which I deleted, in the Media Matters article (the article itself rather than the talk page) and tell us what you think? This is the editor who told us that we should analyze an editor's design and not just his words. Badmintonhist (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trek and Science
You were write to remove the edits attributing the name "tachyon" to Star Trek. Tachyons are mentioned extensively (and described inaccurately) in followup Trek series from the 80s and 90s (especially Voyager) but are nowhere mentioned in the original series except in an early Trek novel published after the name had been coined.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure what your point is here. The original edits I removed stated that the name "Tachyon" originated with Star Trek, I removed it and asked the original poster to cite a source if he wanted it there. Rapier (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bronze or Silver Star for Valor
Where is your source for this ranking. I have looked in official documents and cannot find it. --Blue Tie (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody that has gone through Basic Training can (or better be able to) answer that question for you. However, if you are looking for an online source, this one took me less than 30 seconds to find. http://www.pbs.org/weta/americanvalor/history/pyramid.html Rapier (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about Basic Training. And your article doesn't mention the Legion of Merit from what I can see, so it lacks clarity in the order. But, aside from that, I am of the opinion that a source from the DoD, which I can definitely find and which has a very definite order for these medals, would supercede a non military source. On what basis would you disagree with that view? --Blue Tie (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Belated Thanks
Belated Thanks for the award. Goes to show you how often I check my user page. :) Arzel (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
;-) No worries, you're still at it, and I still appreciate it. Thanks! Rapier (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the encouragement
I'll be making my "opening statement" later tonight, however, I'll be leaving for a a budget tour of Spain , Portugal, and Morocco on June 5 and will likely be incommunicado (sp?) for over two weeks? Do they allow substitutions? The discussion could use your Mensa quality mind. Djuh notice how the assault on this very basic and not especially controversial information seems to parallel the style and ferocity of much of what Media Matters itself puts out? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your prompt attention on this matter. Rapier (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Our disagreementI made a section in the talk page to talk about it here. I'm about as pro-gun as they come, but I'm trying to keep the article neutral. This is a pretty grey area as far as neutrality goes, though the Brady Campaign is a bunch of two-faced lying rats. I just don't know whether they should be refuted on Wikipedia or not - and to what extent. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]I'm actually familiar with your editing history (*chuckles*), so I knew what you were trying to do, but I believe that it is important to point out that despite the claims of the organization, in the years that have followed they have (so far) been proven wrong. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to move this to the "Critisisms" section, however. Please keep up the dialogue, I appreciate it! Rapier (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]Stop your hypocritical lecturing on article talk pagesOkay Beacon, I've tried explaining my position and being polite, which you seem to think is being "patronizing, dismissive, and even snide". You accuse me of hypocrisy for asking that conversation on controversial talk pages be kept topical and constructive? You accuse me of POV pushing (check out the Brady Campaign talk page and you'll see how wrong you are) yet you seem to be the only one that can't accept the fact that not everything in the universe is moving according to your view of it, going so far as to accusing people of "changing sides", because they are able to rationally discuss things like adults. You want to debate me pal, try using facts on topic, stop projecting your actions on others, and stay off my user page. Rapier (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]from PrBeacon's userpage(Because he felt it necessary to revert my response to his accusations as "vandalism" - despite WP:NOTVAND, I'll repost this here) Rapier (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] Get off your high horse. You, Badmintonhist, Niteshift36 and now Croctotheface are sidetracking every discussion by jumping on what you perceive is unfair or inappropriate commentary. Your hypocritical lecturing on article talkpages like FoxNews and MMfA is what's more distracting and unconstructive than the quick comments to which you reply. You accuse others of wiki-battling yet you can't see your own comments as patronizing and dismissive, even snide. So take it to WQA if you think it's a problem (heads up: others have tried already, only the entrenched editors see it as so offensive). -PrBeacon (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]His reply: further self-serving distortions and projections, ending with the petulant retort "stay off my user page". -PrBeacon (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] a thought..., if you are running into THAT much opposition, perhaps you are on the wrong side of an argument (or at fault in terms of behavior as the case may be, this just seems to be a general thing)? Soxwon (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply] That's just a weak way of saying you're right, or they're right. I can accept disagreement about content, debate about style, but not editors talking down to others. Especially not when they presume to lecture & scold while violating the very policies and guidelines they like to quote themselves. -PrBeacon (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]My exact reply: Okay Beacon, I've tried explaining my position and being polite, which you seem to think is being "patronizing, dismissive, and even snide". You accuse me of hypocrisy for asking that conversation on controversial talk pages be kept topical and constructive? You accuse me of POV pushing (check out the Brady Campaign talk page and you'll see how wrong you are) yet you seem to be the only one that can't accept the fact that not everything in the universe is moving according to your view of it, going so far as to accusing people of "changing sides", because they are able to rationally discuss things like adults. You want to debate me pal, try using facts on topic, stop projecting your actions on others, and stay off my user page. If you are going to try to beat your breast and claim you've been wronged, you might want to do something besides "further self-serving distortions and projections" of what other people are saying. Finally, you have repeatedly and in several places accused me of hypocrisy. If I have ever wasted discussion space with personal attacks (and is is not a "personal attack" to ask people to behave civilly, or call them out when they don't), then by all means call me out on the specific instance and if I was wrong I'll be happy to apologize for my misdeed. Until then, stop making unfounded accusations about my lack of character, because people calling you out for behavior on your part seems to extend to several editors, not just myself. Rapier (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]SourcesHi, Sean. I'm not sure where your confusion stems from, and why you are sticking in the weasel words when those same words do not exist in the cited sources. We really should stick with the cited sources. As for your request that "proof" be provided supporting the facts surrounding the slurs shouted at Frank (not once but at least 3 different incidents), this is just one of many sources. There were several witnesses to the various incidents. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Hi Xeno, I appreciate your reasoned and polite reply. Please look at the source you sent me. What is the headline? It reads "Allegations of...". It says this because there is no proof. You can't provide proof that something is "alleged", all that takes is someone saying it. The reason we have "suspects" that commit "alleged" crimes is that until they are "proven" guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, our society presumes innocence. All I'm asking is that we stick with the sources. Rapier (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply] I've reviewed the source linked above. The headline indicates that a number of "allegations" were made that merit more reporting, which he then provided in the body of the article, concluding specifically that: The episode involving Barney Frank is more clear-cut. Many readers have told me there is no evidence to support The Post's report that Frank was subjected to anti-gay slurs. They're wrong. An ABC News video recorded the incident inside a House office building. When ABC aired its video, the epithets were bleeped. A review of the unaltered footage, made by ABC at my request, clearly captures a protester shouting, "Barney, you faggot." Case closed. Yes, let's please stick to the sources. Your commentary on your society (American, I assume) is inapplicable here, as we are neither judge nor jury, and we must presume nothing as Wikipedia editors. If a source indicates that someone "says" something, then our article should indicate that someone "says" something; we shouldn't be injecting elevated doubt with words like "alleged" and "claimed" unless the sources convey it.With specific regard to the slurs against Frank that day, regular editors of that article have already seen the "proof" of the incidents. Whether it was the FOX News interview of a woman that heard the slurs in the lobby, or the law enforcement personnel that heard the slurs being shouted through his office door mail-slot, or the several news organization personnel that witnessed slurs in the hallway, or the videotaped evidence noted above -- there have been numerous sources in the article at one time or another. I'm not surprised that such sources mysteriously disappear over time. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]RFM -- GLITUS(BS)Is mediation still necessary or desirable, in the dispute about the Brady Campaign state scorecard map and the Gun laws in the United States (by state) article? Feel free to comment on this question, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Decision of the Mediation Committee. (If you reply here, I will see what you say.) — Mudwater^(Talk) 01:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Given the fact that people seem to have accepted the logic of our arguments and nobody has attempted to repost the maps for a few weeks, I think we can safely let this one go for now. Thanks! Rapier (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]Request for mediation rejected

The Request for mediation concerning Gun laws in the United States (by state), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 00:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.) Please consider removing or striking out your comment.Just a note that I've asked you to remove or strike out part of a statement in your post in Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau dated 13:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC), specifically the part, "while "Child Rape" may be a more accurate description of her act, it is not what she was convicted of," as it contradicts the reliable sources brought to the discussion before and after your comment, and no source has been brought claiming the contradiction with the existing sources that you assert as being the case. It is in fact the central claim behind my defense of the existing consensus text, before this change, that in fact stated "child rape" and not the "statutory rape" the new editors want to replace it with, along with removing what they claim are non-neutral words like "boy" for 12 year old males. I'd appreciate that to reduce inaccuracy in that discussion, which will likely be brought to the NPOV noticeboard since several editors support this change, which in my opinion is unacceptable. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Mary Kay LetourneauRapier, I'm not sure where you stand in the current discussion on Mary Kay. Can you note on the talk page your views. thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Media Matters General ReceptionYou deleted a lot of cited material while claiming to restore deletions. Nothing was deleted regarding Levin and York, it was only expanded upon. I'm sure you acted in good faith, but you could have been more careful. Mr AnonAugust 2010Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 'You appear to be presently involved in what may be an edit war. I suggest slowing down, taking a step back, gauging the situation, and partaking in civil discussion to reach a resolution of the present dispute. You may also possibly wish to request a third-party opinion in the matter. Note that I am not targeting you or the IP user in particular, I'm just an outside party who has recently observed the present dispute in process.' ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 05:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]I appreciate the input, but could you clarify exactly what you are referring to? Thanks! Rapier (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Political rantThanks for your point of view. I shall cherish it. Varlaam (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]700 article edits, eh? Thanks for all the contribs to WP there, chief. Fortunately for me, my edit count has nothing to do with the fact that you were way off base with with the section I deleted on the Valor Device article. If your contributions contain similar trash, then I do hope someone has done the same to the rest of your "massive" edit count. Good luck. Rapier (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Heading capitalizationThanks for self-reverting. Actually the MoS specifies that only the first word and proper nouns be capitalized in headings. While it's certainly not a critical issue, wikignoming to improve consistency across articles is an improvement and shouldn't ever be reverted. Yworo (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]Miss America editsThanks for that. Please be careful when you imply someone has made an inappropriate edit. Please check again. I corrected a spelling mistake, I believe I changed 'decendent' to 'descendent'. Please check and then kindly remove your message from my discussion page or at least qualify it below. Thanks!Eugene-elgato (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]FYI:decendant→ descendant On the other hand the spelling mistake I corrected was on that body of text that should not have been inserted. It has crossed my mind to place in there a ^{[dubious – discuss]} tag- perhaps in searching for typos me and the rest of the Typo Team should beware not to correct spelling mistakes within such text. I am already careful to avoid doing so on articles that are being considered for deletion. However please also bare in mind to look carefully at who actually inserted the undesired text- in this case it was certainly not me. You need to carefully use the Compare edits option on an article's history and confirm on a user's contributions list by checking diff. Thank you for your patience. Eugene-elgato (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]My apologies. My mistake. I did indeed miss the fact that you were not the one that added that body of text. I'll admit that I did look a bit at your edit history and what was written there didn't seem to jibe with other things that you had written. Thank you for clarifying this and correcting me. I will endeavor to avoid making similar lapses in the future. Rapier (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] Perfectly OK. And thank you for the understanding. There is text all over the place and it can become messy and confusing. Happy reviewing!Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usageHi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]Minnesota Twinsyou wrote "These facts are correct and can be verified, I'll find the sources, but they may not be online" please do not removed ^{[citation needed]} (until you find those sources and please provide sources Smith03 (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] did you work at the state senate in 97? Smith03 (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] Yes, for the Sergeant-at-Arms as a sergeant. Have we met? ;-) Rapier (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply] I was page for the senate in 97 and your name and picture looked familarSmith03 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC) [reply]Hello, SeanNovack. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

The Hollow Man2010 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject United StatesHello, SeanNovack! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the project and please let me know if you have any comments, questions or suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]New Years Message for WikiProject United StatesWith the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]New WikiProject United States Newsletter: February 2011 editionStarting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:Portal:United States the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 4 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) 03:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]April 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United StatesThe April 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. --Kumioko (talk) 01:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]Article for deletion debateThe 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) 17:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]OccidentalNo worries. I agree with your goal. I just re-added that one item because it was easily sourceable, and reasonably relevant. Will Beback talk 21:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]2010 CensusI was originally just going to update the populations of the cities in my home county, but then, while I was at it, I decided I "had" to do the neighboring counties as well, and then the neighboring counties, and, well, you get the idea. Anyway, 2010 data are available on the "new" FactFinder at [1]. All that has been released so far are the total counts by block/city/county/state/etc. and a breakdown by race and ethnicity. The FactFinder is a very powerful tool, but can be complicated to use at first. I recommend starting the search for data by clicking on "geographies" and selecting the location(s) that you desire from the menu on the left of the new window. If you, or anyone else, wants to get involved in updating the populations, feel free. I'm working more or less from north to south and have all the cities in the state roughly north of US 12 updated. I've also been making sure that historic population tables are available for all counties and county seats using old census data available at [2] --Mwmnp (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]May 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United StatesThe May 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. . --Kumioko (talk) 17:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Inappropriate edit at BLP article Pippa MiddletonAs you are proudly advertising your reviewer rights on your user page, and given this edit of yours, you may be interested in this comment by Jimbo Wales on something related. Hans Adler 13:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]PopEater is not a reliable source for any BLP article. WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and WP:NEWSORG come to mind. Please review them. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] I understand that, and I don't dispute it. That was a link that I got from the CNN site and I made the mistake of not checking the redirect and wasn't paying attention. There are a lot of other reliable sources out there (I pointed out a few) that are reporting it, and finding them is not difficult. The venom that came through was the problem I had, not the removal of the edit or the facts. I made a mistake, but I maintain that it was handled poorly by the deleting admin/editor. SeanNovack (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply] The claim that the content was salacious nonsense and that it was poor judgement on your part is essentially on the mark. I don't see that as venom. Why did you try adding it in the first place? BLP is pretty clear on this. Did you think your edit was going to stand for more than a minute? Wikipedia isn't a rumor mill. I would have removed it even if it was sourced to the best publication on the planet. How could this possibly be encyclopedic? Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Splitting of "Gun laws in the United States (by state)"You are cordially invited to comment on the potential splitting of Gun laws in the United States (by state) at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Splitting up the article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]Use full ref templatesHi there! Just a friendly reminder to use full ref templates (author, article title, date etc) when adding citations. Most of the time, you'll probably be using this: Template: Cite web. Much appreciated, Ruby2010 comment! 18:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]CollaborationEver 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) 01:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]June 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United StatesThe June 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. --Kumioko (talk) 22:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]US National Archives collaborationUnited States National Archives WikiProject Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]July 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United StatesThe July 2011 issue of the WikiProject United States newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. --Kumioko (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]Do NOT remove another user's talkpage comment just because you dont like itThis is inexcusable. Don't do it again. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.185.72 (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]First: If you are a new user then my sincere apologies for the accusation of the edit being the act of a coward. However, you need to know that many editors have come into these debates with an annonymous account in order to vote stack and say things that they wouldn't do on their regular account. Second: You comments weren't removed "Just because I didn't like it", it was an annonymous posting from a WP:SPA that only served to put forward a negative response that didn't WP:AGF on a section dedicated to establishing consensus by soliciting a yes or no. If you want to add to the debate, then post an opinion about the subject, not the editors. If you are a new editor I would also encourage you to start an account. In the meantime, I will ask that you take down or strike through the comment yourself. SeanNovack (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Your interpretation of policy, in particular what constitutes "a negative response that didn't WP:AGF," doesn't mean much as long as you ignore the POV pushing and posturing from your conservative cohorts, namely the two editors to whom I responded there: Lionelt and Arzel. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.189.102 (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] I object to your attempts [3] [4] to frame my comments on an article discussion page with SPA tags. Ironically enough you've illustrated the exact point I was making in response to Lionelt's dismissive vote. Since you're so fond of linking policy pages, here's one for you: WP:TPG on editing/removing others' comments. If you persist, I will follow formal steps of dispute resolution. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.189.102 (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] Do what you need to do. The single purpose tags are entirely appropriate. Yes, I removed your original comment, which is in fact allowable in some instances, and I gave my reasoning for doing so. You told me to stop, and I haven't done so since. I've apologized to you, explained myself, refrained from removing your comment, and added a SPA tag considering the only edits ever coming from that IP address anonymously have occured in the last 72 hours and all of them on the Bachmann talkpage. If you want to take this to WP:ANI then that is your perogative, but be warned that your own conduct in this matter will also be under review. SeanNovack (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply] No they are not appropriate. Apparently you did not read SPA:Who not to tag. Or else you are willfully ignoring those guidelines. Note: WP:SPA is not a policy page. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.189.102 (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]