User talk:CaseyPenk

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

Citation date of Ryan Bundy arrest[edit]

You've reverted this twice, but my original cite was correct and I restored it. I do appreciate all the editing you've done on this article, however, so don't take this as my being critical. Activist (talk) 06:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Nice[edit]

That's some nice editing at the Occupation article, thanks a million. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 08:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

@NewsAndEventsGuy:: Hey there and thanks a bunch for the message! Always nice to have good camaraderie on the wiki. It's also a fascinating topic and I'm glad to contribute. Have you been writing about the occupation? You may also be interested in the Cliven Bundy article I reanimated. CaseyPenk (talk) 21:06, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I came late to the party so most of the text isn't mine. I spent a lot of my life in the inner rocky mountains in various places, and though I don't know this refuge I'm familiar with the perspectives of the various stakeholders. Nice to meet you, and keep it up. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: I just discovered the article and the circumstances are hilarious. I made a little compendium and some of the events are like satire: the Safeway parking lot, the divine message, the inflated attendance estimates, the passive-aggressive relationships among the militant groups, the visiting legislators, leaving for church, the unwanted fence teardown, the computer repair shop owner cum judge, the resigned fire chief, the kangaroo court, the obscure YouTube star, and of course, the birders. It's all fascinating. Thanks for your expertise; it's nice to hear from people who understand the dynamics on the ground. Nice to meet you as well. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd love to get into what's funny to me, but too many times people have tried to spin that stuff into claims of POV so..... I'll just say I'm also amused! Have you ever dealt with WP:ANI or WP:AE ? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
@NewsAndEventsGuy: That's true. Anything you say anywhere can and will be used against you. I don't have any qualms saying that it's an amusing situation with lots of bizarreness. I know enough about the arbitration procedures to have complete distaste for and disinterest in it. So I do my best to stay out of the those things. I find bureaucracy tiresome. It's better to be bold than to make things into policy argument boondoggles. Let me know if you find any other interesting things we could collaborate on. There is a long tail of fascinating things you could call countercultural movements like the sovereign citizens. CaseyPenk (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, but as most of my time here has been in the climate change pages developing skill in that area was forced upon me. Hopefully we won't have any problems that require that sort of intervention, but it certainly is the kind of article that will attract the kooks. I mean, sheesh.... I'm there which proves the point! [{Federal lands]] is an area I may work on after this... or I may really pull the wikiplug for awhile. Gotta get back to real life. I've got your page watchlisted no need to ping. Cheers NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Wow. You are a brave soul. It requires quite the level of emotional detachment when you're getting rocks slung at you (and I know it happens). What I will say about sovereign citizens et. al is that some of these people don't use the Internet because they distrust government / corporate spying, so some partisans may keep out of it. Then again, the people at the refuge rigged up government computers to put up their website, so they could be watching... o__o And yeah, don't burn yourself out. I quit for 3/4 of a year after intense frustration (and wasn't sure if I would return), so go on hiatus when you need to. Maybe Ryan Bundy will start his own siege in a few months and you'll have something new to dive into. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I heard some group in my area is planning to surround a local bakery with bazookas, demanding freedom for all the donuts locked in the case. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:55, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Militia[edit]

>snort< NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 03:14, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's actually thoughtful strategy. He should go and nominate himself as their leader. Did you see his other page on immigrants?

If this is your 'culture', don’t bring it here. Count this as a warning, I suppose. We aren’t going to whine about it and beg someone to help us or talk about it at length with Doctor Phil. No, if you bring your savage ways to our streets, there will be a culling. Not of our citizens, but of you. There will be a blood-letting the likes of which has not been seen in this nation in 150 years.

I won't even quote the rest as it contains some pretty naughty words.
CaseyPenk (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
I only read the one piece, and but figured the rest would be pretty harsh. However he intended it, I thought it was a pretty funny slam on the occupiers. Was just trying to share some humor. Everyones mileage varies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Wait, that was humor? I'm so confused. I thought he was a militia guy himself providing serious tips. (Basically I don't understand the militia.) And don't worry, any manner of humor is good with me. CaseyPenk (talk) 05:47, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Sure he's militia/mercenary/soldier of fortune guy.... and he's pretty disturbing in his own right. But the mockery of the Bundy's bumbling is hilarious, or at least it was to me. Nevermind. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 05:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Trump fragrances, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Estée Lauder (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Re: Gun control[edit]

W/respect to your edit to this page, I undid it because gun control means making laws regarding gun ownership/purchase stricter, but gun safety, as you can tell from its separate WP page refers to rules/recommendations "intended to avoid accidental discharge or negligent discharge, or the consequences of firearm malfunctions." Best, Everymorning (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Everymorning: Terminology is always a good (and contentious) discussion to have w.r.t. guns. Gun safety in the most traditional sense does refer to training and precautionary measures among those who use guns. What has emerged over the past couple years is a new meaning that refers to legislation intended to alter who and how people can access guns.
I have seen this alternate meaning of "gun safety" rise in prominence rather rapidly after Everytown for Gun Safety starting using that term in an extremely intentional way. Most notably, President Obama centered his speech earlier this month on what he calls "common-sense gun safety reform." We are seeing this new terminology spread. Now people like Martin O'Malley are using it.
Ultimately there is a sizable portion of politicians and commentators who have moved away from the term "gun control" to terminology they view as less misleading or menacing in tone.
Whether you or I like any of the terms over the other, "gun safety" has emerged as a popular alternative to "gun control" and I believe it's worth mentioning. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Social cause[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Social cause has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unsourced essay, not adding much to the well-sourced existing article social issue.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ubiquity (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I don't agree that it needed to be deleted, but the topic social cause was insufficiently distinguished from social issue. The difference looks to be that "cause" can include activism related to things that are not problems, but there was no example of this and -- most importantly -- absolutely no reliable sources cited. We would need many really good sources to justify notability of the topic as well as distinction from social issue -- in the sense that it couldn't just be covered there (see WP:NOPAGE). Related concepts can often be covered together, but either way we'd need some good sources. Thanks for working to improve the social issue article, by the way. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: You're welcome. And they are distinct concepts, yes. I haven't found any good sources that cover the concept of a social cause. It's confusing, because the concept of "fighting for a cause" (something noble, something warm and fuzzy) is embedded in society and definitely distinguished from fighting something malfeasant like rape. In fact a cause can be seen as the opposite of an issue, in the sense that a cause is a positive ideal being advanced and an issue is a negative problem to be stamped out. But I don't see any sources that talk about that.
For now I've added more to social issue, but there's still not a good category for things like veganism, which people advance out of certain ideals and not always to "solve an injustice." At least, people disagree over whether's it's an injustice. Certain topics are worth advocating for but aren't universally agreed to be "ills." I'm sure SOMEONE has written about this stuff. Advocacy mentions it but it doesn't really explain what form a social cause takes. So there is room for improvement here.
Lastly, there is a meaning of social issue that is rather distinct from the current page on social issue. And that is political debates over things like same-sex marriage in the United States. In 2004 same-sex marriage was a topic of hot debate, but not so much because there was something "bad" happening. It was an issue in the sense of a hot topic to be discussed and debated. So that meaning should be incorporated. CaseyPenk (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with the premise here. All of these examples can be framed as either a fight for something or a fight against something. The "for" is what you are, I think, removing from the definition "social issue" as not necessarily a problem or a negative, but they're two sides of the same coin.
Veganism is only a cause insofar as it is an issue. People who just prefer the taste of vegetables or have a gastrointestinal condition that prevents them from consuming meat would not call it a cause, issue, etc. It's only when it becomes a fight against animal cruelty or in the name of public health/nutrition (i.e. against heart disease, obesity, a drain on the health care system, etc.) that it becomes a cause -- and then it can be framed as a fight for animal welfare or good health. And same-sex marriage is only a social cause/issue/whatever when the sense that there's a problem led to public debate (i.e. when 'something 'bad' was happening"). One side talked about discrimination/bigotry and one side talked about corruption of tradition or morality. The same positions could be reframed as a fight for marriage equality or a fight for traditional/religious values. (BTW I'm try to be descriptive of positions rather than opining here).
So I still don't think there's anything but perhaps a minor distinction to be made here, and a minor distinction shouldn't have its own article -- and should be included anywhere at all without citations of reliable sources. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: You're entitled to your opinion that every cause is a response to a (negative) ill, but not everyone shares that view. Many hold that there is such a thing as advancing some noble cause that actively improves society rather than fixing an existing ill. It's a matter of perspective. Barack Obama talked about it this way in his lofty 2008 addresses, for instance, so the rhetoric is well-known. I'm working on it.
For instance, many people believe that advocating for women's rights is a positive good—something that advances our society's ideals by expanding the promise of America (obviously this is rhetoric like you see in politics). They don't necessarily frame it in the negative sense of fixing a problem of certain people being disenfranchised. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
The rhetoric is well known, but it is rhetoric (framing). You can't improve something if there isn't something that needs improvement. I would be extremely surprised if there were good academic (sociology, political science, etc.) literature which drew bright lines between terms. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
(Wrote the above before you added the part on women's rights, so responding to that separately). People frame women's rights in both ways. How they frame it isn't relevant to whether it's a social issue -- it's just the rhetoric used to advance that social issue. Nobody would talk about women's rights at all if there weren't a problem of women not having or needing certain rights. No matter how you frame it, it's still a social issue. There don't exist people who advocate for women's rights as a positive who doesn't do so because of a negative. This is just getting repetitive now. Let's save it for the article. Please don't add material without including reliable sources -- we can always resume this at that point if necessary :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:16, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Again, you are entitled to your opinion, which I do not share. I feel topics such as church-state separation and evolution education (recognized by the Library of Congress as "social issues" are not purely about correcting an ill. You either teach evolution or you don't. You separate the church and state or you don't. Neither is universally agreed-upon to be "wrong" or "worth correcting." But the article social issue does not incorporate the expansive meaning of "issue." Social issue only addresses things that are widely considered ills. As it stands, that page has a limited purview and does not give proper credit to things that are more divisive and also more aspirational, such as civil / LGBT / women's rights. That needs to be improved, and yes, I know how to use reliable sources. CaseyPenk (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

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

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • restrictions on [[trade union|labor unions]], [[social conservatism|social-conservative]] policies (particularly opposition to [[abortion]], and [[traditional values]], usually with a [[Christianity|
  • "Embryonic Stem Cells"]. Science.howstuffworks.com. Retrieved on 2013-07-15.</ref><ref>[http://stemcells.nih.gov/info/pages/faqs.aspx#wherefrom FAQs [Stem Cell Information&#93;].

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Republican establishment[edit]

Hi CaseyPenk. Thanks for your contributions.

I'm noticing your new article Republican establishment. Despite the citations and positions stated, it seems like a vague collection of Us vs Them assertions. I think the reason for this is scope-related—the article needs to decide whether it is about

  • the term Republican establishment (in which case it needs to discuss the term's history and effects), or about
  • a group of people acting in the real world (in which case it needs to identify them more clearly than everyone and yet no one, but I know Mitt Romney when I see one, which is the current bent).

If, for instance, the term exists mostly as a vague pejorative, then the article cannot identify anyone as actually being this thing, only that important or relevant sources have identified them as such and it has had some effect on their career or politics in the real world.

Does this make sense? / edg 17:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

@Edgarde: I do understand that it's a difficult term to pin down. That's the trickiness of the article. It really is intended to do both. The term is bound by its historical and cultural context; Palin, for instance, helped shaped the term in a self-fulfilling way. That is, she asserted something about the state of national politics, helping popularize the notion of an establishment (as we understand it today). Other points:

  • The article could better describe the history and provide more comprehensive examples. So I certainly appreciate any constructive contributions from you and other editors.
  • To defend the general scope of the article, I think of it this way: it is an article about a general term and the way it is actualized by individuals. Because politics is messy, you can't talk about abstract concepts without explaining their practical reality. Would Rockefeller Republican mean anything at all if the term were described in a theoretical sense but not in terms of its membership? Or the other way around—if we just said "there are these people who have this name"?
  • The fact that it's used as a pejorative is not the main point (it so happens that "establishment" is the dirty word but theoretically "anti-establishment" could fall out of favor if people get fed up with the firebrands). The main point is that it's influential in how people think about the party. Is it one or the other? As it stands we have a war for the soul of the Republican Party and it would be misleading to suggest that establishment lines have been neatly drawn. In fifty years the historians will look back and throw people into nice, neat buckets. But as it stands we are dealing with a term that changes day-by-day. And I do mean that—one day Palin is forgotten, the next she's back in the national spotlight. One day Marco Rubio is a renegade senator and then next he's the old guard.
  • This is a fundamental difficulty in political theory. The electorate in a democracy is incredibly fluid, and terms gain or lose prominence. Republican In Name Only could refer to candidates with any number of possible attributes: a philosophy of incrementalism, a propensity for compromise, a bipartisan voting record, betrayal of conservative values, or plain old unwillingness to attack Hillary Clinton.
  • Lastly, the media explores this topic every single day so it lacks not sources. There's nothing making this a personal essay when the fundamental divide in the 2016 election is between outsider and insider, businessman and politician, firebrand and reasoned speaker, conservative and moderate. All of these terms are important and so the encyclopedia explores each.
  • I would love to see the article expanded with additional, thoughtful exploration of the term's meaning and history. Both of your requests are worth fleshing out. It needs a look at the term that stretches farther back, ultimately linking Rockefeller Republicans with the Tea Party. I'm sure someone who's lived a long time has written about the historical precedents. Additionally, it is worth exploring precisely who fall into which bucket at which terms. An illustrative example would be any of the Tea Party senators who have seen their reputation shift.

CaseyPenk (talk) 17:56, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Ammon Bundy arrest[edit]

Might be worth noting in the "Arrests" section of the article. MB298 (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah good idea! Thanks. CaseyPenk (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Barnstar[edit]

Malheur Refuge Occupation Article Award.png
The Malheur Occupation Barnstar

For creating Cliven Bundy and Timeline of the occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. MB298 (talk) 00:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Your User:Resoru identity[edit]

In 2013, MBisanz changed your username from User:CaseyPenk to User:Resoru. And you recently returned to the CaseyPenk username. At the moment, your edit history is split between both accounts (instead of being combined), which is odd. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Republican establishment for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. edg 17:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)