User talk:GreggW

Welcome

Hello GreggW! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 05:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting help
Frequently asked questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Building consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Edit summaries

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. --Explodicle (T/C) 19:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Second revert on Instant-runoff voting

I've reverted your edit that claims "instant-runoff voting" is a United States term for the second time. If you disagree, please include a source that establishes your claim when you restore the text. Also, please use edit summaries - they make it much easier for others to review your work. Thanks! --Explodicle (T/C) 17:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Small-l liberal

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Small-l liberal. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small-l liberal. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social liberalism

Hello, on a global level, social liberalism refers to support for the welfare state and for the civil rights that you mentioned in your edits. In the United States, it often means support for civil rights and human rights, true, but a strictly American meaning cannot override Wikipedia's requirements for global perspective.UberCryxic ^(talk) 05:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You recently made the same edit. Continuing to make this edit without first discussing it in the talk page will result in a reversion every time.UberCryxic ^(talk) 04:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't exactly disparage political scientists...since they're the ones we rely on to build articles like that one. I live in the US and I fully understand what you're saying. But when "social liberalism" is used in that sense, it doesn't refer to a comprehensive ideology, only a general social attitude. The article on social liberalism is about the ideology of social liberalism, not about the attitude. The kind of information you want to include does not belong there.UberCryxic ^(talk) 03:44, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social conservatism does have the ideological tendencies to which you alluded, but social liberalism is completely different. You're setting up a false analogy. As for political scientists: they overwhelmingly understand the term in the manner currently used by the article.UberCryxic ^(talk) 20:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please discuss these issues on the relevant talk pages for Social liberalism, Economic liberalism, Economic conservatism and other pages where you dispute the current definitions. Also please be aware that text that is added must have reliable sources that can be verified. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When you add a source that is from an essay in a book you are supposed to provide the name of the person who wrote it. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Social liberalism. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gregg, you seem to be under the faulty impression that I categorically oppose mentioning that understanding of the term "social liberalism." Not the case at all. I don't think it's the right article, even though the two conceptions share the same name. Let me explain it this way because I notice you're still confused: social liberalism (a noun) is a comprehensive and powerful ideology, whereas the social in social liberalism to which you refer is an adjective, and merely describes a way of looking at liberalism.UberCryxic ^(talk) 18:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you citing Wikipedia mirror websites?!?!?!? If that's your idea of a reputable source, we're in trouble from the start.UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:36, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IRV ensures majority?

Your edit to Cardinal voting systems was good. But the edit summary implies that you believe that IRV ensures a majority, rather than a plurality. This is not true; because of exhausted or partially-spoiled ballots, IRV winners can have only a plurality; and in fact, in US IRV elections, this is a relatively frequent occurrence. Homunq (࿓) 12:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC) You disagree with every scholarly article I have read on the subject, interesting. You're confusing practical results with intended results, and IRV, otherwise known as alternative voting etc. is intended to ensure that the winning candidate has a majority of votes, that is the primary reason stated by proponents in supporting it.[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of female action heroes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jungle Girl (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) 09:14, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Trilogy 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:

|"Duology" (formed by mixing Ancient Greek/Latin (duo, "two") with Ancient Greek λόγος (logos, "speech", "

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, GreggW. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]