- 1 Welcome!
- 2 Editing..
- 3 Blanking this page
- 4 Proceeding..
- 5 Diana, Princess of Wales
- 6 Danny Wallace
- 7 Privy Council
- 8 Sara Cox
- 9 Minor Edits
- 10 Prime Ministers
- 11 December 25
- 12 All your edits are being automatically marked as minor
- 13 Minister of Science
- 14 The Most Noble, etc.
- 15 Margaret Thatcher
- 16 Dannatt
- 17 October 2010
- 18 Decorations
- 19 Alan Brooke, 1st Viscount Alanbrooke
- 20 The Right Stuff: September 2011
- 21 The Right Stuff: October 2011
- 22 The Right Stuff: November 2011
- 23 Disambiguation link notification
- 24 Disambiguation link notification
- 25 The Right Stuff: January 2012
- 26 Disambiguation link notification for April 19
- 27 November 2012
- 28 ArbCom elections are now open!
Do you like causing inappropriate nuisance?? You seem to edit every single article, particularly relating to what I've edited using my extensive police knowledge. You seem to have edited the article 'Peter Clarke' using my comments, you appear to grasp no concept for anything pertaining to the Metropolitan Police Service. You may well be an Administrator, but I can guarantee that you probably were elected so through Wikipedians electing you. One of my most favoured intellectuals once said, "a Prime Minister may be elected, but he can also be kicked out".— Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliceChief (talk • contribs)
- Perhaps you could tell me what your problem is? If you are unhappy with one of my edits please outline your view and we will sort it. Please also take time out to read WP:CIVIL and stick to the editing issues rather than make personal characterisations. BTW I thought your contribution on the spelling/title of Peter Clarke was very helpful, which is why I amended related pages. TerriersFan 16:07, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Blanking this page
Please do not blank this page while a discussion is ongoing since it makes it hard to follow the conversation and for other editors to contribute. Your interest in Wikipedia is appreciated, and I have added some links that you might find helpful in gaining an understanding of our policies. TerriersFan 16:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
So because I have decided to comment on you, you have decided to deface my talk page?? You are not the only administrator, and I'm sure that you exercise your administerial powers often, particularly when approached about yourself and your actions. I proceeded to blank/clear my discussion page after due reading of the Wikipedia regulations that you so kindly placed a link to on your previous comment, I have read them and wish to bring up that they state 'do not reply', so I considered this and therefore consequently erased your comments. I would like no further interruptions/hindrance on this account. And I would also like to point out, did you 'lock the database for further editing', because I annoyed/aggrevated you with my prior comment?? Also, you are now starting to check back at my edit summaries, you may think you are very high and mighty with you elected administerial position, but you are just a person behind a computer, you do not get paid for your editing, you may get some generic "awards" for your services and time but it is not 'appreciated' when you think you can exercise the right to do whatever you want, as you think just because you've got this position, you will be keeping it..!!
- Undoing the blanking of this page did not involve the use of any administrator tools; it was an action that any editor could have carried out. Unblanking is also not defacing - it is normal to leave talk pages to be developed, archiving them when they get too large. I did not 'lock the database for further editing' - this is a system message that you get when the server is rebooting, is overloaded or a server problem is being sorted. I have not 'checked back at your edit summaries' - again I am finding it hard to see the issue, Finally, I am neither annoyed nor aggrieved about your prior comment - I am still struggling to see which edit about which you were unhappy so that I can fix it. TerriersFan 16:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Your edit of numerous of my edits has aggrevated and annoyed me, seeing as you are of administritive privilidges, you may feel it is your right or "job" to edit articles of which you think are irrelevant or too long or digressing, I am of the opinion that you enjoy "editing", but for the sake of using up valuable wikipedia database space, I propose to reevaluate my opinions and wish to proceed with editing articles which I deem incorrect or misleading, so I am happy to back down from this tension.. and wish to put any unpleasantries behind me.
Hi. It's good that you have a contribution to make to this article, but please be very very careful to observe the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy. This page is a controversial one, and I wouldn't want to see your good contributions lost because of failure to word them carefully enough. This is not a warning, by the way, just a bit of friendly advice. Deb 19:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. It's not the nature of your contributions that concerns me, more the wording. It's good that you've provided some citations, but I do think you are in danger of adding your own slant to things. For example, you say that blood analysis showed that the driver was intoxicated "whilst driving at immensely high speeds". Apart from the fact that blood analysis can't show how fast he was driving, the phrase "immensely high" is subjective. At what point does "high" become "immensely high"? Do you see what I mean? Deb 20:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, I guessed what you meant to say. But it's a rule that we try not to include "non-NPOV" statements or comments in articles. Just be aware that, if you are not careful with wording, other people may not merely change what you've written, they may delete it altogether. Good luck with future contributions, anyhow. Deb 20:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi PoliceChief. Did you check the talk page before your recent move of the Danny Wallace article from "humorist" to "comedian"? This had already been discussed in talk and moved the other way. I think, therefore, that it would be appropriate to move it back again, since that was the (limited but no longer contested) consensus reached. I've not gone ahead and done this yet because I wanted to check your reasoning, but if it's just as you give in your move summary ("he's better known as ...") then essentially the discussion on the talk page begs to differ ;-) Please consider undoing your move. – Kieran T (talk) 09:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Christopher Geidt, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Excirial (Talk,Contribs) 00:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree that prefixes such as "The Right Honourable" should be allowed to be used. Unfortunately, however, Wikipedia policy forbids that. That policy has been argued several times and it appears that it will not be changing any time soon. It is also common practice that commoners do not use the post-nominals "PC."--Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 01:54, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
- I see the problem. We may well get HIGNFY a week later in the West Country- you'll be aware we're a little behind here. I suggest we take out the date & leave it as "November 2007". --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- No tension. It's sorted. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 22:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your contribution to Titular ruler. Frankly, I can't believe that no one had noticed before the absence of a concrete example, and the article is much stronger as a result of your edit.
I did want to mention one thing, however. Your edit showed up in the history as a "minor edit". As such, I almost didn't look at it. But it clearly was not a minor edit. I am wondering if perhaps by marking it as a minor edit you intended to be self-effacing. I appreciate the attempt at modesty (and can use the example myself), but in actuality, the term minor edit has some pretty specific qualifications, which you can see here. This is in no way intended as a criticism of your edit. I just wanted to pass along something which took me a good long while to learn myself.
The page for December 25 said the following "Do NOT add videogames, videogame consoles, movie, TV or album releases, as they WILL be deleted." I would consider the queens christmas message being released on YouTube insignificant and related to a TV release. If you disagree restore it please tell me why. --Smallbig/Anonymous101 on Wikinews 20:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
All your edits are being automatically marked as minor
Your edit summaries are descriptive, sometimes noting a minor alteration. On a quick skim, that's excellent. However, all your edits are being automatically marked as minor with a bold "m", which as an editor noted above, means editors sometimes won't look as closely at those edits and it may be seen as insincere with a controversial or simply any major edit.
I suggest you look at My preferences, the Editing section, uncheck "Mark all edits minor by default", and Save.
I'm not in any way disparaging your edits, and as far as I know you can't get in trouble for keeping the box checked, but it could be a factor in any dispute or lead to one on its own. Gotyear (talk) 21:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
Minister of Science
I haven't seen any pages prescribing a specific portfolio to Lord Drayson other than "Minister of State, Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills" other than a single page of the BBC which referred to him as "Minister of Universities and Skills", which I've been using. Could you name the source which gave the "Minister of Science" title? Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
The Most Noble, etc.
Regarding your edit to James Graham, 8th Duke of Montrose, the current version you edited, "His Grace The Duke of Montrose" is correct. However, "The Most Noble The Duke of Montrose" is also valid.
The Most Noble is the style of a duke, The Most Honourable for a marquess, and The Right Honourable for all lower ranks. Your edit summary is doubly misleading as it says "Amending mentioned 'The Most Honourable' which is the style of a Viscount NOT a Duke". You actually changed it from "Most Noble", not "Most Honourable", and the latter is the style of a marquess not a viscount! Please be more careful with edit summaries as otherwise people will think your edits are incorrect even when they are valid, and may waste time checking your edits. Thanks, JRawle (Talk) 23:38, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I have just made another partial revert of your edits to the Margaret Thatcher article. The Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families article that you have linked to twice now appears to be incorrect as it only covers the post since its creation in 2007. The correct link for Thatcher is the Secretary of State for Education and Skills article which covers several incarnations of the post, including her position of Secretary of State for Education and Science.
Also, I found your recent edit summary rather odd
- If only "partially reverted" then 'part' should be left not eradicated TOTALLY!
I would like to draw your attention to your first edit here, followed by my partial reversion here. Please explain to me where I have "eradicated TOTALLY!" your edit.
You may also wish to take note of the WP:LEAD guideline, which encourages editors to restrict lead sections to 4 paragraphs or less. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 23:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
- Hi again. Please see the reply on my talk page. Your anger appears to be misdirected. Regards. Road Wizard (talk) 23:47, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking at your edits and wanted to comment to take care not to get to Wikipedia:Recentism , also the last edit reads like a bit original opinion and is not really supported in the citations. Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Margret Thatcher. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi. It's preferable to link the full title, for example, Commander of the Order of the British Empire rather than pipe the link to Order of the British Empire (to which the former is redirect) as this provides context to the reader as, for example would piping VC to Victoria Cross. This is documented in WP:INITIAL (part of MOS:BIO) and WP:R2D and I think another guideline which escapes me at the minute. Anyway, I've seen you changing these on Nick Parker (an article I've been monitoring for a while) and Peter Wall (an article I'm working on because I can't beleive the article on the current CGS has so little detail in it). Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
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:
If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you.
Alan Brooke, 1st Viscount Alanbrooke
I notice the change you have made to the Alan Brooke. While I understand your point of view the vast majority of articles spell out the awards in full in the infoboxes. To change them all to initials would require literally thousands of articles to be changed. It is probably best left as it was. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
- Apologies - Ignore the above. Your change does make sense. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 23:03, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: September 2011
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!"
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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 .
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 to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
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.
Hi. When you recently edited Lionel Jarvis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chief Medical Officer (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.
Hi. When you recently edited Cressida Dick, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Yates (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.
The Right Stuff: January 2012
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.
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.
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.
Clickto keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
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.
Hi. When you recently edited James Bond in film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sky Box Office (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.
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at Skyfall, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, and edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Hi there, please do not re add material that has been removed as it bloats the plot. If you feel that this information should be included then please take a look on the article talk page and contribute to the discussion there. 21:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)