User talk:Robert Horning

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



Welcome! (We can't say that loud/big enough!)

Here are a few links you might find helpful:

If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page.

We're so glad you're here! -- Essjay · Talk 11:49, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Robert, you're welcome (in the other sense of welcome). That definately sounds like a long and thankless task; I spend most of my time contributing to theology articles (I'm a theology professor), fighting vandals on Recent Changes, or welcoming new users. I'm glad to see you're here and doing good work. If you need any help, just let me know. -- Essjay · Talk 12:04, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Speedy delete; Travels with Charlie[edit]

That sounds like a pretty drastic action for something that has involved numerous editors and is not a clear cut case; I'd ask that you give this an opportunity for community input and consensus and explanation; I don't see a discussion or rational page/section for the deletion request. -- Stbalbach 21:18, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


I left a response re: wikibooks and Travels with Charley on my talk page. SWATJester Flag of Iceland.svg Ready Aim Fire! 01:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The mention you made of StrategyWiki in the Wikibooks article seems a bit harsh...[edit]

Hi Robert, I'm the guy who runs the StrategyWiki server. I'm wondering where you got the notion that StrategyWiki was relicensing to Creative Commons; I can attest that we have no intentions of doing that. While we are discussing the possibility of relicensing to a license that grants more freedom of use than the GFDL or Creative Commons, we have not yet done so. (Our reasons for relicensing are many; one instance is that publishing GFDL content is very prohibitive as it requires the full text of the license to be distributed. You can read my thoughts on the matter, as I have researched licensing issues quite thoroughly.)

Nevertheless, as I stated before, all guides on StrategyWiki are currently GFDL-licensed and they are even implicitly marked with GFDL license tags meaning that they are not available under any other alternative license--we are absolutely dedicated to comply with the terms of the GFDL! Even if StrategyWiki is relicensed in the future, we will make it clear that Wikibooks guides and contributions to them are to remain exclusively GFDL licensed.

As for server outages, we are now located on a dedicated server. Though we may have experienced infrequent outages in the past, I can assure you that these will become less and less prevalent as we continue to make the move onward to one or more colocated webservers, which we intend to buy in the future for our open media gaming organization. (You can read more about our plans and goals on StrategyWiki.)

I do not see why you argue that StrategyWiki is an "[un]safe place for the content". We began StrategyWiki long before a decision was ever made to remove strategy guides from Wikibooks, and I must admit that even I was only mildly aware of the existance of strategy guides on Wikibooks until the matter came to me directly when Jimbo wanted them removed. All of the Wikibooks authors I have spoken to thus far are fine with StrategyWiki, and if there are any that have problems, I would love to hear from them so that I can listen to whatever their concerns may be.

Robert, if you yourself have any specific concerns you would like addressed, I invite you to discuss them with us; feel free to ask me whatever you like. Perhaps you can come to an understanding of our mission, which is and will always be providing open content strategy guides to the masses. Cheers! echelon talk 04:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

this isn't anything personal against Strategy Wiki, which is a fine project of itself. I'll try to address the license issues, but the fact is that if you don't continue to use the GFDL for content from Wikibooks, you are in violation of the terms of the GFDL and instead you simply must delete the content. I'll try to get into specifics on the community issues page, but you are attempting here to second guess some outstanding legal thought by trying to relicense content that you can't prove copyright on.
As far as the reliability issues, you aren't a part of the Wikimedia Foundation and you can't say that you have as stable of an organization including financial support to maintain the servers you are using for that wiki. I'm not saying that the Wikimedia Foundation is rock solid either, but it is an independent wiki that may or may not be available in a few years. Of course I can't say with certainty that the WMF will be around in a few years either. --Robert Horning 16:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I think I understand where you're coming from now, so I will try to clarify my position: We are not attempting to relicense Wikibooks content. We at StrategyWiki understand that Wikibooks content is licensed exclusively under the terms of the GFDL, so please understand that we are not trying to change the license of this content in any way. What we are trying to relicense is original StrategyWiki content, because we have created a great deal of material both before and after the migration of Wikibooks content to us. This guide is one example of original StrategyWiki content (that I largely edited myself), and since most of our original submitters are still working at StrategyWiki, we have all agreed that the problems with the GFDL are something we want to phase out. To that end, are trying to relicense only our own guides. Note that all guides are currently tagged with this template (I just updated the category for clarification). If and when we do change to another license, I know that we will require even more verbose text to clarify this issue on the license, copyrights, and submissions pages themselves.
On the issue of server stability, fair enough. :) echelon talk 20:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm still curious how you are going to pull this one off legally. I can imagine a dozen scenerios about how GFDL content is going to cause all kinds of problems for you if you try to mix a license similar to CC-by-SA (I know it is not exactly what you are using, but it is similar) and the GFDL. Certainly at a minimum it would have to be on seperate name spaces in terms of administration, and you have to make extra sure that people who use GFDL content know that it is going to "eat up" any non-GFDL content if it gets mixed together. The reason why Wikinews was able to pull off a relicensing is because it was originally public domain, and you didn't have the nasty legal issues, as you can take public domain content and "re-license" it to whatever you want. This is a huge issue for people who are starting Wikis and think they can quickly switch licenses part-way down the development path.
This is also going to preclude any future "contributions" from Wikibooks if this change occurs, or you are going to have one huge legal mess to sort out as time goes on here. I understand that your intentions are to make only new and original content on your Wiki to be specifically for the new license, but it isn't going to be as easy as you think. The GFDL was written specifcally so you couldn't "phase out" any problems. I'm just noting that you are in for a mess if you don't simply delete all of the GFDL content.
More to the point, if you can't use the content under the GFDL, you simply can't use it. Period. That is the way the GFDL was written, and that was deliberate when it was written by the Free Software Foundation. Even future contributions to GFDL content must also be released under the GFDL. And generally you can't combine content with licenses other than the GFDL. --Robert Horning 03:47, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
After further consideration, we've decided to keep StrategyWiki under the GFDL. Though our community is still mixed about some of the restrictions the GFDL imposes, we do not see any currently viable way to fix it without restarting the Wiki, and that is not something we want to do; a GFDL wiki with many articles is better than an empty wiki, because in the end it's the content that matters. Your advice was very helpful in making this decision. Thanks! echelon talk 23:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I find it unfortunate that there have been some problems with relicensing your Wiki, although I have to agree with the results of what you had to deal with here. There are been a number of complaints about the GFDL, and as the Wikimedia Foundation gets more into printed materials (physical printing of GFDL), I think some of these issues will play out more. Electronic copies of documents aren't nearly so difficult of a problem with the GFDL, mainly as distributing the GFDL license itself electronically is trivial. Printed materials it is a huge deal because it is about 5-10 pages (depending on point size and other issues not in the GFDL) adds some substantial real costs, particularly for very small works that are only a few pages long, like a Wikipedia article. BTW, there is a request for comments by the FSF regarding the GFDL, and legitimate complaints are listened to. I hope my #1 issue regarding incompatability between the GFDL and GPL is also dealt with eventually.

Huge text inserts on how-to template[edit]

The how-to template has originally been used on articles that have only such minor how-to sections that transwiki:in has not been really considered. If there really needs to be a template with such great content, this template is most probably inappropriate for that, due to the way that the template has been used historically. I'll remove all references to wikibooks from the template in order to keep it concise.

Really, conciceness has to be considered when editing message boxes. I'm moving most of the text to the talk page, where you can recycle it for any/all other message boxes you might want to create.

I would hope that in the future how-to template would suggest re-editing only, whereas other templates may be created that may suggest alternative courses of action. Santtus 11:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand your concern about the situation in Wikibooks, which is why I wanted to include some information on Moving in the message box. Maybe we could have included a sentence in the message box, "See also discussion on alternate possibilities" or similar. On that page, moving to wikibooks could be discussed in greater detail. That page would have an introduction on the issue, recommendations and such. Santtus 13:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

People to People Student Ambassador Program[edit]

Hey Robert, regarding People to People - this isn't a scam - the students do typically have a fantastic time, but in reality - it's not much more than a teen/pre-teen vacation package that was presented as an "academic honor". In fact, there is a high probability that NO ONE "nominated" the student - they use a mailing list of students they get from an external source, and there's a company that is "fronting" People to People that actually coordinates these trips that is a "for profit" company. The trips average about $5,000. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

The more I dig into it, the more it sounds like a scam to me. Not all scams take all of your money without giving you anything in return. The dishonesty in how it becomes an "academic honor" and the lack of being up front about the typical costs of the program are mainly what is disturbing to me, as you are pointing out. I am being told about the costs, but very 3rd hand knowledge, as you have pointed out. I have yet to get anything "official" from the P2P program itself, although I'm sure it will eventually be brought up in the formal sales presentation. At this point I'm not sure if I intend to go to that meeting (which I did sign up for). This is nothing more than a for profit travel agency, even though at one time I believe that Pres. Eisenhower did intend to make it into something more egalitarian and to do some actual good in the world.
If this were a very special and select group of kids going on travel abroad trips to destinations around the world... particularly not English-speaking areas but locations of substantially different cultural background such as the People's Republic of China, Russia, Jordan, or Egypt, I might believe this to be something valid. Of course there is danger in sending students to countries that are potential "enemies" of the USA, just as there are dangers in sending real ambassadors to these parts of the world. That is why they are called "ambassadors", which is a much abused word by the People to People group. These kids are not ambassadors in any way or sense of the word, but merely rowdy citizens that would help push sterotypical views abroad of what Americans are really like.
Travel abroad is a good and worthy thing to do for children in terms of exposing them to other cultures and to let them know what is special and unique to the United States of America, and perhaps to see areas that we need to work on as a people. I just fail to see why this program is any special or unique to any other study abroad program, of which this is merely one more way to seperate money from parents who in many cases can't afford this type of trip. My edits of the program page are to help notify those who want to learn more about the program to learn about it from a more balanced perspective. --Robert Horning 16:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
About travel to countries like Russia, China, etc., there actually use to be trips to those countries. In the Cold War, People to People actually sent American students to the USSR. Likewise, I remember People to People sent me a letter to Africa and another for Egypt.
Unfortunately, these trips got cancelled because parents are reluctant to send their children to such countries. When I first started, they had trips to Africa, Japan, Europe, Australia, and a few other places. Because of world conditions and such, now People to People pretty much caters to Australia, NZ, and the UK. It's been a while since I've checked the site. Just saying, People to People did have your idea but most parents aren't too keen about sending their kids to countries like you mentioned. --Champthom 21:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Robert. Here is the latest that I found out about People to People.

Student Travel Service Still Misleading Parents Students "Recommended" for Study Abroad? Not Quite

September 12, 2006

--Jean 10:20, 14 September 2006 (PST)

I actually wrote this on the talk page of the PTP article, but then I realized I could just look at it here. So here goes:

I did People to People twice - once to Southern Europe, and once to Australia.

It's definately not a scam - they really will take your son on a trip to wherever, and the delegation leaders are teachers who know what they're doing.

To be fair though, it's not quite what the presentation says. The presentations typically will say how your child isn't just a "tourist," they're a "student ambassador" and they get treated as such. Really, they're just another tourst, just with a glitzy name. You don't really get special treatment, it's just being a group of tourists with an important sounding name. Likewise, they do offer high school credit and college credit, but my high school refused to accept the high school credit I got out of the program. Furthermore, they like to say how it'll help get your child into college. Frankly, most colleges have no idea who People to People are. Most colleges were interested in the fact I did stuff like JROTC and that I was an Eagle Scout than I went with People to People. It came up only once in a scholarship interview and the woman asked "Are you the ones who go around singing?"

As for your problem with the cost, it's odd they didn't mention it. I actually went to the presentations to speak for at least 5 years and they usually guide the parents through the booklet they give out on the cost of the program. Remember, too, that you can fundraise for this. As for the $5,000 cost - yes, it is a lot but it's essentially the same as if you went on a 3 week tour with any other group. It's food, lodging, transportation, and activities are paid, not to mention there's a tour guide and at least 2-3 delegation leaders to keep the students in line.

I just want to comment that this article is pretty good. I was not aware of the recent problems over the nomination process (I think it was a year after I went to Australia that they started to tell people that they did get names from national databases). I think it captures a pretty good NPOV.

They're not out to con anyone. I remember my mom thought the same thing when I first got the letter. However, in reality, it's really more of a glorified tour group than it is a program of international goodwill. That's just what this alumni thinks. --Champthom 20:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Most of what you have said fits with what I have read as well, and I want to make it clear that I don't have a specific axe to grind against this program, so far as it is a chance for kids to learn about other countires through a travel experience. To claim that this is anything else is where I believe the fraud comes in, and implications of ties to the U.S. Government and that it is somehow "special" over any other similar type of program. All the rest is merely posturing and marketing.
As for the cost in particular, I don't have a problem with it either. Just that some families of limited means are pressured through high pressure sales tactics to come up with that kind of money because this is some kind of special "honor", which it isn't. When that happens, I put this just marginally above the Nigerian 419 scams in terms of trying to seperate people from their money. But if you are aware of the costs, and your family can afford to pay that kind of money, it sounds like a very reasonable thing for you to do. Just don't get caught up in the sales hype in order to make the decision to go. --Robert Horning 23:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Robert - I was looking up the Student Ambassador information and saw that someone had turned the whole page back into an ad for the Spokane company. I began the work of changing it back to balanced and truthful, but would appreciate it if you took a look at it. It was my first Wiki edit, and I didn't realize exactly how things worked.

I have drawn one additional conclusion from the information I have found. If you look at the third page of the download from the Iowa Attorney General's office, the copy of the letter sent to the child who had died as an infant, note that they are using letterhead of the not for profit International company. It really gives the letters a look of importance, but appears to be more scamming.

Hello, Robert. Here's another recent article from ConsumerAffairs on this subject:

People to People "Clarifies" Its Invitation Policy, dated September 20, 2006

~Jean 9:53, 26 September 2006 (PST)

Hello again, Robert. Found this which you may find interesting:

3-10-2003 - A PEEPHOLE into PEOPLE To PEOPLE

~Jean 12:43, 27 September 2006 (PST)

Hello, Robert. You'll find the links I'm collecting on this subject conveniently in one location here:

People to People Student Ambassador Program - Consumer Issues

~Jean 7:50, 28 September 2006 (PST)

Hello, Robert.

I noticed that the External Link on the "Iowa Attorney General's Statement on People to People" leads to the news releases and statements instead of directly to the news release about People to People. Can that be corrected? That way visitors to this site won't have to search through the long list to find it.

~Jean 10:55, 28 September 2006 (PST)

I am not too thrilled about the current direction that the article is going, and in particular with massive reverts of some of my edits (although some of the material seems to be added back in now that I've yelled long enough). I have specifically tried to avoid editing where it might be considered an edit war, and instead am trying to vent my spleen on the talk page arguing with a noted user who is quite beligerant even with other articles. That said, I think we can get a balanced perspective here on Wikipedia, and not have to give in completely to those who would try and sanitize the article from any criticisms. --Robert Horning 19:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Look here:

You can see how much their key executives make. And if you click on "key statistics" it shows their profit margin.

~Jean 14:36, 29 September 2006 (PST)

Found another one:

~Jean 14:27, 2 October 2006 (PST)

Today my boss received a notice from People to People. Essentially it was a request for $500 to help pay for a librarian's trip to South Africa in early 2007. What would my boss receive for kicking in $500 to pay for someone else's vacation trip to South Africa? Why, she'll get to be called a "Delegate". Whoop-dee-doo! My boss chucked the notice in the trash.

~Jean 14:16, 16 October 2006 (PST)

If you look here:

You will see a letter from Tracie of Niagara Falls NY (10/12/06) states that P2P informed her where they received her son's name: American Student List.

So take a lookie here at what the FTC has to say about American Student List:

American Student List, LLC - Complaint

Docket No. C-4072 United States of America Before Federal Trade Commission

Jean 19:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Deceased Cat Invited to be Student Ambassador

By Lisa Wade McCormick ConsumerAffairs.Com 19:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

People to People Does It Again Letter Invites Long-Dead Child to be an "Ambassador" for $5,000

By Lisa Wade McCormick ConsumerAffairs.Com 21:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

What Miss Manners has to say about seeking 'sponsors' for trip:

Check out Miss Manners' column that was posted in newspapers on March 2007. It could very well apply to these trips. Scroll down past the letter about weddings and you'll see the letter to which I am referring:

Jean172.191.9.187 19:07, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

The above link is is now here. I think this is a very serious moral issue: PTP dresses up tourism as some kind of activity for the greater social good and at least tacitly encourages to clients to raise money on this basis---parasitizing social bonds and soaking up charitable donations for something which is of the most marginal socially redeeming value. It's not the job of wikipedia to discuss morality of course, but it is the job of wikipedia to provide the necessary information for people to make informed moral judgements of their own. The PTP academic conferences are equally dodgey: they invite university staff to get their universities to spend portions of their limited scientific budgets on pseudo-conferences (basically vacations too, and with big cancellation penalties in case the university turns the travel application down---usually an academic can't even apply for funding without showing that he or she has been accepted as a participant to the conference).

While searching for Jean's link I found the following too: [1]. More scandal in PTP-land! -- Ngio 21:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

re: Bear River Expedition and Bear River Massacre[edit]

Pretty much because they had similar names.--KrossTalk 23:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert - I read on the Bear River massacre site discussion page that you're interested in the Bear River massacre. Have you seen the article from the Utah Historical Quarterly Fall 1999? It has an eyewitness account from one of the soldiers. I have an inexpertly scanned copy I could send you if you're interested.Lvklock (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

People to People[edit]


Since the People to People Student Ambassador Program and the People to People International articles seem to have stood the test of time and are acceptable for content, NPOV, etc., what do you think of having People to People be a disambiguation page for these two? That article is not as comprehensive as either of the other two and it still seems to be a content fork, so let me know what you think. Markovich292 18:50, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

This seems like a reasonable compromise. This is already listed on P2P as disambiguation, so perhaps we need to prepare some other places as well for reasonable redirects? --Robert Horning 17:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey I noticed ont he People to People page you were confused about the program's authenticity, but if you're still unsure I can vouch for the program as my older sister travelled to Europe as a student ambassador and I've just been invited to Australia. I know a lot of first timers have said they don't believe the letters and just trash them but they are the real deal. I even knew a girl that claimed no one attended those things and everyone knew it was a scam, but it's not. Just in case you were still confused. 05:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Laura

Hi, Laura. If you really were truly "invited" then People to People would pay for your entire trip instead of asking you and/or your parents to come up with the several thousands of dollars to pay for it. They are trying to sell you a trip to Australia, not "invite" you to go to Australia. Just in case you were still confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I would have to agree on this last point here. Even if it were heavily subsidized and run completely by a non-profit company (P2P is not non-profit... part of my point here) with "scholarships" being offered to join in the tours, I might be quite a bit more sympathetic toward this program.
I'm not suggesting that travel abroad is a bad thing, but on the contrary. It is a wonderful experience. I just wish P2P was very up front about the fact that they are a for-profit foriegn travel tour group, which they are not. There are other companies involved with tour groups that are much more honest about what they do. P2P may even be the best in the "business", but it is a business none the less.
For myself, and a strong recommendation to parents who want to offer opportunities like this, I would strongly suggest that the parents themselves take their children abroad and book through a normal travel agent rather than fork out the money through this program. Especially when dealing with elementary school-aged children (like my child was when invited). Teens might be responsible enough to only need nominal chaporoniage, but 10 year olds certainly would be lost if they had to deal with serious problems in a foriegn country (like a lost passport, mistaken identity, etc.). Being there as a parent you can deal with the problems directly, and also share in the experiences building a bond between parent and child that would last a lifetime. --Robert Horning 14:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

People to People: How Selective Is It?

Here is an investigative report by Lisa Wade McCormick, dated November 20, 2006. 20:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Fair use[edit]

Hi, in a recent post, you included an example of what might happen if another editor was to use Wikipedia material to which you hold the copyright in violation of the GFDL. The way you formulated the example, it can be quite feasibly read as a legal threat. This is probably not what you meant, but please consider stating the example differently anyway. —xyzzyn 21:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It is a legal threat, but a more general one and I'm not trying to direct it at any one particular person. I'll try to look over it and see if I can reword it slightly, but I'm not really all that thrilled with the behavior of the particular user and his persistant personal attacks against me.
It is also a simple matter of fact: If you misuse and violate copyright, it is a copyright violation. And the copyright holder (myself, for material I've contributed) is entitled to sue for statutory and other damages in court. --Robert Horning 21:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Talk of publishing Wikipedia FAs[edit]

Robert, I know you are much more familiar with the copyrights and publishing than I. You may want to take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Featured_articles#Should_we_publish_a_compilation_of_featured_articles.3F. Cheers, Iamunknown 22:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)


You are most welcome! I'm glad that I've found a fighter, & please, ding me if you need any help. You mentioned, 'There is now a very stodgy viewpoint that a Wikibook has to have a format of so many pages...'; I feel so strongly against that; sometimes, a book CANNOT be a certain number of pages, I mean, do they intend for us to bullshit? Just to get the page requiseit? I agree with you on how Wikibooks is not just ' game books...'; if it was so be it; There is no place for someone (can you believe it? the founder!) to say that '...nothing really serious that educational professionals would be able to use in a classroom.'. So????!!!!! Noone EVER said it was supposed to be educational! That's censorship! That's NOT FOR THE PEOPLE! Wiki is for the people! Not for some precievedauthority to prescibe what is high culture and what is not! Please, I totally support you with all the blood in my heart. If you can, rv all the deleted material; we cannot lose our culture. And most importantly, if I can help in ANY way, drop me a line.100110100 02:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank You[edit]

Please direct me to the discussion; I'll try what I can do to clean this up. Do you know where we could contact inculsionists on Wikipedia, & elsewhere? Thanks.

Thanks again!100110100 02:58, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Something I Wrote[edit]


Thanks for you last reply; I'm your shoulder to cry on:-D. I don't think I have anything to say in reply though, or I'd be asking you to do even more work than you've done, which you've done a TREMENDOUS amount. Thanks. Remeber, I'll try to fight with you; just let me know.100110100 05:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


Robert, it is good that you are still active here. I replied to your post on my talk page (now archived). I'm sorry you feel outed at Wikibooks, but I can understand why you feel that way and respect your decision to leave. I'm curious, have you kept a resource list pertaining to copyright law and fair use? I'd like to learn what I can about it, but I'm having difficulty getting off the ground. Regards, Iamunknown 23:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I like your blog and hope you keep writing. :-) --Iamunknown 23:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

LDS Movement Template Talk[edit]

A little more info on the changes, which I believe you are familiar with:

1. My revert of Bytebear's changes:
Bytebear's change of the template is time-stamped: 10:42, 12 May 2007 Bytebear's first edit on the talk page: 10:29, 12 May 2007 Bytebear As far as I can see, these were his first edits on the talk page ever. What would you have done? My point is that you don't just announce on the talk page that you don't like something, then make a major change.

2. Discussion/response on this issue:
I replied directly to Bytebear on 14 May 2007 : [3] and created a forum for discussion (even though this had already been discussed farther up the talk page, which I am sure you have seen). My feelings/opinions/comments are already available to anybody that can read, so I don't feel that I have to re-write them every time someone posts a comment. See [4]

3. Where to go next:
So far only the two of you are interested in going back to the sidebar. There are at least three of us who like the current format better. I suggest giving it some more time to see if a consensus develops to go back, like the consensus developed to make the current change.

What am I missing? --NThurston 20:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Family History[edit]

Totally a side note, that is very cool about your Gpa. What prompted his departure? Sorry to bother you I was just curious, have a good one. Jcg5029 01:47, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Andy Horning, the politician[edit]

Any relation? Kurt Weber 17:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this politician fit WP:NOTE? If not, why bring it up? Although I'm related to most people with the Horning surname that live in the USA (not all of them, however). --Robert Horning 09:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

First Vision - time for action[edit]

I appreciate the efforts of Visorstuff to resolve the situation at First Vision. I now understand that he was hampered by his past involvement in this article and with John Foxe. No one is editing the article right now, but I believe that John Foxe's comments on the talk page demonstrate that he either cannot understand or refuses to comply with the WP:NPOV policy. I'm trying to gain a consensus on his inappropriate behavior, and I invite you, as a past contributor to this article, to add your comments to this discussion. If you think that my behavior also warrants criticism, I invite that as well. I will be posting this invitation on several other user talk pages, but with your past history on this article you might be aware of other editors who have walked away. Please feel free to let them know what is going on and invite their input at Talk:First_Vision#Time_for_action. 74s181 13:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

First Vision RFM[edit]

If I had known you were interested I would have invited you. So, am I the 'newbie' you are talking about? 74s181 13:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation[edit]

Info-icon.svg A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/First Vision.
For the Mediation Committee, Daniel
This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.
This message delivered: 16:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC).

Request for Arbitration - First Vision[edit]

I have submitted a request for arbitration with the Arbitration Committee. You are listed as a party. The arbitration process requires that all parties listed in an arbitration request must be notified. You have an opportunity to comment on the request at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration. 74s181 02:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Submitted WP:RfC on John Foxe[edit]

For more info, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/John Foxe.

One other person needs to certify the RfC within 48 hours or it will be deleted. More information 74s181 06:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

People To People[edit]

I saw your comment on the people to people page, and I was wondering... Do you have to come up with the money to travel to the places or is it free? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You have to come up with the money completely on your own. The People to People folks will have you convinced at the seminar you attend (aka the "sales" meeting, under whatever name they use to get you there) that you don't have to necessarily provide this money yourself. But that is just pushing off the cost onto others, such as grandparents, aunts and uncles, or other people in your community. People to People is a very much for-profit travel group that really can't claim non-profit status, and they pay their top executives very handsomely. They are traded on NASDAQ, and regularly pay their shareholders a dividend as well. A group called "People to People International" does exist as a non-profit company, but they aren't the ones you really deal with for the most part, nor who really gets the money.
I don't have any particular beef about the quality of the program. From what I've read and seen, they do an outstanding job. Just be aware that it is a for-profit travel company and one of the more expensive ones for what they do. Attempting to raise money for this company through "fundraiser" car washes and begging by going house to house in your neighborhood makes as much sense as doing the same thing to buy a bottle of Coca-Cola or to buy a new Xbox 360 for the kid. And IMHO should be treated as the same thing.
If you can afford the trip for your kid and have the money in the bank to debate between a new boat to go fishing or send your kid to Europe with People to People, you can make a rational decision about how you spend your money on a program like this. If you have to apply for a 2nd mortgage on your house in order to send your kid in this program, it is not something for you. People to People is not a charity. --Robert Horning 01:23, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Robert! Check this out

People to People Invites Dead Girl ... Again -- 15:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Please check this site and study its history and present connections and see if you think this is a reliable source for criticizing an organization that has offered such positive experiences for students over the years. No one is forcing a student to participate but offering them an opportunity to travel internationally and learn about themselves and people thorughout the world. Students are recommended by educators (I know as I am one), alumni students and parent and the use of a national listing service. After they are invited to the meeting, they have to provide three letters of recommendation; two from educators and one from an adult who is not a family member. In this way students are recommended or not for travel. In addition they have to participate in an interview where the leaders (who are educators that also apply and are interviewed and accepted into the program)speak with them about behavioral and educational expectations. During the meetings, students learn about topics related to travel. The students who have fund raised have learned such amazing business skills, communication skills, marketing skills and other educational skills that will benefit them through the rest of their lives. As families have worked together they have learned to work as a team and the parents and children have really grown as a family unit.
I could go on and on about the positive aspects of international travel. I have traveled with other student groups and remain with People to People because they focus on safety for students and leaders.As I have stated no organization is without issues but please be do some research by speaking with families who have participated to find out what they really think about this program before continuing to bash it. --Imalady1951 (talk) 04:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I left a reply on your talk page, so I won't repeat that here. Still, I do have some strong concerns about People to People International, and I do think there are some deceptive sales practices going on with their program, particularly in reference to the non-profit status of those who perform fundraisers on behalf of children using their program. I'll say it again, this is akin to somebody doing a charitable fundraiser to help buy an Xbox 360 for a child. I suppose Toys for Tots and other similar charities do that for some children, so it isn't entirely a lost cause to think this way, but it shouldn't be portrayed as anything but an expensive cultural learning experience. The connections to Ambassadors Group IMHO are very under-represented in the article. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. As educators we do nominate students to travel with the program as do alumni students and families. When I nominate a student I usually do not tell a parent because when I have they will go to their friends whose children I also know and then they question the reason I don't recommend their child. It is a challenge to say, "your child doesn't follow the rules or treat others kindly" thus it is just best to do it anonymously. So students are indeed recommended by educators and others that know about People to People. That is one way the students receive invitations to the meetings. The students I recommend aren't always straight A students. WE have students of all academic abilities and students with learning issues. What they all have in common hopefully is strong positive character. We recommend students that will follow our rules as we want them to be safe, will respect other people and want to meet people from other parts of the world and respresent their country, their families and themselves in a positive manner. We believe if we connect with people(People to People)perhaps we can help bring peace to the world a person at a time. I have students that have developed friendships with students overseas and eighteen years later are traveling with their spouses to visit each other. I personally think that many eleven year olds are not ready to appreciate international travel however students of this age have traveled successfully. Other students start to save their money from birthday gifts, allowances, jobs they create and start an account to travel. Once they have the money (or some parents say half the money) they get involved with the program. I've had students whose parents do not have money trees in the back yard, become quite creative in figuring out ways to pay the tuition.

Some of the families pay everything for their child, and others encourage their children to develop a plan to fundraise. Donations to an individual child are not tax-deductible and the program doesn't state they are. It is sad that you see this as just an "expensive cultural learning experience" because it is so much more. The students learn about organization as they have to keep track of their own things, compromise as they have to learn to work with other students, perseverance as they try new activities they have never done before and compassion as they visit parts of the world where others don't have the materialistic things many of us have, but realize what is really important in life. If you speak to parents whose children have participated they say they see an increased confidence in their children and the ability to be more flexible.

However the students are invited to the program whether it be by educator or alumni recommendation or use of an list targeting students who have been involved in some activities, by the time the students are accepted into the program they are recommended. The application process consists of providing three letters of recommendation. Two of them are to be from teachers that have taught the student within the last two years and one from another adult (not a relative) such as a scout master, coach, minister or another adult who can speak of their positive contributions or potential. We are looking for students that care about other people. Most of the students that apply are accepted but not all. We might not accept a student because of lack of maturity, negative attitude presented during the interview or finding out during the discussion that they really don't want to to this but it is their parents' dream or poor letters of recommendation. If accepted they attend meetings and participate in service projects both at home and overseas. All students are expected to keep a journal during travel and some do better than others with this! In the article it mentions something about a grade from the program manager but that is not accurate..

All of the leaders who work with the students have to be recommended as a leader are trained in delegate health and safety, abuse risk management, handling escalated travel situations, CPR certified and participate in a thorough background investigation. Leaders receive ongoing training throughout the year. Most leaders are dedicated educators who love to be with students and see the world through their eyes.

If you read some of the articles written by the students themselves and published in their local papers you will see how there are far more people that are dedicated to the mission of Peace Through Understanding. Yet there is no reference in this artice about that and a lop-sided focus on criticism. That is just not right. Right now if parents that don't know about the program do a google search they will find Wiki and read it and think it is factual when it isn't! If an article is going to be written it should be accurate and based on facts that are from reputable sources.

As I have stated no organization is without issues but the service/product whatever you wish to call it that People to People offers to students is amazing. I just want to see a balanced article written about People to People Student Ambassadors. It seems to be the goal of some is to only criticize and that is wrong but unfortunately indicative of the way some people focus their attention. Thank you for listening.

--Imalady1951 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

--Imalady1951 (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hans Reiser / blog discussion[edit]

The comment you made here is ignorant and completely uncivil. The edit dispute began and ended before the beginning of this discussion. I recognize that I should have started the discussion myself, but I didn't; however, I ended the dispute from my side when I read up on the relevant policy. The sentence accusing me of self-righteousness, and immediately announcing that I "should be treated" made me choke on the irony. I would like to have a detailed account of how EXACTLY I should be treated like a common vandal. Do you intend to follow me around Wikipedia reverting my edits now? Do you propose others do the same? Perhaps we can just cut to the chase and start the blocking/banning process, and while we're at it, block or ban you on the basis that some of your edits have also been reverted, which is clearly an indicator of common vandalism? EAE (Holla!) 17:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In reply, I do consider this to be a form of common vandalism. It is not based upon ignorance of the process, but rather years (decades) of on-line participation and nearly a decade of participation on Wikis. I am fighting individuals who perform actions similar to the actions on the Hans Reiser article that were mentioned on this thread where I've seen similar kinds of self-righteous behavior. And I've seen far too many individuals try to push some sort of agenda without paying attention the the individual situations on individual articles... many of whose opinions I certainly don't share.
Trying to calm down here.... what is important is to make sure that you don't engage into an edit war, but rather try to discuss the situation if it becomes something of a concern. If you are willing to discuss this action on the talk page, I'm willing to do that.
And no, I won't be "following you around Wikipedia" trying to revert all of your edits. I will try to examine your behavior on this issue closely, and if you prove to be somebody who is not "willing to play nicely with others" (quoting from my kid's school teachers) I will certainly be willing to view all of your other contributions with a legitimately jaundiced eye toward being a potential vandal and/or trouble maker. That is the nature of why we even bother trying to track edits in situations like this. And if I seem to be a bit disruptive, I hope you look over my contributions as well. I think my participation on this project and elsewhere speaks for itself. --Robert Horning (talk) 20:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Franklin County, Idaho[edit]

Hi Robert. Would you please consider adding your name as a photographer to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs in Franklin County, Idaho and any other Idaho county that you typically take photographs in. Thanks. GregManninLB (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AGI.gif[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:AGI.gif. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

AMBASSADORS GROUP - dba - PEOPLE TO PEOPLE et al (Student, Sports, Leaders etc.)[edit]

The posting for People to People Student Ambassadors continues to read like an ad for the organization rather than reality. The organization is being sued for wrongful death, fraud, false advertising, invasion of privacy and more. See

People to People International, Ambassadors Group dba People to People Student Ambassadors has received multiple complaints from Attorney Generals but continue to solicit kids under the guise of President Eisehower's legacy selling peace for profit. Read Lisa McCormick's article at Consumer Affairs:

No Articles of Incorporation for People to People International cite President Dwight D. Eisenhower as founder, ever (See State of Kansas).

The New York Times posted an article June 10, 1957 captioned "People to People Organization Ended by Its Board". The most recent edition, People to People International was founded by Joyce Hall in the early 60's. Therefore the company(s) cannot be 50 years old.

-- (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Sheryl Hill

Great article/response to Harrow re: Adbusters[edit]

It was nice to read such a refreshing and well informed article/response to the "anti-hipster" article in Adbusters. I'm looking forward to seeing the aftermath here in Wikipedia in one form or another. I already noticed a link to the article. cheers. Leigh8959 (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

As flattered as I am about this comparison, and I have posted some articles/blogs/responses in some rather public places, this particular reference was written by another Robert Horning of whom I have no close relationship (that I'm aware of). I looked up this article by "Rob Horning" (a name variant that I sometimes use) and read this particular "anti-hipster" article. It was indeed well written, but I'm not that same person. I wish I could claim prose that well written as my own.
Thanks for pointing out this particular individual, and I hope that my writings haven't been unfairly compared to his either. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mecc.gif)[edit]

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Mecc.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Idaho in the American Civil War[edit]

Thanks for your recent edits to this article! As I said in Talk:Idaho in the American Civil War I don't know much about the Civil War, so I can't say anything about the article's accuracy before or after your edits, but time and other editors who know much more that I (like you seem to do) will take care of that. I'm glad to see someone taking the difficult path and trying to improve the article, rather than saying "let's delete it because it's wrong" as one might do because that's easier. Thanks again, and I hope you continue to improve this and other Civil War articles. Joeblow179350 (talk) 13:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)


I have reverted this addition as that box is for nominations of the article itself, not for AfD nominations of other articles. The AFD in question that you linked had too many articles nominated for it to be relevant, and none of the keep arguments addressed the specific notability of Wikijunior. naerii 17:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated it. naerii 19:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Bear River massacre[edit]

Sorry. I have edited 1,000s of articles over the last few years; I simply forgot my past involvement in this issue and shot from the hip (if you'll excuse the expression :-)

Obviously I know that these battles were contemporaneous with the Civil War. I still don't think that makes them part of it. The only connection is the time frame and one of the combatants. Nor do I see why we should rely exclusively on official National Park Service or U.S. Department of Defense definitions which appear to be matter of convenience, rather than logic.

Anyway I will gladly defer to American sensibilities on this. Grant | Talk 04:32, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Metrodyne>Why did you move the Deseret story about the torture of the girl out of the article? It is probably one of the most important factors that contributed to the massacre especially where it was reported in the newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Metrodyne Response to your posting to my talk page> was not a letter to the editor. It was an article written in the Deseret News that quotes a letter that was written by a military official (I do not have the Deseret News articel to verify this now) I believe. It is an iron clad source where the incident was investigated by the US Calvary. Noted historian Brigham Madsen writes of it in several of his publications. Anyone can deny anything but if nothing else, the story is important simpley because it appeared in the Deseret News that many people in the area read. How can a source be better than that.

I will add Madsen as a source and see if he cited military documents but how far do we have to go to please you. It seems to me you have a preconcieved notion that Indians were always inocent.

I also think it is wrong to simply remove the entire section and then chalenge me to fix it. If you don't like it, maybe you should fix it. But it has an iron clad source, it is maybe one of the most important facts to the topic, and it should be in the Bear River massecre article! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrodyne (talkcontribs) 20:51, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Early PAF History[edit]

I just update the page with some release history. You mention on the PAF talk page about a Amiga version which I believe is maybe this Family History Genealogy-GM00A5 Family History is an excellent genealogy program that provides Amiga owners with some of the benefits of the (PAF) program of the LDS church.? You also mention you have a sources of info for the Apple II version? Can you share what you know, please? gioto (talk) 06:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting, you're right I need to find some sources, thanks for the leads, I have moved your response to[5] for the PAF article, updated earlier today. Thank you gioto (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Talk:People to People Student Ambassador Program|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Sandbox 03:06, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

thanks for your deletion I made a big mistake, I made a confusion between discovery and disney -- (talk) 09:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ambassadors Group[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Ambassadors Group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Sandbox 03:20, 19 February 2009 (UTC)


I apologize if you believe that your page was falsely tagged however do not accuses me of trying to vandalize a page when i am making a good attempt to keep Wikipedia a useful source on the web. The reason i tagged the page is because of how the article was being writing and there was a huge conflict about the overall article.As per the talk page being tagged that was a mistake and it was removed once that i have noticed what was done. Please don't take this in anyways as a attack to you or anyone else. I do apologize again if you think that it was vandalism however i would have to strongly disagree with your decision to think that however that is your opinion.I would also like to point out by the other two user arguing they have broken the three revert rule which concluded for the page to be temporally locked.

Take care Staffwaterboy Critique Me Guestbook Hate Comments 23:02, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I saw your message on the organic chemistry list's talk page[edit]

The page, being a structured list, qualifies as an outline, and has been reformatted and renamed to Outline of organic chemistry, and added to Wikipedia's Outline of knowledge.

In your message you were concerned about the possibility of the page being deleted. I believe it will be even safer now, as the set of outlines are one of Wikipedia's main contents systems, and have a dedicated team of editors actively developing and monitoring them.

The page still needs work, but now that it is part of the outline set it will no doubt receive more frequent attention (it already has begun to!).

For some examples of the quality we are striving for, see Outline of chemistry, Outline of France, Outline of cell biology, Outline of Japan, Outline of aerospace, Outline of Vatican City, Outline of robotics, Outline of Taiwan, Outline of library science, Outline of Iceland, Outline of self, and Outline of Thailand.

You are welcome to join in and help!

If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note anytime.


The Transhumanist 03:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, it looks like we have a detractor. I don't think he'll be successful, but it is something to be concerned about. I'll post more below. The Transhumanist 22:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

WPOOK update - Has the shit hit the fan? - 05/25/2009[edit]


We've started the next phase[edit]

I was experiencing mental block on the article draft for "outline" and on the outline guideline draft. And this was holding the whole project back. Without these (which are intended to explain the type of lists known as outlines in detail), the danger is higher that a controversy could go the wrong way.

I requested help on them, but there was none forthcoming.

So I went ahead and started us on the next phase of operations without those 2 pages...

Our AWB'ers and I have placed about 1600 notices all over Wikipedia. And the plan is to place several thousand more.

This generated only one complaint, but it was a very vocal one, and attracted a few other detractors who seemed unfamiliar with the concept of hierarchical outlines and their benefits. However, just as many or more editors came to the defense of the OOK, and there was no consensus formed. But, dab is still trying to rally opposition to outlines at the Village Pump. See below...

Administrator noticeboard incident and Village Pump policy discussion[edit]

It appears that the banner placed on the talk page of the Outline of Switzerland caught the attention of an editor named Dbachmann who posted a rather forceful message on my talk page, another on WT:WPOOK, another at WP:VPP, and still another at WP:AN!

He went well out of his way to use negative hype to cause a stir.

It appears that Mr. Bachmann doesn't understand the nature of hierarchical outlines and their applications. And though he implied that he has never seen an OOK outline before, he was involved with a discussion on these when they were called "lists of basic topics".

His primary argument was that outlines were content forks of articles, and violated WP:CFORK.

But "topic lists", of which outlines are a type, have been around for almost as long as Wikipedia, and fall under the WP:LISTS and WP:STAND guidelines. They aren't intended as forks, as they are lists, bringing the benefits of lists to the corresponding subjects, such as grouping and navigation.

Someone suggested an MfD, but lists are articles, and are within the jurisdiction of AfD. Only the portal page, which merely lists the outline articles, falls within the scope of the MfD department.

The administrator's noticeboard was considered the wrong venue for the discussion, and the discussion was closed.

But the discussion at the Village Pump is still active. Hopefully level heads will prevail there too.

Now what?[edit]

We really need to finish the article draft and the guideline. Otherwise there will continue to be confusion.

In a week or two, we'll be posting another 1600 or so notices. It's a good thing we didn't send out 10,000 of them all at once.  :)

The Transhumanist 22:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Outline update - Good news and bad news - 06/08/2009[edit]

The big push continues.

And it seems to be working!

The good news is that there's growing support for outlines, and there are more editors than ever editing them!

The bad news is that the complainers are disproportionately represented on the project's various talk pages. While many editors work diligently on the front end, a handful of complainers are trying to tear down the project behind the scenes. Fortunately, barely enough supporters have been watching those pages that no consensus for moving or merging the outlines has succeeded. So far...

Big problem: ignorance of what outlines are for and their benefits[edit]

Most of the opposition seems to be unaware of the complete range of what outlines are used for. They just don't get it.

This is why it is important to complete the outline article draft. An article with a comprehensive treatment of outlines would be the perfect place to refer anybody unfamiliar with outlines to.

Opposers also don't seem to understand how outlines differ from some other page type that they prefer. Some think articles are good enough as an overview, others think portals are more in-depth, still others think categories or navigation boxes are the most efficient and useful way to organize and present topical information. Some have simply never seen an "Outline of" page before and think they are a new type of page (they've been around under other names since 2001).

If you run across anyone who doesn't understand the role of outlines on Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Why do we have outlines in addition to...? might help reduce their misconceptions or uncertainties about outlines.

On the bright side, you've got to see this...[edit]

To add the outlines and related support pages to your watchlist (takes less than 30 seconds), cut and paste them from Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist into your raw watchlist. For a way to improve the display of your watchlist - by namespace (very useful) - see Watchlist sorter, or use the "super fast upgrade" at WP:OTS.

Or go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist using Related changes (currently without the talk pages) and click on "Related changes" in the toolbox menu on the sidebar on the left side of your screen.

The big push[edit]

The big push started with about a thousand banners and notices being placed on article talk pages all over Wikipedia.

But it didn't stop there...

Welcome our new members...[edit]

The following Wikipedians have joined the OOK team.

Be sure to stop by their talk pages and introduce yourselves.

Enter the mentors![edit]

I asked a bunch of mentors at WP:ADOPT for advice. Several of them answered on my talk page. Most of those who replied were happy to help, and posted some very good ideas. A couple even joined the project.

Here are their ideas, and what is being done about them. A few of the tasks still need volunteers:

Linking to outlines has begun[edit]

To the tops of about 30 subject articles, I placed a test batch of hatnotes leading to the corresponding outlines. The hatnotes look like this:

For a topical guide to this subject, see Outline of X.(Hidden: <!- PLEASE LEAVE THIS LINE IN PLACE because it leads to the page that serves as the table of contents for Wikipedia's overall coverage of this subject. Thank you.-->

The rationale for the hatnotes is that each outline is a topical guide for its subject, and since tables of contents go at the front of a book, a link to each outline should be placed at the front of its subject.

Unfortunately, not all editors agree. Some of the hatnotes have already disappeared.  :(

Some past discussions pertaining to the existence or location of outlines[edit]

Note that the "Lists of topics" are of two types, including outlines and indexes, so discussions to remove, move, or merge those are usually relevant to the OOK. Also, outlines are a type of list, so discussions that affect lists in general also pertain to outlines. We've got to be on our toes!

I've excluded links to live discussions, out of respect for WP:CANVASS.

Table of contents to OOK-related stuff[edit]

Here's a directory of outline support pages:

Keep up the great work![edit]

The Transhumanist 04:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

WPOOK advert banner under development, here's the beta...[edit]

Thank you to those who suggested WPOOK have an animated advert banner. Penubag got working on it right away. Here's what he's come up with so far:

Penubag needs feedback.

I've posted a few changes for him to make to it.

Please post additional comments and suggestions for him at User talk:Penubag#Chocolate banner.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 02:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline collaboration![edit]

As you know, Penubag is working on a banner to advertise the Outline WikiProject. And he's almost done.

The banner prominently presents the "Outline of chocolate", which of course will become the most widely advertised outline as soon as the banner goes live. The first thing many editors will do after seeing the banner is look for that outline.

The problem is, we don't have one.

So that's our first outline collaboration!

I started a draft this morning.

It needs to be finished and moved to the article namespace before we can start using Penubag's banner ad!

Come join in on the fun. It's chocolate!

The Transhumanist 21:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

WPOOK's advert banner is done![edit]


Is it perfect? Can it be improved?

Penubag loves feedback. Please let him know if it can be further improved.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 23:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline update - Full Steam Ahead! - 06/18/2009[edit]

Several members of the WikiProject have been hard at work.

Buaidh has been building and refining the outlines on the U.S. States, the states' historical outlines, and the Historical outline of the United States. Lately, his edits have dominated the project's watchlist readout. (I think he's overdue for a barnstar or two. hint hint)

Penubag has been working on medals for all the main branches of the OOK, and has completed the OOK WikiProject's animated advert banner (see below).

Highfields has been filling in the currencies for each country on their respective outlines.

NuclearWarfare and Thehelpfulone have been busy with WP:AWB, posting banners and notices, and helping our sister project, the Index WikiProject, get established. Indexes work hand-in-hand with the outlines and are prominently linked to from the top of most of them. And the outlines, which serve as tables of contents, are only as good as the pages they link to.

Since we started integrating (linking) the OOK and its support pages into the encyclopedia and into the Wikipedia community, activity on outlines has been increasing. Though there's still much left to do.

But I digress. There are a couple more...

Welcome our new members! Stefan and MacMed[edit]

Stefan is building the Outline of sharks.

MacMed has joined our advanced wiki-tools team, and is currently adding links to outlines in the corresponding subject articles' see also sections.

Be sure to stop by their talk pages and say "hi".

WPOOK's advert banner has gone live![edit]

Penubag has finished this WikiProject's animated advert banner, and it is now being displayed on the Wikipedia ads template which in turn is displayed on about 2000 user pages. Each time someone access one of those pages, there is a 1 in 184 chance of them viewing this:

If you'd like to display the banner on your userpage locked-on to the ad as above, use the following code:

{{Wikipedia ads|ad=184}}

(By the way, it's been awhile since we've barnstarred Penubag).

Watchers needed![edit]

If you haven't already, please add the entire project's watchlist to your watchlist. Here's how:

From the edit window, copy and paste Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist into your raw watchlist.
Or go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Outline of knowledge/Watchlist using Related changes and click on "Related changes" in the toolbox menu in Wikipedia's sidebar on the left hand side of the screen.

Check the watchlist every time you log on![edit]

I forgot to mention this step above.  :)

The OOK is in 5 other Wikipedias?[edit]

I can't make heads or tails of 'em, but these links were on Portal:Contents/Outline of knowledge:

Resurrected from the grave yard...[edit]

I discovered an AfD discussion on possibly the first article named "Outline of", which was called Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics, and which was created 4 years ago. Of course they deleted it. But now it has many friends, and so it has risen from the dead.  :)

See the DRV discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 7#Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics.

A diamond buried in project space[edit]


Recruiters needed. Drop me a note if you are interested.

Advice from the mentors[edit]

  • Astatine-210, Strdst grl, and Willscrlt - link to the outlines from the corresponding subject articles' see also sections - this is underway by MacMed (non-country outlines) and User talk:NuclearWarfare (counry outlines).
  • Astatine-210 - add a link to the outlines to the disambiguation pages of the corresponding subjects - good idea. Since "Outline" is just the type of page, not the subject, I think these might qualify for inclusion on disambiguation pages. We need someone to look into the relevant guidelines on this.
  • SimonTrew - provide a badge (userbox) for WPOOK members to add to their user pages - Penubag will have one for us soon.
  • Zachary crimsonwolf - create a card explaining outlines, and send it to everyone you know, and make it viral (by including a request for the recipients to send the card to everyone they know) - this task has been split in three:
  1. Creation of a "thank you for your interest" card which introduces (explains) outlines, to send to queriers, new participants to discussions, those who seem to be confused about outlines, etc.
  2. Creation of a thank you card / invitation to the WPOOK, to send to users we see working on outlines, including a request for them to invite others whom they think might be interested
3. Creation of an invitation to Wikignomes, with a brief rundown on the types of tasks there are for them to do on the outlines. The invitation will include a request for them to invite anyone they think would enjoy working on outlines.
  • weebiloobil - add examples to Wikipedia:Outlines - more examples will be added as suitable outlines are completed
  • weebiloobil - add a picture to Wikipedia:Outlines (it doesn't have to be relevant), to provide atmosphere and to break it up visually and add a splash of color - will do, and we'll add a caption to make it relevant, with a link to the outline on that subject. Thank you for the idea.
  • Zachary crimsonwolf - ask Jimbo Wales to bestow the award(s) for the country outlines contest, once you get it going first - we'll give that a try
  • Zachary crimsonwolf - ask everyone in the project to inform their acquaintances around Wikipedia about the OOK - will do, as soon as the cards
  • UzEE - collaborate with all the WikiProjects you share scope with - we've placed a banner on their talk pages, and have placed task notices on some. We'll be posting more tasks, and plan to create a section on contents system development and maintenance for each WikiProject page itself.
  • SriMesh - if you can't get outlines added to next year's WikiCup, then create your own WikiCup-like contest - there's 6 months left to this year to address reservations and work out the details at WikiCup. In the meantime, there's the 200-WikiProject contest, which needs input.

More outline tasks[edit]

New outlines in article space[edit]

New outline drafts[edit]

Main discussion pages[edit]

Keep up the great work[edit]

I'm impressed with the level of enthusiasm and work going into the outlines. I'm proud to be working with each of you.

The Transhumanist 22:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline collaboration #2: Outline of Gibraltar[edit]

This outline is approaching completion.

I added a bunch more links, finding them with the following Google site-specific searches of Wikipedia:

(You can use the wikicode for the links above as the basis for new searches - just replace "Gibraltar" with any other country or region name).

Request: please redirect the redlinks! (bluelinking...)[edit]

The redlinks need to be bluelinked where possible. The most useful way is to create redirects leading to the material (which is usually included in a section of an article - see Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects to page sections. That way, when the redirect pages are replaced by the actual articles, the links will already point to the right places.

Please take a crack at it, and bluelink a few.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Have fun.

The Transhumanist 01:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: on an unrelated matter, where should the Outline of chocolate be placed on the OOK? -TT

I finally got to whack somebody with a trout![edit]

That was fun.  :)

The Transhumanist 23:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Outline update - Push push push - 06/25/2009[edit]

Work is proceeding apace...

New members

The current consensus is that we can't place a hatnote leading to an outline at the top of a subject articles unless the outline being presented is of at least the same quality-level as the article.

What's next...

Improve outline quality by completing them.

Place hatnotes for the outlines of high enough quality.

Guidelines pertaining to outlines need to be updated. Outlines emerged as a class of pages only a few months ago, and most of the relevant guidelines don't cover them specifically. For example, Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists is incredibly out of date.

Invite wikignomes, wikielves, and wikifairies (all 2500+ of them) to help on the outlines .

Identify 600 more subjects with coverage extensive enough to justify outlines, create rudimentary drafts for them, and post notices to the corresponding WikiProjects and subject talk pages to help build them.

Convert outlines titled "List of" to outline articles, and add them to the OOK. There are a few hundred of these. Conversion instructions are needed.

Add a description of outlines to About Wikipedia and Wikipedia:Basic navigation, and add tips about outlines to the WP:TOTD and Tips library.

Keep up the great work!

The Transhumanist 20:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for feedback[edit]

Minnecologies has done an incredible amount of work on Outline of forestry and posted a note to me on my talk page requesting feedback.

I've posted my observations at Talk:Outline of forestry#Finished outline review.

Please take a look at the outline and let Minnecologies know what you think of it on the outline's talk page.

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 19:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Delivered by JCbot (talk) at 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC).

Outline Update - Exhausted - 07/10/2009[edit]

I'm sorry that I haven't been available to assign tasks lately. For the past 3 days (not including today) I've been almost totally consumed in discussions concerning the location and very existence of outlines. Today I finally broke free and got back to work on outlines. Felt good.

A great deal has been happening with outlines and behind the scenes. I just don't have time to tell you all about it this time around. Here's the best I can do...

How to watch what's going on with outlines

If you'd like a bird's eye view of everything that's happening with respect to outlines, see this page:

  • WP:OOKWL - watchlist for copying and pasting into your raw watchlist.

Or go to these pages (and click on "Related changes" in the sidebar's toolbox menu):

  • WP:OOKRC - a version of the above watchlist for use with "Related changes".
  • WP:OOKDIR - a list of key pages related to the OOK, along with their shortcuts.
  • WP:OOKDISC - list of discussions pertaining to outlines.
Recently converted to outlines

These outline articles, which were named "List of...", have been converted to an OOK format:

Recently merged into outlines

There are a lot of "List of" articles that are outlines. Some of them are on the same subjects as the "Outline of" articles. The following one have been recently merged:

The Transhumanist 01:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Outline Update - Basking in the light of knowledge - 07/28/2009[edit]

Phase two of outline integration (de-orphanizing outlines by adding links leading to them into article see also sections) is nearly complete. The better that outlines are integrated into the encyclopedia, the more use they will be to readers.

Due to greater exposure through outline integration, and with most of the OOK team on school summer vacation, development activity on outlines has increased a lot...

New members
Be sure to welcome our newest members to the team:
News: Outline of Palestine survives AfD
The outline was nominated for deletion for being too general in scope. The consensus was overwhelmingly for keeping it.
The most memorable comment was posted by Mandsford: I like the poetic name, anyway. [Outline of Palestine]. "Master Plan of Pakistan" and "Rough Sketch of Bangladesh" would be good too.
Special thanks to Tiamut for greatly improving the outline, and helping to save it from AfD.
To keep track of outline AfDs and other outline-related discussions, see WP:OOKDISC.
Who's active on Wikipedia this summer?
Courtesy of Rich Farmbrough, here's a list of editors by their edit counts over the previous month (8th June to 8th July).
It would be nice to get the most prolific Wikipedians involved with WP:WPOOK. If you can, find a good reason to contact one or more of them, and invite them to work on a relevant outline - or all 500!
Who's been up to what?
  • Buaidh, Highfields, and Gimme danger have been working on the government sections of the country outlines. Being that there are about 240 of these, with critical information being filled in on each, this is by far the hardest and most important chore of this WikiProject right now.
  • Penubag is working on a redesign of the top OOK page.
  • Tiamut has done an incredible job developing the Outline of Palestine.
  • And kudos also go to Eu.stefan for his work on Outline of Buddhism.

Thank you.

Here's what else has been going on...

New outlines
Recently created outlines include:
Recently converted to outlines
These outline articles, which were named "List of...", have been converted to an OOK format and added to the OOK:
Recently merged into outlines
There are a lot of "List of" articles that are outlines. Some of them are on the same subjects as the "Outline of" articles. The following articles have been recently merged into OOK pages:
Outlines that have been tagged
Tags are requests to fix a problem or improve an article in a particular way. Unless we want the tags to sit there for an extended period of time cluttering up the outlines (we don't), it is up to us to fulfill those requests or attend to underlying misassumptions (if any).
I can't stress enough the importance of watching
With so many outlines (now over 500), and a growing number of support pages (guidelines, wikiproject pages, etc.), I can no longer keep up. I need your help watching over it all.
If you'd like to omnisciently view everything "from above", see this page:
  • WP:OOKWL - watchlist for copying and pasting into your raw watchlist.
Or go to these pages (and click on "Related changes" in the sidebar's toolbox menu):
  • WP:OOKRC - a version of the above watchlist for use with "Related changes".
  • WP:OOKDIR - a list of key pages related to the OOK, along with their shortcuts.
  • WP:OOKDISC - list of discussions pertaining to outlines.
What's next?

There are a lot of contradictions in guidelines related to outlines. I'll be turning my attention to fixing those.

The number of "Outline of" articles is rapidly catching up to portals, and will probably pass them by the end of the summer!

Keep up the excellent work.

The Transhumanist 01:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

We're working on something special...[edit] award Buaidh for all his hard work.

It's at User:Penubag/Sandbox3.

But it's not done yet. Feel free to help improve it.

I'm hoping that everyone involved with the WP:WPOOK will sign it (please sign without a timestamp).

Thank you.

The Transhumanist 23:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OOK collaboration: Outline of knowledge (eom)[edit]

Delivered by –Juliancolton | Talk at 21:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Fluidic Energy[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

A tag has been placed on Fluidic Energy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. PhGustaf (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Fluidic Energy[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Beagel (talk) 09:57, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Robert, I agree with your concern about rapid deletion proposals. i suspect someone saw your initial mini-stub and assumed a promotional article. i would have added the template "Under construction" (article examples here: Category:Pages actively undergoing construction (this was hard to find, i couldnt remember what this tag was called), or i would have created a longer stub in my sandbox first, so the good faith deletionists scanning new articles would see a more complete article. I still am tending towards deletion, but i am open to other opinions. this is obviously not a trivial article on a tv character or something, so it deserves serious attention.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Capsule - Good edit[edit]

You added the part about the PICA shield and lunar/Mars re-entry only a couple hours before I was going to and you implemented it better than I would have.--Craigboy (talk) 10:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Image research.[edit]

thanks for the encouragement. I think I've added Wikipedia items; and now I have a free source email confirmation (with attribution) from the Missouri Parks (state government)for the Missouri State Guard flag on their webpage ...gonna try before I come back to you. Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 02:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Awarded to Robert Horning for caring about, and cogently and passionately advocating for, the rights and feelings and experience of new article contributors Herostratus (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I'm becoming a convert. Thanks.

Just woolgathering, I came up with a few other policy or technical solutions (or partial solutions) to this problem, but they'd never fly so I won't even write them.

The best solution might be a human solution: a corps of editors, possibly organized around a WikiProject, dedicated to checking each nominated article (or: a random selection) and educating/chastising/sanctioning bad nominators and apologizing to the creators of those articles. I would be willing to participate in such a WikiProject but not lead or be more than an occasional contributor.

On thing I am going to check, soon, if it is possible to get a database report showing all users who have nominated X (10 or more?) articles for deletion, sorted descending by the percentage of those articles that currently exist (and are not redirects). The top of this list would be a crude but useful pointer to some editors who should be looked at more closely. I don't know if it's possible to get "has nominated for deletion", but I bet the code wizards could seek for certain strings. It might break the servers. I'm going to look into it. Cheers, Herostratus (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Received your note, am a bit swamped right now, look forward to giving it my full attention soonest. Herostratus (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You shouldn't keep deleting the BitCoin article just because *you* are not interested[edit]

I'm restoring that article again.

I know your intentions are good, trying to keep Wikipedia free of irrelevant articles, but this isn't one. There are numerous articles linking to BitCoin *from within Wikipedia*. Googling for Bitcoin gives 13 000 results. It's an honest effort to fix the fiat money systems which cheat those who still have money out of their savings. Fiat money systems (Dollars, Euros, you name it) are maintained by shifting wealth from those who can save to those who can't. BitCoin is an honest effort to fix that. It's not yet widespread but suppressing it won't help that case.

The Bitcoin article has several contributors, images and references. An honest effort went into creating and updating it. Just because there is a single button that you can press which *poooof* it makes the article disappear, there's no reason to keep applying it overzealously.

You know very well that articles that are *there* in the first place, they are improved much more frequently than those that are constantly hidden by deletions.

Please respect the work of others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ShoWPiece (talkcontribs) 21:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Road bump[edit]

Robert Horning, I saw your statement about creating a "road bump on good faith efforts to create new articles", can you point me to that? I think it's a good idea, and would like to help. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


It shows (recommended) Do not misunderstand. I am talking about 'recommendation of images', not the old topic. Recommendation have nothing on relicensing. If you have arguments, speak it in village pump. This is possible, I am not spamming Don't be selfish and rude in licensing. If you have arguments that cannot be put in village pump, just talk me. Copyleft is not freedom. Continuation of copyleft in software results in:

LGPL->GPL->NO proprietary->no profit->no programmers->loss of hardware companies->deletion of IT sector->End of humanity and human technology

This is of that kind. note that I am not saying to stop copyleft, but to keep it in control.

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Robert Horning. You have new messages at Rishikeshan's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I strongly disagree with your premise here, but I'll leave that alone. As for recommended licenses, a public domain license is one of those that are suggested... if you choose to go that route. I happen to agree with the philosophy of open source content and redistribution, particularly as it applies to Wikipedia so you aren't winning me over here on this issue. --Robert Horning (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Incubating Bitcoin[edit]

That was a good suggestion, and I have done it. The draft is now at WP:Article Incubator/Bitcoin, with a link there from its old location. Thanks! JohnCD (talk) 22:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Bitcoin talk page[edit]

Was this edit at the DRV you? If so, thanks for the heads-up; I have restored the history of the talk page, excepting only some rants, not really relevant to the history, which were placed on the main talk page at times when the article and its "real" talk page, were userfied or in the incubator. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

December 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Bitcoin are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Polargeo (talk) 16:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry that I have templated your talkpage so here is a personal message. You really should not discuss in depth your own personal views on a topic on the talkpage. That is not what the talkpage is for. Thanks Polargeo (talk) 16:07, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
I was responding to an assertion, which was attempting to make a change to the article based upon a point of view alone rather than based upon any sort review of the sources, and seemed to be uninformed about the topic. If attempting to stop such changes is wrong, I guess I don't understand Wikipedia. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Okay but you should say as much rather than going into personal debates. I have brought the initial assertion into the collapsed discussion. Polargeo (talk) 16:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Straighten out some things[edit]

I just thought I should straighten some things out. I am not an admin. Even if I was it would make no difference because I am now an involved user with regard to both Genjix and the Bitcoin article. Also you were incorrect in your comments on User talk:Genjix/Carl Sagan quotes formatted for EBooks I will comment there. Polargeo (talk) 06:59, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I have increased the hidden text on the Bitcoin talkpage to include your comment. This is because your comment [6] is clearly about me and not specifically about the content of the article. It could be regarded as a personal attack. Not that I think it is a particularly bad personal attack but more that the article talkpage is just not the venue for this sort of diversion. Polargeo (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


Regarding this edit. Please read the whole of the essay WP:OWN and you will see it is the bitcoiner's who are clearly owning the article and not me. It is that sense of ownership that makes it so difficult to accept my attempts to help the article to conform with our standards. Also read the whole of WP:EL. Polargeo (talk) 06:42, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is also not acceptable to undo my edit with a dig against me in the edit summary. Polargeo (talk) 08:25, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please stop this, if you continue to try and say that I am owning the article as part of a WP:personal attack against me I will seek further help in preventing this. Also it is considered rude to WP:SHOUT and does not make your point any more correct. Polargeo (talk) 22:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

/* Removal of Omniscience from List of private spaceflight companies */[edit]

Hello, Robert Horning. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 05:30, 14 February 2011 (UTC). 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.
Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Robert Horning. You have new messages at Stratsoloer91's talk page.
Message added 16:22, 14 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't have anything to say, but I was looking over some of your past comments in connection with a comment I made here, and I just wanted to say I appreciate both the urgency and cogency of your points re not being bite-y to new users. Hope your Wiki'ing is merry and productive, cheers, Herostratus (talk) 16:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

BLP, ethnicity, gender[edit]

Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Include "ethnicity, gender," to match all other guidelines

Wikilawyers have been trying to drive through a wording loophole in WP:BLP, saying ethnicity and gender of WP:EGRS don't apply to living persons, simply because the two words aren't in the policy. (Apparently, they think it should only apply to dead people.) I see that you have participated on this topic at the Village Pump.

They also are trying to remove the notability, relevance, and self-identification criteria at WT:EGRS, but that's another fight for another day, I'm simply too busy to watch two fronts at the same time.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

James Webb Saved[edit]

All about Andy TheGrump[edit]

Sorry, but I draw you in here [7] [8]

--POVbrigand (talk) 23:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011 Newsletter for WikiProject United States[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The December 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) 01:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:RSN for Energy Catalyzer[edit]

If you could spare the time, please could you give your input to the discussion here? Thank you. (talk) 08:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Robert Horning. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Representation.
Message added Whenaxis about talk contribs 02:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi. I appreciate your feedback. Now that I see your talk page, I know what your inspiration is. If you look at my talk page archives here. I know all too well what you and new editors are experiencing. I feel for what you say... please see my comment [see Talkback above]. Thank you! Whenaxis about talk contribs 02:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap license[edit]

Hello Robert!

I'm working on OpenStreetMap, and a user with the same name as you have made quite a lot of contriubtions. If that is not you, then please discard this message :)

If it is you, I wanted to ask if you already know that OpenStreetMap is asking existing contributors to re-license their contributions under a new license, which is more suitable for our data. (OSM wants to change the current Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 (CC-BY-SA 2.0) to Open Database License (ODbL) 1.0.)

Maybe you've reasons why you did not accept it already. Perhaps you could tell me.

You can read more about the license change here:

You can accept the new license here (if you're logged in):

I hope to hear from you. --Ojan (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012 Newsletter for WikiProject United States and supported projects[edit]

WikiProject United States logo.svg

The January 2012 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.

--Kumi-Taskbot (talk) 19:36, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

Request for your participation[edit]

As a frequent or occasional editor of U.S. election-related articles, your participation in this discussion would be helpful and appreciated.--JayJasper (talk) 05:33, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Robert Horning. You have new messages at DarthBotto's talk page.
Message added 22:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

DarthBotto talkcont 22:31, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


I reply to this sentence: "Oh yeah, I would call eeTimes and as much more reliable than especially in light of even your own suggestion that there is nothing at all going on." here and not in talk page of the E-Cat just only for not starting heavy off-topic discussions. You have to agree that actually everything is based on the declarations of Rossi. Even Bardi, that believes E-Cat is a hoax, doesn't say "I think that it is an hoax because it is against all the physics laws" or "I think that it is an hoax because I have secretly seen the inside and there is nothing". He says "I believe that it is an hoax just because the Rossi's declarations are too contradictory". Everything is based on his declarations, and once that you say "they are not reliable" the whole article falls down. That is also one of the reason why I opened the AfD the last week. Consider furthermore that we are just discussing about the inventor, only Rossi and Focardi know who is the inventor, and both of them agree on Rossi. You will ask why this point is so important. I don't know, but I have the impression (mine and unsupported :-) ) that Focardi is being used for increasing the E-Cat credibility. --TheNextFuture (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

I could say this about a great many topics which are covered on Wikipedia, including flat out fiction such as The Lord of the Rings or Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Even if the e-Cat is a work of fiction, it still deserves to be covered as a topic.
As for Focardi, he did perform some genuine science in terms of investigating an obscure physical science phenomena. It is entirely possible that Rossi is taking this very real phenomena and riding on the coat tails of Focardi. If so, it is sad that Rossi has destroyed this scientists career and reputation. If anything, that too should be a part of the story of the e-Cat, if only as a cautionary tale of what a scientist should not do when encountering a snake oil salesman. You haven't convinced me this is a topic which should not be covered, only perhaps the direction of the article alone. --Robert Horning (talk) 16:09, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that everybody believe that The Lord of the Rings exists as book, but a lot of people do not believe that the E-Cat exists as cold fusion/LERN/heat source/whateveryoulike device. Everybody instead believe that Rossi has done several claims in the context of a new energy device. The different is subtle, but important. I understand what you mean, moreover we don't know if it is an hoax, and in my personal and unsupported opinion we will never know it. In some point in any case the article should be drastically reorganized. --TheNextFuture (talk) 14:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Ticker symbols in article leads and next steps[edit]

Hi. I'm contacting you as you participated in the policy village pump discussion regarding ticker symbols in article leads.

I've posted a section here about next steps to take, specifically examining whether an RFC is needed to reach a clear consensus on this issue. If you have the time and/or inclination to weigh in, please do! --MZMcBride (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle[edit]

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited
Seattle Public Library
  • Date Saturday, December 8, 2012
  • Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m.
  • Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104
  • Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand.
  • Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki.
  • Registration or use on-wiki regsistration.

Yours, Maximilianklein (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Golden Spike Company for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Golden Spike Company 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/Golden Spike Company 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 template from the top of the article. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Golden Spike Company, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Robert Walker and Jonathan Clark (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) 11:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Golden Spike[edit]

Good day, Robert. I added three links to Golden Spike Company from other space articles Private spaceflight, NewSpace, and List of current and future lunar missions. I'm sure there are many more, but that's a start. Cited all of them with the post-news conference article in Wired Magazine. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


Hey thanks for the thanks. It's appreciated. I had come across the photograph with the tipis previously. Here is an example: [9] (if you click and drag to your desktop, the image can be displayed at a higher resolution than the image on Wikipedia). ...I did notice that they labeled with the date 1868 instead of 1870. And here is yet a third view from a different angle of the same Shoshone camp: [10]. Take care. Evenrød (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Robert Horning. You have new messages at Galactic Suite Design's talk page.
Message added 04:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I've added a comment to something you wrote their a LONG time ago. Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC) N2e (talk) 04:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

AFC Debate[edit]

Thank you for your support as I feel this is vital for all of us. As difficult as it maybe you have to ignore personal attacks and stay focused on the subject. Remember a personal attack or belittling your opinion's objective is to downplay the facts. I try to stay focused on the subject and facts and stick to those. There are more then just a few of us who want this changed, that's why I started the whole debate. I am confident that our arguments present the clear dangers of AFC and that policy will be changed to bypass it. Tyros1972 Talk 22:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


Stupidest answer on WP:VE/FAQ. It's controversial to say the least.

On the upside, there's a fix ready to launch. It's been repeatedly delayed, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

RE: Headaches with regards to Lynx (spacecraft)[edit]

The admins at AN are completely unaware of what's happening at Lynx (spacecraft) and probably don't even know the article exists. If there are conduct issues, you need to spell them out and back them up with specific diffs. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Request comment on an article you have previously engaged with on the Talk page[edit]

Following the completion of a previous BRD on Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) (link to previous discussion here), where User:Skyring (aka "Pete") was unable to gain a consensus on changing the lede sentence descriptive noun in the Lynx (spacecraft) article from "spaceplane" to "concept" (originally changed by Skyring/Pete on 12 Oct), Skyring/Pete has again made a Bold edit and changed the descriptive noun in the lede sentence, this time from "spaceplane" to "program."

I have opened a WP:BRD discussion on this second change. Would appreciate it if you would consider weighing in. The Link to the BRD discussion is here. Thanks for your consideration. N2e (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(full disclosure: I'm placing this notice on each user's Talk page who has been active on Talk:Lynx (spacecraft) in the past six months)

Lynx spacecraft[edit]

Thank you very much Robert for your helpful involvement in the recent disruption over at Lynx (spacecraft). I have just closed the third of three BRDs on that Talk page (the more complicated one, in which a number of primary sources had been deleted). On each one of those three BRDs, no consensus emerged to support the original edits. Your part in the wikidiscussion is very much appreciated.

Since the comments on the use of primary sources were spread all over that Talk page, I have endeavored to summarize the consensus that emerged in a section on that Talk page: Talk:Lynx_(spacecraft)#Use_of_Primary_sources. If you might be willing to review that summary, and comment on whether it got the consensus right, I would very much appreciate it. I will of course quite look forward to fixing it if I got anything wrong. Cheers. N2e (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I do not entirely disagree with you[edit]

I am not sure in the Wiki-PR article, you cam achieve what yo propose, but, if you can, and if it is well referenced I will look at it with interest. My basis for disagreement is that I doubt that the corporation itself is genuinely notable, but you may be able to convince me. Not that I am important, of course, I'm just one of us.

As a side issue, have you considered auto-archiving your talk page? If you want to and need some help I can give you a hint or 6. Fiddle Faddle 17:57, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

As for archiving my talk page.... please leave it alone. I have been around long enough to handle that and I don't think it is needed. I'll take care of that when I feel inclined, if ever.
I'll try to work on the notability of this company. There are currently sufficient links to at least cover the basics of WP:NOTE, but I would agree that it seems like a one-time event sort of thing. Give me a chance though rather than fighting through talk pages. --Robert Horning (talk) 18:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I'd never touch your talk page without permission. It just felt longer than many. :) Your page, your rules.
From my perspective take the time you need on the article. Ideally take a step back and approach it as a clinical exercise. I noticed you felt rather involved and insulted. So I will tell you that I have no intention of doing a thing with the NPOV banner either way. You made a better point by adding it and having it reverted (etc) than you possibly could have by just adding it. You have achieved a conversation which may bear important fruit. It may go the way you hope or not, but it is happening.
Since you've been around a while you probably know instinctively that the only thing to take personally on Wikipedia is praise. I can see that you felt attacked with the edit summary. Just please do not let that cloud your judgment. I know you won;t, but, well, you know... Fiddle Faddle 18:42, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
I just dropped by to say that the suggestion I made on the article talk page is intended to be genuinely helpful. I can, however, see that it is a draconian step. It is, however, the way more than your own thoughts on the article are heading. Pretty obviously it is not outside my own thoughts, too. Fiddle Faddle 18:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)


Given it's been kept at MfD, I've reposted a proposal to tighten it. See header. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:49, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Notice on Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia[edit]

Hello, I would like to inform you that a requested move proposal has been started on the Wiki-PR editing of Wikipedia talk page. I have sent you this message since you are a user who has participated in one or more of these discussions. Thank you for reading this message. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-PR edit warring[edit]

I do not know your "position" on Wiki-PR, so this is not a canvassing attempt. I would just like more eyes on the edit dispute taking place here and specifically here. I get the feeling that (as usual) Smallbones and Coretheapple are tag-teaming to keep a particular "revenge" POV in Wikipedia about paid editing, to the detriment of a wider NPOV perspective. Do your own analysis of the situation, and please weigh in on whatever side your conscience dictates. - I'm not that crazy (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SpaceX, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mark Bailey (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) 09:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

An old hello[edit]

Hi Robert! We miss you over on the RuneScape Wiki. It's been a while, and I saw you had edited here recently and just wanted to say hello and see how you're doing. CookMePlox (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Stewards doing xwiki admin check[edit]

Hi Robert Horning. Stewards are undertaking further works on inactive admins through the wikis, and I see that you are

  • admin at

at that wiki you have been inactive for many years. If you do not wish to maintain those rights, then they can be resigned at m:SRP; if you do wish to maintain those rights, it would help if you could do some editing on that wiki when we get to do formal notifications to the wiki. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight: Retirement of project member WD Graham[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spaceflight#Retirement_of_project_member_WD_Graham. WD Graham, formerly operating under the editor name of GW Simulations, has retired from Wikipedia. Please pop on over to offer a remembrance, or thanks, or ... (...maybe talk him in to giving it another go.) Thanks. N2e (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 22:17, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Wasatch Front Wicnic 2016[edit]

Please join the discussion regarding a Wasatch Front Wicnic for 2016. We'd love to have you come. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC for page patroller qualifications[edit]

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion.--Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:09, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

List of United States presidential electors, 2016 Article[edit]

Thank you for the barnstar in recognition of my recent edits to the List of United States presidential electors, 2016 article. That list will need to be updated to reflect the recent election results, and any assistance I can get from my fellow Wikipedians like you would be most appreciated.--TommyBoy (talk) 02:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Robert Horning. 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.

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Robert Horning. 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. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)