This user is busy in real life and probably will not respond swiftly to queries.

Archives

Archive 1 9-Sep-2005 to 15-Jun-2007 Archive 2 June 2007 to December 2010

Chris, I just wanted to give you a "heads up" that there's been some aggressive trimming of the "Protein Wisdom (blog)" article. Someone came in and took out some of the old material, but I had the impression that they were a little overaggressive. I attempted to add in a few details and got reverted. Since then I've added some more--more current--material, along with lavish citations/sources. But I'm hoping that the hyperaggressive pruner-of-entries will be happy and not revert all my recent changes. I'm wondering if you might be able to add the PW entry to your watch list and back me up if someone tries to gut it again. Scooge (talk) 01:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've taken a quick look (and deleted one particularly offensive piece of POV). I'll try to do more later. (I want to put back some mention of "the protein wisdom conceptual series" and the "red pills found behind the sofa cushions", or something else which gives readers some idea of Jeff's ...idiosyncratic... approach). But your edits seem good.

IMO the anon is a covert POV-pusher, trying to use Wikipedia to damage a conservative's reputation, a popular pastime these days. I expect he already has an account here. Sigh. CWC 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. He's back now, BTW. I'll poke around there for a little while, and then leave it to you.Scooge (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So I've gone back in and reinstated a lot of the material that was gutted from the entry, including the red pills. I'm afraid that my citation abilities are a little bit shaky, so I'm not positive that everything is back in the right place. Plus, the eviscerator will doubtless be back at some point. When I last reverted him, I pointed out that he can't remove sourced material and references without discussing it on the "talk" page first. We'll see what happens. Scooge (talk) 16:23, 7 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for rescuing my RSM image; I don't know why I couldn't figure out how to get it to show up, once I'd uploaded it. The process seemed intuitive enough in the past, but last night I got hung up--and then my sleeping pill started to kick in, so I realized I was NOT going to figure it out until after I slept.

BTW, the Ann Althouse POV-er is threatening to come back and mess with her entry, but there are already a few of us looking out for that one, so we should be able to deal with it.16:50, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome, Scooge. I saw that you'd had trouble with that image, so I tried to fix it. It took ages! I think the ((infobox journalist)) template is a bit broken. In the end, I found another article that used that template and copied from it.

I don't have Ann Althouse on my watchlist, so I took a quick look. Seems pretty good to me. Also, your comments here are spot-on. I think Prof A practices a certain degree of inscrutability in her politics to get people thinking; that's part of why her blog is so interesting. Cheers, CWC 17:12, 14 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have declined your G4 speedy, after comparing this with the version deleted at AfD a year ago. The reason for deletion was lack of sources: that one had only two references, its own website and IMDb. This one has several more, including claims of 6 million Youtube views and a hoo-hah about allegations of it being censored. I think it is improved enough for G4 not to apply, but feel free to take it back to AfD. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 17:22, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for looking into it. I'll defer to your judgement. Cheers, CWC 18:35, 14 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I've listed you as an example of NPOV reasoning for the consensus in the Sowell article.

See the discussion here.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, I've listed you as an example of NPOV reasoning for the consensus in the Sowell article.

See the discussion here.

CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If this continues I will have to ask for arbitration and a possible comment on your behavior. We reached an agreement in the discussion please abide by it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, this not an NPOV issue, it is an issue of whether MMFA is a WP:RS and of WP:BLP.

Some background: I lost my internet connection on June 23rd, did not regain it until June 29th and am still catching up on my reading (#!#@^&@#$%@ hardware failure), or I would have said a lot more at the NPOVN discussion.

The edit you reverted was intended to be a continuation of our discussion. Inserting any of MMFA's lies about Sowell, even in the form of the title of their lying posts, violates BLP. I would be happy to discuss this at any forum, including RFAR.

In case you haven't noticed, I contend that MMFA are liars. I would be happy to prove this, with copious examples. My aim is to establish a rule that MMFA must never be cited nor mentioned in any Wikipedia article about non-lefties without qualifications such as "MMFA, a bunch of known liars, claimed that X said Obama is just like Hitler", or "MMFA, which conservatives regard as a sleazy, dishonest, hateful propaganda factory[1], claimed that X said Obama is just like Hitler", or something like that. I will therefore remove any mention of MMFA's attacks on conservatives that are not so qualified from any Wikipedia article I find them in. I strongly believe that I am required to do so by BLP (a policy), and that such removals do not count against 3RR.

My proposed rule would result in removal from Wikipedia of attacks that were made only by MMFA. I contend that this filtering effect is how Wikipedia's policies should work. An attack by MMFA that no other RS goes along with has no more relevance to this encyclopedia than Stormfront comments about a non-Aryan person. So the question of whether you can find sources other than MMFA for criticism of Sowell etc is not a side issue but in fact the core issue.

BTW, CartoonDiablo you have been admirably civil during this debate, and I appreciate that. (Also: great username!) Cheers, CWC 08:16, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks and all but the point of having the MMfA citations isn't to use them as a source it's to prove they were against the statements like the DNC. Even if the source was the Flat Earth Society or KKK, whether or not they are "liars" or "lied" is irrelevant, what's relevant is they replied to the statement just like Palin etc. Removing them would be a complete violation NPOV (which is an issue since your making a POV argument against using the source at all) and a misunderstanding of a whole bunch of other policies. CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 07:25, 2 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Conservatism! We are a growing community of editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles related to conservatism. Here's how you can get involved: Many important discussions take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it. Check the Recent changes for vandalism and violations of the neutral point of view policy. Add the project banner ((WikiProject Conservatism)) to conservatism-related articles, and assess them as well. Join fellow members in editing our project-wide article collaboration (the current one is Fusionism). Cleanup some of the articles listed for cleanup. Check out the to do list and complete some of the tasks. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the talk page, and we will be happy to help you. And once again - Welcome! - Addbot (talk) 00:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "I Stick to Science": Why Richard A. Muller wouldn't tell House climate skeptics what they wanted to hear by Michael Lemonick in Scientific American of Richard A. Muller response to skeptics such as Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That? May 25, 2011 99.181.140.195 (talk) 08:57, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  And I reverted, per an accurate analysis of that talk page, even though discussion on that talk page is irrelevant to what goes in the article Stephen McIntyre. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, that news item is probably appropriate for Richard A. Muller (though I haven't followed the discussion there) but not relevant enough for use in any other article.

I guess that the anon sees something in that article that the rest of us don't. Perhaps he/she is less than fluent in English? (though still better at English than I am in any other language, sad to say). Cheers, CWC 11:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion continued at Talk:Stephen McIntyre, copied here for convenient reading (with preceding message for context):

1. No reason for addition, per Talk:Richard A. Muller and Talk:Climate Audit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. The reason, again, is his counterpoint to Stephen McIntyre. 99.181.133.183 (talk) 19:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
3. If you're trying to contrast Muller's approach with McIntyre's, the SciAm news item is not enough, and putting in the article would be WP:Original Research. If you can find an acceptable ("Reliable") source which sets out to compare and contrast Muller & McIntyre, that would be fine. (Plus, I'd like to read such an article.) Hope this helps, CWC 11:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Any comments for Talk:Stephen McIntyre ? Per Talk:Climate_Audit#Add_May_2011_SciAm_article_on_Richard_A._Muller. 99.181.140.243 (talk) 04:54, 15 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Melbourne Meetup v t e Next: Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne/45 - Friday 8 December, 2023 (watch) Last: 18 February 2023
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup at North Melbourne this Saturday (23 July). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 16 Hope to see you there! JVbot (talk) 05:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC) (this automated message was delivered to all users at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne/Participants)Reply[reply]

Hi, sorry to trouble you but a new WP user has come on the Littlejohn article and made massive unsupported changes including restoring the 'Johann Hari' section which you deleted with good reason. He/she seems very determined to get as much negative information in the article as possible. Your support on the Talk:Richard Littlejohn would be appreciated. Thank You Christian1985 (talk) 13:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've commented on the talk page. I'd never heard of Littlejohn until recently, but I did recognise one name: Nick Griffin. (I've been interested interest in far-right groups since my late father helped chase the Australian League of Rights out of the National Party.) In fact, I Googled “"Richard Littlejohn" "Nick Griffin"” to see if there were any decent sources for Littlejohn being Griffin's favourite columnist. Instead, I found this. I suspect Griffin was just trying to appeal to some of Littlejohn's readers; extremists like Griffin are always after marksrecruits. Cheers, CWC 20:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Colleague,

I made small modifications to this page, but want you to know someone posted terms like "neo-con" to describe SSS. My notes can be seen on talk page. Karen KSRolph (talk) 16:07, 4 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for alerting me. Thanks also for your good edits there. I've made some more changes and added a "Warning to Editors" on the talk page.

Someone out there sure hates SSS. Foiling him is tedious but worthwhile. Cheers, CWC 15:39, 15 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chris Chittleborough. I don't think your recent edits are necessarily a particularly good idea, and the edit summaies

• "Restore essential topic re consensus of people who do not have an interest in hiding Steyn's masterful demolition of 2 Canadian lefties"

and

• "Undid revision 452514092 by Herostratus (talk) - all the arguments for the false consensus are invalid or irrelevant; Steyn-denigrators making them have no clue."

are probably not indicative of a WP:NPOV approach. I understand that you may think that Steyn is the bee's knees, but this is probably not the best way to approach the article. The "Much more to come" edit summary on your last edit also gives me pause. How much more? This does not seem to have a been particularly notable incident, which is evidenced partly by the fact that it wasn't discussed in notable press venues. Beyond that, constructs such as "left-wing pro-censorship professor of journalism" and so forth are not usually a good idea, and per WP:BLP are probably not allowable. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but note WP:NPOV as one of the pillars of Wikipedia. Also, Steyn himself is not a reliable source for most matters, see WP:RS.

I went to a lot of trouble to look into this matter and I don't think it's very notable. If you want to refute this, we can talk, which discussion belongs on the article's talk page. Maybe we could run a WP:RFC on the matter or whatever, but the approach of just putting in what you want and only engaging via edit summaries is not recommended and it'd be a good idea of you make the case for the material on the article's talk page before proceeding any further down this path. Herostratus (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did your "lot of trouble" include reading either of Steyn's key responses? How many "apologies" did you read?

To expand on my explanation at Talk:Mark Steyn about getting a clue: In order to judge POV vs NPOV, you have to understand the incident, which requires doing some reading that most of the anti-Steyn editors have obviously failed to do, plus a lot more clue about the conservative blogosphere than any of them have demonstrated. Using the MSM to filter for significance won't work here, as I explained on that talk page.

To understand the timing of the recent censorship push, read this.

A consensus of ignorant anti-Steyn editors cannot be valid. If some of them turn themselves into knowledgeable anti-Steyn editors, that would be different.

About Miller: "left-wing" is easy to get a good cite for, "pro-censorship" is too terse (I was in a hurry) but demonstrably true. Do you know why it is relevant?

Your suggestion that I think "that Steyn is the bee's knees" is insulting, silly and wrong. My main concern is that he has anecdote/data problems: while he is really good with anecdotes, he is often weak on analyzing data.

Censoring this incident from the article would be like omitting USS Frank E. Evans from the HMAS Melbourne (R21) article. It's not the most significant thing about Steyn, but it is important. It has to stay.

CWC 19:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I didn't read any of it. My concern is that it's not notable. Reading a book or whatever doesn't tell me if the book is notable; for that I need evidence of second-party reviews of the book, sales figures, people citing the book, and so forth. Right? No material contains its own proof of notability, as a rule, I'd say. Herostratus (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 2011

FROM THE EDITOR

An Historic Milestone

By Lionelt

Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.

The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."

WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"

PROJECT NEWS

New Style Guide Unveiled

By Lionelt

A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.

I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.

---

ARTICLE REPORT

3,000th Article Tagged

By Lionelt

On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

Hi Chris, I just learned about your brother and I wanted to offer my condolences. I see you're active at Mark Steyn--I'll put it on my watchlist. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:34, 2 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 2011

INTERVIEW

An Interview with Dank

By Lionelt

The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.

Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.

Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.

Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.

If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.

---

DISCUSSION REPORT

Abortion Case Plods Along

By Lionelt

The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page.

Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.

---

PROJECT NEWS

Article Incubator Launched

By Lionelt

Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.

WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.

We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

August 2018

PROJECT NEWS

WikiProject Conservatism faces the ultimate test

By Lionelt

On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.

Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.

In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.

October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

---

DISCUSSION REPORT

Timeline of conservatism is moved

By Lionelt

Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

It's in the passport that he's using as his Facebook profile picture. https://www.facebook.com/jonkay88 Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK! Good work, VoG. Thanks.

I've wrote a short explaination of this at Talk:Jonathan Kay#Middle name.

Also, sorry for forgetting to sign my note on your talk page.

Cheers, CWC 02:05, 2 December 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for doing that - I wasn't aware of the change, and it led me to the new Tinker book by Wen Spencer, Elfhome, which probably should be added to his article. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Baen sent an email to all the webscription customers, of which I am one. So I thought I'd try to update the relevant article(s). I've nearly finished the articles that used to wikilink to Webscriptions. I'll do a quick update on Baen Ebooks then go to bed. It would be great if you could check/correct my work.

BTW, Wen Spencer is a she. (I think Wen is short for Wendy.) Cheers, CWC 15:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. Just inviting you to the Melbourne meetup this Sunday at 11am, to celebrate our 11th anniversary. Details on that page. Hope to see you there! SteveBot (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC) (on behalf of Steven Zhang)Reply[reply]

January 2012

ARTICLE REPORT

Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism

By Lionelt

On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.

Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline.

---

PROJECT NEWS

Project Scope Debated

By Lionelt

Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.

Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.

Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

DISCUSSION REPORT

Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum?

By Lionelt

Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.

The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

Hi All. Just letting you know that we have another meetup planned for Melbourne, on Sunday, 26th February at 11am. More details can be found at the meetup page. Pizza will be provided. Look forward to seeing all of you there :-) SteveBot (talk) 22:53, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey all, just a reminder that there's a meetup tomorrow at 11am in North Melbourne. There are more details at the meetup page. Hope to see you tomorrow! SteveBot (talk) 03:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Scott Ott has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No content

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Sephiroth87 (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chris, thank you for that detailed explanation. I had found difficulties opening file types in the past and wanted to contribute by providing users with a source of info explaining how to do that. Going back I notice I made a mistake in editing the correct pages to begin with. GEO, GEM, GAF and the GB page edits were intended for the file types, I somehow mixed up those acronyms and edited different pages, so sorry about that! It's actually a tad embarrassing! Chris, what if I can't find a Wikipedia page for a particular file type, could I create one? Thanks in advance for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ace Evanso (talk • contribs) 09:57, 8 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome. Clearly you have a lot to offer this project, so I hope you keep contributing. As to the possibility of new articles about particular file types ... it's complicated and lengthy, so I'll reply on your talk page. Cheers, CWC 12:25, 12 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We've had this NPOV discussion before, to the point of settling it in arbitration. If you attempt to make any more violations NPOV it won't be arbitrated and it may result in blocking or banning. CartoonDiablo (talk) 23:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1. You violated NPOV, V, RS and most of all BLP by inserting deceptive, hostile, nasty propaganda by a dishonest nasty, propaganda organization into an article about a living person. Don't do that!
2. Reporting MMfA attacks on Sowell in our article is just like reporting attacks on him by white supremacists. Don't do that!
3. I will, of course, undo your policy violations in that article.
4. What arbitration? Did you mean this NPOVN discussion? Where it was established that you were/are editing against consensus? Note that your latest edit is not consistent with your final comment there.
5. I would be delighted to defend my edits (modulo finding the time) in any appropriate forum, including RFAR.

Good health to you — CWC 05:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Look, this is going to arbitration as well as a comment on your behavior. We've arbitrated the issue ad nausum and a consensus based on violations of NPOV is clearly not legitimate. If you think your KKK comparison will hold up then by all means go argue it but this has gone on long enough. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

The request for arbitration was turned down by the arbitrators. --Guerillero | My Talk 16:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That didn't take long. Thanks, Guerillero. CWC 16:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion moved

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Thomas Sowell". Thank you.

Thanks for your participation there! Doniago (talk) 17:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I had vague plans to edit the relevant articles to mention that Kickstarter project, and was glad to see SoCalSteeler get in first. I think we'll be expanding our coverage some more in the next few weeks. (I now think that the project will have significance beyond Steve Jackson Games and Ogre (game), at least as an example of great 'non-traditional' marketing/customer-relations.) Cheers, CWC 07:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#section name and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CartoonDiablo (talk • contribs) 23:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My response is here. CWC 06:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, At last month's June meetup we discussed the idea of setting up a Training Course at a University of the Third Age (U3A) to be held in 2013 and named Becoming a Wikipedia editor. In order to get this course up and running we are calling for volunteers to help develop the idea, and either tutor part of the course, or provide one on one help to students in the class. All local Wikipedians are welcome to discuss this at our 11am meetup to be held this Sunday on 22 July. Please add your name to the attending list at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 23. Food and beverages are provided. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 02:19, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited JAR (file format), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Solaris (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) 11:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Melbourne Meetup Next: 6 January 2013 at La Trobe City Campus Previous: 25 November 2012 This box: view talk edit

Hi there! You are cordially invited to a meetup next Sunday (6 January). Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 26. Hope to see you there! John Vandenberg 05:03, 27 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Victoria)

Why was legitimate criticism of some of his viewpoints removed? There were 2 primary sources and one secondary. The format wasn't much different from the criticism given by Sam Harris, don't see an issue. Ethanwashere (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have reverted your edit again [2] to The Post-American World. Not liking the reviewer is not a valid reason to remove the review. Has Newsweek retracted the article? Was there something flawed with that specific review? From the edit summary, your rationale seems to be that the reviewer did something bad and therefore all his work is now irrelevant. That is conveniently listed at List of fallacies#Red herring fallacies. maclean (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Err, the text you reintroduced makes hostile claims about a living person in Wikipedia's voice with the only source given being a self-confessed liar and plagiarist. DO NOT DO THAT! NEVER EVER DO THAT!

At this stage, I perhaps should give you a hint: make a sentence diagram of the bad text your bad edit put into the article.

Instead of reverting my edit, you could:

• Insert something along the lines of "Johann Hari, writing before being exposed as a plagiarist and liar, said ..." without putting Hari's claims in Wikipedia's voice; or
• Find a similar criticism of the book from someone who still has a reputation and report that criticism without putting any hostile claims in Wikipedia's voice; or
• Let that article be less negative about Zakaria's book than it was.

BTW, I am not a great fan of Zakaria. I used to read, enjoy and admire Hari's columns. I was also one of the people trying to stop David r from meth productions (talk · contribs) (ie., Hari) inserting nasty lies into Wikipedia articles about living people. See also this [ANI discussion]. More importantly, read this column by one of Hari's victims to see why nothing Hari wrote can be trusted. (There will be a pop quiz on that column!) And arguing from Newsweek's silence is unconvincing, given that they were too busy trying (and failing) to stay in business at the time.

To summarize: yes, there is something wrong with that review. It was written by someone no encyclopedia should ever use as a source. CWC 09:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for responding with a more detailed explanation. However, the text in question does not make hostile claims about a living person in WP's voice. It has specific inline attribution to Hari and Newsweek The Progressive In a review published in The Progressive, Johann Hari took exception... and Hari pointed to examples... — which makes it clear it is Hari's opinion, not WP's, and is addressing the book and Zakaria's ideas, not Zakaria. Adding such commentary (like 'plagiarist and liar') about the reviewer is not neutral. WP:BLP also applies to Hari. I'm open to a neutral edit but I still want to use the source. I have requested a third opinion here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Johann Hari If you don't mind, can we move these comments off your talkpage and onto Talk:The Post-American World#DIscussion re citing Johann Hari? —maclean (talk) 22:20, 19 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:AURD (Australian Roads), is inviting comment on a proposal to convert Australian road articles to ((infobox road)). Please come and discuss. The vote will be after concerns have been looked into.

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Australian Roads/RfC:Infobox Road proposal

You are being notified as a member on the list of WP:AUS

Nbound (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello,

Please do not insert your POV into the Henderson article or I will seek arbitration against you.

Warm regards

14.202.192.46 (talk) 12:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chris

Just came across your posting in the wikipediocracy forum about GMO related articles, in a thread in which I was (negatively) mentioned. I've put a lot of work into GM-related articles to make them NPOV, and I have noticed that most of the anti-GMO crowd don't know squat about farming. Your post interested me, as I would love to see more farm-savvy people working on ag-related stuff. So please know that I would love it if you came and did some work. I also want to say that I don't agree with what you wrote in that post. My sense (and I would need to find RS to back this up) is that crops like soy and corn were genetically modified first because a) there was less risk of cross-pollination and b) (crudely stated) food made from them are not as central to the core concept of "food" as bread is and so there was less risk of popular backlash. In any case, the public reason why Monsanto abandoned its GM wheat project ~2004 was that farmers feared that they would lose export market share (http://www.gmo-compass.org/eng/grocery_shopping/crops/22.genetically_modified_wheat.html). I have not seen any source that have said that there is no GM wheat because the wheat strains that were being modified were inferior, and I am curious where you get that from. Anyway, happy to talk more, if you like! Jytdog (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about the delay in replying. (I've largely stopped editing Wikipedia these days.)

You are right about few Wikipedia editors knowing much about farming. (In fact, I suspect there are more PETA activists here than farm-savvy editors.) But I have had to cut way back on time spent editing here, so I won't be able to help ... sorry.

The info about conventional seed breeding beating GMO in grain crops comes from my younger brother, who died in 2011. He knew a fair bit about seed breeding (he grew certified clover seed for many years), and what he said fits in with everything else I know about grain varieties. But I don't have anything you can cite in a Wikipedia article.

One thing about Wikipediocracy is that regular readers quickly learn to recognize the biases of the regular posters. You actually did quite well in that exchange, IMO.

Best wishes, CWC 12:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thanks for replying, for the info, and for your kind words! I hear you about being too busy, real world, to edit. WIkipedia's loss! and i am sorry about the loss of your brother... terrible. Good luck to you in all things. Jytdog (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adelaide Meetup Next: TBA Last: 6 March 2020 This box: view • talk • edit

More info here. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No worries. It's rather hard to tell who is active and interested. Thanks for making it clear. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 16:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you please stop removing legitimate additions to the Chris Kenny article. They are not libellous, inaccurate or violate WP:BLP.

It is highly relevant that comments from Chris Kenny's own son be added as is the verifiable fact that his comments did cause controversy.

You clearly have a problem with following/understanding the WP:BLP guidelines so happy to take this to arbitration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.37.97 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 20 December 2014‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@60.242.37.97: Arbitration won't take the case up until there's been discussion at the article's talk page. I suggest you open discussion at Talk:Chris Kenny (journalist) to establish that there's consensus to include the material you're trying to add.

I also suggest finding secondary sources that talk about Kenny's son's column, rather than citing the column itself. —C.Fred (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you come to en.wiki anymore? Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Visit? Yes. As well as reading/skimming dozens of Wikipedia articles per week, I also check my watchlist (now < 100 articles) 2 or 3 times a month. I occassionally do some substantial editing (for example, improving Tibor Rubin last December).

So I'm still slightly active ... cheers, CWC 08:14, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Remember [3]? The sock evasion is still on-going.(SPI) Would you check John Coleman (news weathercaster) back and its recent edits? OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 21:50, 13 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm. Now that I've had a look, I do remember. Can't say I care that much, though. Wikipedia is full of attempts to disqualify-DISQUALIFY-DISQUALIFY conservatives, and it's only going to get worse. I'll save my limited time here for other articles, sorry. CWC 02:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, you have previously indicated that you would be interested in attending Melbourne meetups. A meetup will be held on Wednesday August 12, 2015 6-8pm. Please check out Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne 29 for details and add your name to the list if you think you can attend. --Michael Billington (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Chris, as much time as you have, I saw you liking my edit on David Drake. Thanks for this. :) Want to ask you if you know other science fiction, fantasy and historical fiction authors that need such seperation of their bibliographies? They are just getting out of proportion. Any help is appreciated.

Kindest regards: The Mad Hatter (talk)

Thanks for your efforts. At the moment, I can't think of any other authors where splitting of the bibliography would be such a big win. Cheers, CWC 11:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
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) 13:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,
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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:WeeklyStandard-cover-2005-05-30.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:55, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

The article Glitz (software) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The article was created when there was much buzz about compiz. It was never notable and was relatively quickly superseded by AIGLX.

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ysangkok (talk) 15:00, 27 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're right: we should delete that article. I've said so on the talk page. Cheers -- CWC 06:31, 28 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Glitz (software) 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/Glitz (software) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ysangkok (talk) 14:35, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks again, Ysangkok. I've !voted. Cheers -- CWC 11:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, Chris Chittleborough. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

	Melbourne Meetup v t e Next: Wikipedia:Meetup/Melbourne (watch)
See also: Australian events listed at Wikimedia.org.au (or on Facebook)

Hi, I've just made a doodle poll to vote on the best date for the next Wikimeetup in Melbourne (Beer Deluxe, Fed Square). Would be great to see you there. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 12:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date of next Melbourne meetup decided:

• When: 6-8pm, Sunday 8 July 2018
• Where: Beer DeLuxe, Flinders St

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:28, 10 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

June 2018

FROM THE EDITOR

The Right Stuff Returns

By Lionelt

Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.

Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject Conservatism Watch (Discuss this story)

---

ARBITRATION REPORT

Russian Agents Editing at American Politics?

By Lionelt

After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin Andrevan was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including Winkelvi and the notorious MONGO.

Editors who faced Enforcement action include SPECIFICO (no action), Factchecker atyourservice (three month topic ban ARBAPDS), Netoholic (no action) and Anythingyouwant (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)

IN THE MEDIA

Breitbart Versus Wikipedia

By Lionelt

Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story)

---

DISCUSSION REPORT

Liberty and Trump and Avi, Oh my!

By Lionelt

President Donald Trump Speaks at Liberty University Commencement Ceremony

There are several open discussions at the Project:

• There is an RFC regarding Liberty University and its relationship to President Trump; see discussion
• Activist and commentator Avi Yemini is listed at AFD; see discussion

Recently closed discussions include Anti-abortion movements which was not renamed, and an RFC at Trump–Russia dossier. (Discuss this story)

WPConservatism

Newsroom

Discuss a story

Unsubscribe

Suggestions

Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

July 2018

DISCUSSION REPORT

WikiProject Conservatism Comes Under Fire

By Lionelt

WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.

At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."

Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.

Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism Watch (Discuss this story)

---

ARTICLES REPORT

Margaret Thatcher Makes History Again

By Lionelt

Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)

RECENT RESEARCH

Research About AN/I

By Lionelt

Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos

Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.

Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:

• 53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
• "Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
• "Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."

In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here.

(Discuss this story)

WPConservatism

Newsroom

Discuss a story

Unsubscribe

Archives

Suggestions

Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Chris Chittleborough. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to drop you a note and let you know that I appreciate you for taking the time to begin a talk page discussion, as well as respond to a user, to explain WP:BLPPRIMARY as well as WP:BLPRS regarding my edits to Tim Blair. Your knowledge of Wikipedia policy and your experience shines bright with your ability to communicate and explain things in a civil manner. Thank you very much for doing that. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 12:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Chris. I can see you take a strong interest in editing articles about conservative bloggers. You have persistently deleted my edits on the Tim Blair article but declined to talk about your reasons. I have opened a talk here, and would prefer you engage with me in conversation before wholesale deleting my edits again.

My article edit contains primary sources and links to publicly accessible court rulings this issue. If you review the judgement, the Court made (a) numerous findings of fact, and (b) a determination. If you prefer, we can adopt secondary sources instead from several law journals discussing the case, but the direct link to the Court's findings is stronger as a primary source, and the law journals will not be accessible to readers unless they have access to a law library. I have not included transcripts of Blair's testimony, evidence briefs, or court documents in my materials, which would breach BLP:PRIMARY.

The SBS and Crikey quotations are secondary sources within Wiki's rules. I have been careful with NPOV, language, focus and tone when using those sources. I cannot find any other reputable sources discussing the case, but would welcome further opinions or viewpoints from other eminent analysts if you have some to contribute.

I am unable to agree with your assessment that my edits should be removed because you view the matter as a "minor kerfuffle". Mr Blair is a professional and prominent journalist and a common law Court of Australia accepted a case for consideration and made findings of fact and law about his writing which are significant.

I am also unable to agree with your assessment that the edits should be removed because you believe Mr Blair is a humourist in the "ha ha, only serious" kind of vein. That claim carries no objective meaning, is a matter of opinion, not fact, and carries no probative value on whether my edits are accurate/inaccurate, or whether they fall within Wiki's rules.

I note your history of edits being protective of conservative bloggers. I'd like to hear your reasons for wholesale deletion. I'd also welcome opinions from other third parties who are dispassionate.

Please respond to my talk before deleting my edits in their entirety again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandy Sydney (talk • contribs) 06:25, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, WP:BLPPRIMARY applies, and basically forbids the use of the failed NSW CAT complaint in the article about Tim Blair.

Also: someone here is very, very passionate about that blog post ... and it's not me.

(To any third party reading this: this is about a snarky blog post written by a snarky blogger about a woman who injured two people she did not know while trying to kill them with an axe. Yes, a would-be axe-murderer. She has since been found guilty of attempted murder. For all the tedious details, see Talk: Tim Blair.)

Cheers, CWC 03:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discretionary sanctions

Hey Chris, for your information, I've gone ahead and imposed discretionary sanctions on this article as described here. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 06:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, that surprised me! Thanks.

I was going to ask for advice/trouts at WP:BLPN (and may still do so).

Best wishes, CWC 07:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To Chris Chittleborough:

Hello!

Congratulations!

You have been included in my first, and possibly only, Very Early Christmas List!

As an earnest fellow believer in Santa Claus, and possibly in Our Redeemer Liveth as well, you may wonder how you got on this list.

I have no idea!

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Unless I tracked down the connection in our user talk archives, in which case you know who you are!

Or not.

All the best for you and yours this Christmas 2018 and New Year 2019!

– Athaenara jingles all the way 02:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Happy holidays to you and yours! Cheers, CWC 03:30, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think it's worth requesting some form of protection on Zina Bash? Marquardtika (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not at the current rate of problem edits. IIRC, many years ago I requested protection for some other article and was told that protection is only used when the editors at the page cannot keep up with the bad edits. I think you and I have the situation under control, at least so far. (BTW, thanks for your edits!) We can always ask if we get a big rush of bad edits, which is quite possible. Cheers — CWC 02:31, 11 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the response--makes sense to me. Marquardtika (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Adelaide Meetup Next: 6 March 2020 Last: 19 May 2018

WikiProject Adelaide Meetup 22 has been hastily arranged, spread the word!

DATE: Friday 6 March 2020

TIME: 5.00–6.30 pm

VENUE: Cafe Amore, 162-170 Pulteney St, Adelaide

Celebrate the long weekend with a meet-up and discuss what you'd like to see in the world of Wikimedia in 2020. Sign-up and RSVP here.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Adelaide at 22:16, 5 March 2020 (UTC). You received this message because your user page is in Category:Wikipedians in South Australia. If you do not wish to receive future notifications, please advise Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Adelaide.Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Blair's Law. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 12#Blair's Law until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Chronic Logic 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/Chronic Logic until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

IceWelder [✉] 09:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Grapple (network layer), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grapple (network layer) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

Game never received WP:SIGCOV or any reviews in reliable sources.

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Jontesta (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since it's still a stub after all these years, deleting it seems reasonable to me. CWC 01:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]