Welcome!

Hello, SeanNovack, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place ((helpme)) on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!  -- Infrogmation 22:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

1. editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. WWGB (talk) 08:58, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this article was deleted, however, have you tried to work on this in a user sandbox? If so, there appears to be significant secondary mentions of your father in multiple reliable source articles. It maybe helpful in establishing notability via WP:GNG, above and beyond that of part one of WP:ANYBIO, which should have been sufficient in this case (even if a consensus appears to have been built to state that part one isn't as significant as others may believe it is). --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 03:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, mate. It seems as if concensus will lead to your article being deleted. Firstly, please let me say that I'm sorry if this occurs. He clearly means a lot to you and I feel that you should at least be given the chance to develop the article before the decision is made. Secondly, perhaps you will consider adding his details to another site. I came across this site while trying to find the online citations for Silver Stars. Its seems that this site has quite a few. If you have time, please take a look at: http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/02_awards/04_ss.html. Also: http://www.homeofheroes.com/members/04_SS/5_RVN/citations/army/0_index.html. This site has many citations for Silver Stars, and lists most of the names of recipients. They currently do not have your father, but I believe that if you contact them and provide details, they may be able to include his name on the list. Hopefully this will go some way to preserving his memory. I hope this helps. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know if you have them already, but this site has information on how you can request copies of your father's citations (so you can determine the specific actions that led to his decorations). Please take a look at; http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/findcite.html#Obtain. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can also include a bio of your father at this link: http://www.homeofheroes.com/myhero/index.html. Sorry, I don't mean to flood your talk page. I hope that these links will prove helpfu to you. — AustralianRupert (talk) 11:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to have to report your lang. and bias NPOV since you think this is your right wing site and using the Fox News article as a outlet. --Marlin1975 (talk) 20:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh? In what way has my language been inappropriate? Since you are fond of claiming unsourced material, I'd like to see an example.Rapier1 (talk) 20:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fox_News_Channel#Attempted_Censorship_by_the_Obama_Administration

--Marlin1975 (talk) 20:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay...I'm still looking for anything inappropriate. You may not agree that it was censorship, but that is a debatable point and is not one that is citable as "inappropriate". Still waiting for that rule stating that UserPages have to be NPOV Rapier1 (talk) 21:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think sandy may have been peeved over your removal of the 2 world series links. I basically merged both revisions. It's only 5 months till it is officially their home, I'm not sure it really matters. I don't have much of an opinion besides leaving the world series links in. -Ravedave (talk) 23:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being a female award winner of a service award doesn't make you any more notable than being a Congressman or local alderman does. Getting significant, non-trivial, non-local third-party coverage, however, does. Both of these women as well as all United States Congressmen meet this test. Most Silver Star awardees and most local aldermen do not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:01, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:KentHrbek.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add ((di-replaceable fair use disputed)), without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Peripitus (Talk) 06:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:SeanNovack(Rapier1) v Marlin1975 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:Requests for arbitration#Requesting Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks,

I have recently re-factored your comment at that page. Please note that the rule for replying to an Arbitrator is to reply under your own section (with subsections if needed). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The request was declined 0-6. Arbitrator comments suggested that you should try to pursue other dispute resolution steps.
  

For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 07:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for a separate article, that's probably not the answer; it can be written in the 1991 World Series page along with the two others. If there's conduct problems elsewhere, I won't worry about that for right now. Form a surface read the current language does feel a little pov, but I haven't read through the sources yet so modifiers used may be justified. Wizardman 01:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that is feels POV, that's why I changed it to reflect the POV of Drew Coble's call and then cited the fat that it was controversial. what irritated me is that Marlin appears (from my aggravated point of view) to be coming in and trying to push a point of view simply because I'm taking a side. Rapier1 (talk) 05:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on my talk page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The use of this non-free file on anything other than articles is not permitted per WP:NFCC #9. Also, the use of it on List of Mensans lacked a rationale, which is required by WP:NFCC #10c. The image did have a rationale, but it was not for that article. Instead, it was targeted at the image. I removed the improper rationale. I also note that the use of the image on List of Mensans isn't really supported either, as it being a list article the use of non-free images is usually frowned upon. See WP:NFLISTS. Also, if someone needs to see what the Mensa logo looks like, they can refer to the main article.

I've re-tagged the image as orphaned. I also added tags noting it is without rationale and missing an appropriate license tag. I submit it's probably best to just let this get deleted, given that we already have File:Mensa logo.svg. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for your diligence in this matter, but in point of fact, the image is not copyrighted, it's a trademark that Mensa clearly allows its users to use provided they are discussing Mensa and the word "Member" applies. I would be more than happy to include this information. I ask that rather than submit all this for deletion, you assist in prperly documenting what is evidently a fair use of a trademarked image by one that has the right to do so. Thanks! Rapier1 (talk) 22:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not a member of Mensa, nor would I be. I have no vested interest and no means to access the image to verify its copyright status. Regardless, the parent image File:Mensa logo.svg is considered to be copyrighted so far as Wikipedia is concerned. Without provable, independent evidence that the image is in fact free of copyright we must consider it to be copyrighted. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Barnstar, Rapier. I hope you are having a safe and happy Christmas/New Year. All the best for next year too! Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sean - thanks for your support on the Talk:Ryanverse page. I'd be interested in your further opinion here: Talk:Jack Ryan (Tom Clancy)#Merge from Ryanverse. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have a picture of Adolf Hitler next to phrases like gun control and totalitarianism. Let's go over this. The NSDAP passed the Weapons Act of 1938 which reduced the age of permission of possession from 20 to 18. While it did require registration, the registration and regulation applied only to handguns--not even assault rifles. Further, it provided that the registration period be increased from one year to three. Although my Jewish grandparents were not allowed to own firearms, one could easily argue that gun control under the NSDAP was particularly light--much lighter than today's Germany or even modern America. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see. So your point is that because Adolf Hitler's Germany had official weapons policies that only banned handguns, it makes a difference to the 7,000,000 people the Reich murdered in the death camps or the millions of others that were forced into slave labor? Hard to own any gun of any kind in Dachau or Treblinka. Not quite gettin' where you're goin' here... Rapier1 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Um, no that's not what I said. I was merely pointing out that handguns were to be registered and assault rifles not. Look, if you want to have a civil conversation, let's have a civil conversation. By no means does loud equal right. I would like to point out that emotion should not be flying. I lost my whole family who lived in Germany at the time, but in order to study and analyze history it is important to set aside emotion and partisan politics. Clearly I do not condone Adolf Hitler, but we're not talking about his genocide, we're talking about gun politics.

So, the reason I brought up a new section was to call out the irony that someone would insert an anti-gun control userbox with an image of Adolf Hitler, when his government had particularly weak gun control laws, or if not considered weak at the time, then weak compared to America's current gun control laws. In closing, I think my observation would have been non-existent had the userbox contained an image of a dictator whose government had the strictest of strict gun control laws. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have replied to you on my talk page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 20:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is funny in the way that it allows anyone with time on their hands to police pages they know nothing about. I suppose it goes both ways though. If a conservative can remove things that oppose his views other people can do the same which greatly diminishes wikipedia's worth to nothing as it propagates the user's bias and whoever gets the last word before the page is locked wins. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.97.210.80 (talk) 04:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also funny in that it allows people that do not identify themselves to post things like "known liar" on the article of a living person. This is considered WP:vandalism and is against WP:BLP. I suggested that you create an account (which allows you to edit on pages that are semi-protected), and that you refrain from making edits that are considered vandalism. I'll freely admit that my conservative bias affects how I edit - one of the reasons I list it on my userpage is for the purpose of full disclosure, I don't have to do that. But if you follow my edit history you'll see that I am a big fan of talking things out on talk pages, and that I'm a big believer in facts. If you have an example of where I allowed my bias to edit an article in such a way that went against verifiable facts, by all means engage me on that article's talk page and if I'm wrong I'll freely admit it. If not, you are engaging in the type of behavior you are accusing me of and making inappropriate (and unfounded) accusations regarding my editing. Rapier1 (talk) 15:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please excuse my ignorance. Thanks for making it consistent. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! And nothing need be excused. We all have each other's backs here. Happy editing! Rapier1 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the guy, but your edit was a violation of WP:BLP -- see the link I put on the article talk page. Yes, he was accused of falsely claiming he was a SEAL, but that isn't the same thing as actually falsely claiming he was a seal. If as it seems the UDT team members are now accepted as SEALs, then we should say that. The book I've linked to can be used to rewrite it. Dougweller (talk) 08:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty neutral about the guy. Though his recent actions disappointment me, I was very impressed by his campaign and how he conducted himself as Governor (though obviously we didn't always agree, I voted for Coleman that year). The sources I found and cited state that he did claim to be a SEAL in his own published work (page 81, I believe), and so that is what I was using. If I am mistaken, please change the information and source, and we can have a discussion about that, rather than blanking it. Thanks! Rapier1 (talk) 16:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So... Does this thankless task ever get less frustrating? Just curious. V7-sport (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)V7-sport[reply]

*chuckles* Nope! Have fun!  ;-) Rapier1 (talk) 19:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One of the issues we are having is that the editors we are working with appear to have a bias that we are fighting. User:Cs32en is a citizenof Germany and a supporter of a new investigation into 9/11, so naturally he's going to want to "protect" an American politicial that agrees with his viewpoint there. I have no clue what User:Weakopedia's problem is, but he seems to have a fixation on sources in general. In any event, sooner or later we will end up with a decent article, which is the point of this "thankless task". Rapier1 (talk) 14:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Saw you on the Atomic Bombings article and just stopped in to say hello. Hope all is well. V7-sport (talk) 02:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:GovJessieVentura.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add ((bots|deny=DASHBot)) to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Arne.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add ((di-replaceable fair use disputed)), without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:GovJessieVentura.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add ((di-replaceable fair use disputed)), without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SeanNovack …

FYI, I have updated the Mensa templates, such as ((User Mensa member)), so that they all include ((User Mensa Life Member)) in their See also section … maybe Some Other Editors (besides just you and me) will now become aware of it. :-)

Happy Editing! — 71.166.147.78 (talk · contribs) _{22:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)}[reply]

Thank you! I still think it's silly that Wikipedia doesn't want us using the Mensa logo on the template, but that isn't my call. Have a great one! Rapier1 (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that I didn't give an explanation. I reverted because I thought it was a heavy dose of "recentism" to conclude from one Rasmussen poll that there is no longer the possibility for a new liberal consensus (although many pundits and commentators have argued it's already here). It's also kind of completely out of context: Congress just passed the greatest piece of social welfare legislation since the 1960s. If anything, this is the highest tide liberalism has reached in decades.UBER ^(talk) 22:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. To address your points, I never stated or implied that there was no possiblility for a new liberal consensus. The article listed 5 year-old sources as recent and was stating that these polls showed support for liberal ideas. What I did was show that the polls that were "recent" in 2005 (as stated by the article) were not accurate today, and that now that the liberals have had been in power for awhile the polls are showing different results. To leave in 5 year old information as "recent" is disingenuous, it needs to be updated. Also, thile your opinion may be that the new Health Care law is the "greatest piece of social welfare legislation since the 1960's", it is a fact that current polls show that the majority of Americans were against it when passed. That is a rather important point as well. If you feel it wasn't sourced properly, I can accept that and I'd be happy to add more. To sum up: my edit didn't say that a new liberal consensus was "no longer possible", the article needs updating desperately, my edits were factual and sourced. I will be re-editing this soon. Thanks! Rapier1 (talk) 04:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about the (mis)use of the word "recent," so I've gone ahead and made those changes myself. I have no problem including polls from reputable organizations, but we should probably consult beforehand about how to interpret their results. Polls right now, in particular, are in quite a bit of a flux. Rasmussen especially has a Republican bias, just like some other pollsters have a Democratic bias. It would be wrong to blatantly conclude from one Rasmussen poll that the liberal consensus has been somehow undermined. As for opinion on health care reform: the latest polls show that more Americans were glad that the legislation passed than those who did not favor it.UBER ^(talk) 04:31, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for the beautiful Barnstar. I really appreciate it. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 16:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a frequent editor of American politics, I would appreciate if you put your two cents into the debate over the conservative support for President Obama in Talk:Public image of Barack Obama. Thanks.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:57, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your efforts to improve wikipedia seem thoughtful and well put. Please see the accompanying discussion and edit to the lead of the New York Times as I've encountered some resistance form bias editors there who have no desire to keep wiki articles congruent with other articles in the same category. DeltoidNoob (talk) 21:55, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you start a new article titled "Current Events at the University of Ottawa" or "2010 at the University of Ottawa" or other somesuch article title where trivia of individual singular events might be logged. I suggest this because one contentious incident on one evening involving Anne Coulter doesn't belong in a high-level overview of a 162 year-old institution, nevermind with a text volume of the same order as the entire text of its current "History" section. StevenBlack (talk) 03:15, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The incident is, as I said, notable, verifiable, and is not (despite your objection) given undue weight in the article. If you feel that it is too large compared to other sections of the article discribing this "162 year-old institution", then perhaps you should work to expand on any other history that the institution may have. Rapier (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got the time, Sean, take a look at the recent edits Croctotheface made, some of which I deleted, in the Media Matters article (the article itself rather than the talk page) and tell us what you think? This is the editor who told us that we should analyze an editor's design and not just his words. Badmintonhist (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were write to remove the edits attributing the name "tachyon" to Star Trek. Tachyons are mentioned extensively (and described inaccurately) in followup Trek series from the 80s and 90s (especially Voyager) but are nowhere mentioned in the original series except in an early Trek novel published after the name had been coined.--WickerGuy (talk) 05:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure what your point is here. The original edits I removed stated that the name "Tachyon" originated with Star Trek, I removed it and asked the original poster to cite a source if he wanted it there. Rapier (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is your source for this ranking. I have looked in official documents and cannot find it. --Blue Tie (talk) 21:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody that has gone through Basic Training can (or better be able to) answer that question for you. However, if you are looking for an online source, this one took me less than 30 seconds to find. http://www.pbs.org/weta/americanvalor/history/pyramid.html Rapier (talk) 04:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about Basic Training. And your article doesn't mention the Legion of Merit from what I can see, so it lacks clarity in the order. But, aside from that, I am of the opinion that a source from the DoD, which I can definitely find and which has a very definite order for these medals, would supercede a non military source. On what basis would you disagree with that view? --Blue Tie (talk) 02:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Belated Thanks for the award. Goes to show you how often I check my user page. :) Arzel (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

;-) No worries, you're still at it, and I still appreciate it. Thanks! Rapier (talk) 23:30, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be making my "opening statement" later tonight, however, I'll be leaving for a a budget tour of Spain , Portugal, and Morocco on June 5 and will likely be incommunicado (sp?) for over two weeks? Do they allow substitutions? The discussion could use your Mensa quality mind. Djuh notice how the assault on this very basic and not especially controversial information seems to parallel the style and ferocity of much of what Media Matters itself puts out? Badmintonhist (talk) 22:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:49, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt attention on this matter. Rapier (talk) 00:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a section in the talk page to talk about it here. I'm about as pro-gun as they come, but I'm trying to keep the article neutral. This is a pretty grey area as far as neutrality goes, though the Brady Campaign is a bunch of two-faced lying rats. I just don't know whether they should be refuted on Wikipedia or not - and to what extent. Faceless Enemy (talk) 19:18, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually familiar with your editing history (*chuckles*), so I knew what you were trying to do, but I believe that it is important to point out that despite the claims of the organization, in the years that have followed they have (so far) been proven wrong. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to move this to the "Critisisms" section, however. Please keep up the dialogue, I appreciate it! Rapier (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Beacon, I've tried explaining my position and being polite, which you seem to think is being "patronizing, dismissive, and even snide". You accuse me of hypocrisy for asking that conversation on controversial talk pages be kept topical and constructive? You accuse me of POV pushing (check out the Brady Campaign talk page and you'll see how wrong you are) yet you seem to be the only one that can't accept the fact that not everything in the universe is moving according to your view of it, going so far as to accusing people of "changing sides", because they are able to rationally discuss things like adults. You want to debate me pal, try using facts on topic, stop projecting your actions on others, and stay off my user page. Rapier (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

from PrBeacon's userpage

(Because he felt it necessary to revert my response to his accusations as "vandalism" - despite WP:NOTVAND, I'll repost this here) Rapier (talk) 05:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Get off your high horse. You, Badmintonhist, Niteshift36 and now Croctotheface are sidetracking every discussion by jumping on what you perceive is unfair or inappropriate commentary. Your hypocritical lecturing on article talkpages like FoxNews and MMfA is what's more distracting and unconstructive than the quick comments to which you reply. You accuse others of wiki-battling yet you can't see your own comments as patronizing and dismissive, even snide. So take it to WQA if you think it's a problem (heads up: others have tried already, only the entrenched editors see it as so offensive). -PrBeacon (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His reply: further self-serving distortions and projections, ending with the petulant retort "stay off my user page". -PrBeacon (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

a thought..., if you are running into THAT much opposition, perhaps you are on the wrong side of an argument (or at fault in terms of behavior as the case may be, this just seems to be a general thing)? Soxwon (talk) 03:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's just a weak way of saying you're right, or they're right. I can accept disagreement about content, debate about style, but not editors talking down to others. Especially not when they presume to lecture & scold while violating the very policies and guidelines they like to quote themselves. -PrBeacon (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My exact reply: Okay Beacon, I've tried explaining my position and being polite, which you seem to think is being "patronizing, dismissive, and even snide". You accuse me of hypocrisy for asking that conversation on controversial talk pages be kept topical and constructive? You accuse me of POV pushing (check out the Brady Campaign talk page and you'll see how wrong you are) yet you seem to be the only one that can't accept the fact that not everything in the universe is moving according to your view of it, going so far as to accusing people of "changing sides", because they are able to rationally discuss things like adults. You want to debate me pal, try using facts on topic, stop projecting your actions on others, and stay off my user page. If you are going to try to beat your breast and claim you've been wronged, you might want to do something besides "further self-serving distortions and projections" of what other people are saying. Finally, you have repeatedly and in several places accused me of hypocrisy. If I have ever wasted discussion space with personal attacks (and is is not a "personal attack" to ask people to behave civilly, or call them out when they don't), then by all means call me out on the specific instance and if I was wrong I'll be happy to apologize for my misdeed. Until then, stop making unfounded accusations about my lack of character, because people calling you out for behavior on your part seems to extend to several editors, not just myself. Rapier (talk) 17:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sean. I'm not sure where your confusion stems from, and why you are sticking in the weasel words when those same words do not exist in the cited sources. We really should stick with the cited sources. As for your request that "proof" be provided supporting the facts surrounding the slurs shouted at Frank (not once but at least 3 different incidents), this is just one of many sources. There were several witnesses to the various incidents. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 06:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xeno, I appreciate your reasoned and polite reply. Please look at the source you sent me. What is the headline? It reads "Allegations of...". It says this because there is no proof. You can't provide proof that something is "alleged", all that takes is someone saying it. The reason we have "suspects" that commit "alleged" crimes is that until they are "proven" guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, our society presumes innocence. All I'm asking is that we stick with the sources. Rapier (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the source linked above. The headline indicates that a number of "allegations" were made that merit more reporting, which he then provided in the body of the article, concluding specifically that: The episode involving Barney Frank is more clear-cut. Many readers have told me there is no evidence to support The Post's report that Frank was subjected to anti-gay slurs. They're wrong. An ABC News video recorded the incident inside a House office building. When ABC aired its video, the epithets were bleeped. A review of the unaltered footage, made by ABC at my request, clearly captures a protester shouting, "Barney, you faggot." Case closed. Yes, let's please stick to the sources. Your commentary on your society (American, I assume) is inapplicable here, as we are neither judge nor jury, and we must presume nothing as Wikipedia editors. If a source indicates that someone "says" something, then our article should indicate that someone "says" something; we shouldn't be injecting elevated doubt with words like "alleged" and "claimed" unless the sources convey it.

With specific regard to the slurs against Frank that day, regular editors of that article have already seen the "proof" of the incidents. Whether it was the FOX News interview of a woman that heard the slurs in the lobby, or the law enforcement personnel that heard the slurs being shouted through his office door mail-slot, or the several news organization personnel that witnessed slurs in the hallway, or the videotaped evidence noted above -- there have been numerous sources in the article at one time or another. I'm not surprised that such sources mysteriously disappear over time. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is mediation still necessary or desirable, in the dispute about the Brady Campaign state scorecard map and the Gun laws in the United States (by state) article? Feel free to comment on this question, at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Decision of the Mediation Committee. (If you reply here, I will see what you say.) — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that people seem to have accepted the logic of our arguments and nobody has attempted to repost the maps for a few weeks, I think we can safely let this one go for now. Thanks! Rapier (talk) 01:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Request for mediation concerning Gun laws in the United States (by state), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 00:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

Just a note that I've asked you to remove or strike out part of a statement in your post in Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau dated 13:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC), specifically the part, "while "Child Rape" may be a more accurate description of her act, it is not what she was convicted of," as it contradicts the reliable sources brought to the discussion before and after your comment, and no source has been brought claiming the contradiction with the existing sources that you assert as being the case. It is in fact the central claim behind my defense of the existing consensus text, before this change, that in fact stated "child rape" and not the "statutory rape" the new editors want to replace it with, along with removing what they claim are non-neutral words like "boy" for 12 year old males. I'd appreciate that to reduce inaccuracy in that discussion, which will likely be brought to the NPOV noticeboard since several editors support this change, which in my opinion is unacceptable. Thank you. Blackworm (talk) 06:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rapier, I'm not sure where you stand in the current discussion on Mary Kay. Can you note on the talk page your views. thanks! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted a lot of cited material while claiming to restore deletions. Nothing was deleted regarding Levin and York, it was only expanded upon. I'm sure you acted in good faith, but you could have been more careful. Mr Anon

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 'You appear to be presently involved in what may be an edit war. I suggest slowing down, taking a step back, gauging the situation, and partaking in civil discussion to reach a resolution of the present dispute. You may also possibly wish to request a third-party opinion in the matter. Note that I am not targeting you or the IP user in particular, I'm just an outside party who has recently observed the present dispute in process.' ⒺⓋⒾⓁⒼⓄⒽⒶⓃ② ^talk 05:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the input, but could you clarify exactly what you are referring to? Thanks! Rapier (talk) 18:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your point of view. I shall cherish it. Varlaam (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

700 article edits, eh? Thanks for all the contribs to WP there, chief.

Fortunately for me, my edit count has nothing to do with the fact that you were way off base with with the section I deleted on the Valor Device article. If your contributions contain similar trash, then I do hope someone has done the same to the rest of your "massive" edit count. Good luck. Rapier (talk) 15:00, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for self-reverting. Actually the MoS specifies that only the first word and proper nouns be capitalized in headings. While it's certainly not a critical issue, wikignoming to improve consistency across articles is an improvement and shouldn't ever be reverted. Yworo (talk) 15:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Please be careful when you imply someone has made an inappropriate edit. Please check again. I corrected a spelling mistake, I believe I changed 'decendent' to 'descendent'. Please check and then kindly remove your message from my discussion page or at least qualify it below. Thanks!Eugene-elgato (talk) 05:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI:

decendant→ descendant On the other hand the spelling mistake I corrected was on that body of text that should not have been inserted. It has crossed my mind to place in there a ^{[dubious – discuss]} tag- perhaps in searching for typos me and the rest of the Typo Team should beware not to correct spelling mistakes within such text. I am already careful to avoid doing so on articles that are being considered for deletion. However please also bare in mind to look carefully at who actually inserted the undesired text- in this case it was certainly not me. You need to carefully use the Compare edits option on an article's history and confirm on a user's contributions list by checking diff. Thank you for your patience. Eugene-elgato (talk) 10:45, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. My mistake. I did indeed miss the fact that you were not the one that added that body of text. I'll admit that I did look a bit at your edit history and what was written there didn't seem to jibe with other things that you had written. Thank you for clarifying this and correcting me. I will endeavor to avoid making similar lapses in the future. Rapier (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly OK. And thank you for the understanding. There is text all over the place and it can become messy and confusing. Happy reviewing!Eugene-elgato (talk) 19:44, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you wrote "These facts are correct and can be verified, I'll find the sources, but they may not be online" please do not removed ^{[citation needed]} (until you find those sources and please provide sources Smith03 (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

did you work at the state senate in 97? Smith03 (talk) 19:14, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for the Sergeant-at-Arms as a sergeant. Have we met?  ;-) Rapier (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was page for the senate in 97 and your name and picture looked familarSmith03 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SeanNovack. Please check your email; you've got mail!
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.

The Hollow Man2010 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SeanNovack! WikiProject United States, an outreach effort supporting development of United States related articles in Wikipedia, has recently been restarted after a long period of inactivity. As a user who has shown an interest in United States related topics we wanted to invite you to join us in developing content relating to the United States. If you are interested please add your Username and area of interest to the members page here. Thank you!!!

--Kumioko (talk) 04:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the project and please let me know if you have any comments, questions or suggestions. --Kumioko (talk) 21:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With the first of what I hope will be monthly newsletters I again want to welcome you to the project and hope that as we all work together through the year we can expand the project, create missing articles and generally improve the pedia thought mutual cooperation and support. Now that we have a project and a solid pool of willing members I wanted to strike while the iron is hot and solicite help in doing a few things that I believe is a good next step in solidifiing the project. I have outlined a few suggestions where you can help with on the projects talk page. This includes but is not limited too updating Portal:United States, assessing the remaining US related articles that haven't been assessed, eliminating the Unrefernced BLP's and others. If you have other suggestions or are interested in doing other things feel free. I just wanted to offer a few suggestions were additional help is needed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or suggestions or you can always post something on the projects talk page. If you do not want to recieve a monthly message please put an * before your name on the members page.--Kumioko (talk) 04:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starting with the February 2011 issue WikiProject United States has established a newsletter to inform anyone interested in United States related topics of the latest changes. This newsletter will not only discuss issues relating to WikiProject United States but also:

1. Portal:United States
2. the United States Wikipedians Noticeboard
3. the United States Wikipedians collaboration of the Month - The collaboration article for February is Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution
4. and changes to Wikipolicy, events and other things that may be of interest to you.

You may read or assist in writing the newsletter, subscribe, unsubscribe or change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you by following this link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page or the Newsletters talk page. --Kumioko (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[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) 03:23, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The April 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) 01:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article Young Conservatives of Texas has been nominated for deletion at AfD. Your input as to whether or not this article meets notability standards is invited. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I agree with your goal. I just re-added that one item because it was easily sourceable, and reasonably relevant.   Will Beback  talk  21:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally just going to update the populations of the cities in my home county, but then, while I was at it, I decided I "had" to do the neighboring counties as well, and then the neighboring counties, and, well, you get the idea.

Anyway, 2010 data are available on the "new" FactFinder at [1]. All that has been released so far are the total counts by block/city/county/state/etc. and a breakdown by race and ethnicity. The FactFinder is a very powerful tool, but can be complicated to use at first. I recommend starting the search for data by clicking on "geographies" and selecting the location(s) that you desire from the menu on the left of the new window.

If you, or anyone else, wants to get involved in updating the populations, feel free. I'm working more or less from north to south and have all the cities in the state roughly north of US 12 updated. I've also been making sure that historic population tables are available for all counties and county seats using old census data available at [2] --Mwmnp (talk) 05:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The May 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) 17:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you are proudly advertising your reviewer rights on your user page, and given this edit of yours, you may be interested in this comment by Jimbo Wales on something related. Hans Adler 13:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PopEater is not a reliable source for any BLP article. WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:NOTGOSSIP, and WP:NEWSORG come to mind. Please review them. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and I don't dispute it. That was a link that I got from the CNN site and I made the mistake of not checking the redirect and wasn't paying attention. There are a lot of other reliable sources out there (I pointed out a few) that are reporting it, and finding them is not difficult. The venom that came through was the problem I had, not the removal of the edit or the facts. I made a mistake, but I maintain that it was handled poorly by the deleting admin/editor. SeanNovack (talk) 03:07, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that the content was salacious nonsense and that it was poor judgement on your part is essentially on the mark. I don't see that as venom. Why did you try adding it in the first place? BLP is pretty clear on this. Did you think your edit was going to stand for more than a minute? Wikipedia isn't a rumor mill. I would have removed it even if it was sourced to the best publication on the planet. How could this possibly be encyclopedic? Viriditas (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are cordially invited to comment on the potential splitting of Gun laws in the United States (by state) at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Splitting up the article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Just a friendly reminder to use full ref templates (author, article title, date etc) when adding citations. Most of the time, you'll probably be using this: Template: Cite web. Much appreciated, Ruby2010 comment! 18:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Ever feel like you're editing in a vacuum, and long for some camaraderie?
• Do you want to improve an article and put a Featured Article star on your userpage but don't know how to get started?
• Want to be part of a cohesive, committed team working together to improve conservatism one article at a time?

If you're interested in having lots of fun and working with great editors, click here and make history. We're now taking nominations. Lionelt (talk) 01:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The June 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) 22:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

United States National Archives WikiProject

Would you like to help improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to the National Archives and its incredible collection? This summer, the National Archives—which houses some of America's most important historical documents—is hosting me as its Wikipedian in Residence, and I have created WP:NARA to launch these efforts. There are all sorts of tasks available for any type of editor, whether you're a writer, organizer, gnome, coder, or image guru. The National Archives is making its resources available to Wikipedia, so help us forge this important relationship! Please sign up and introduce yourself. Dominic·t 15:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The July 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) 13:33, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is inexcusable. Don't do it again. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.185.72 (talk) 23:27, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First: If you are a new user then my sincere apologies for the accusation of the edit being the act of a coward. However, you need to know that many editors have come into these debates with an annonymous account in order to vote stack and say things that they wouldn't do on their regular account. Second: You comments weren't removed "Just because I didn't like it", it was an annonymous posting from a WP:SPA that only served to put forward a negative response that didn't WP:AGF on a section dedicated to establishing consensus by soliciting a yes or no. If you want to add to the debate, then post an opinion about the subject, not the editors. If you are a new editor I would also encourage you to start an account. In the meantime, I will ask that you take down or strike through the comment yourself. SeanNovack (talk) 23:58, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your interpretation of policy, in particular what constitutes "a negative response that didn't WP:AGF," doesn't mean much as long as you ignore the POV pushing and posturing from your conservative cohorts, namely the two editors to whom I responded there: Lionelt and Arzel. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.189.102 (talk) 00:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your attempts [3] [4] to frame my comments on an article discussion page with SPA tags. Ironically enough you've illustrated the exact point I was making in response to Lionelt's dismissive vote. Since you're so fond of linking policy pages, here's one for you: WP:TPG on editing/removing others' comments. If you persist, I will follow formal steps of dispute resolution. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.189.102 (talk) 04:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do what you need to do. The single purpose tags are entirely appropriate. Yes, I removed your original comment, which is in fact allowable in some instances, and I gave my reasoning for doing so. You told me to stop, and I haven't done so since. I've apologized to you, explained myself, refrained from removing your comment, and added a SPA tag considering the only edits ever coming from that IP address anonymously have occured in the last 72 hours and all of them on the Bachmann talkpage. If you want to take this to WP:ANI then that is your perogative, but be warned that your own conduct in this matter will also be under review. SeanNovack (talk) 05:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No they are not appropriate. Apparently you did not read SPA:Who not to tag. Or else you are willfully ignoring those guidelines. Note: WP:SPA is not a policy page. - Anon98.92.. 98.92.189.102 (talk) 05:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SeanNovack. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Gerardw (talk) 10:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the help The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:28, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The September 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) 01:02, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was a little puzzled by your revert; can you please give me a full rationale for believing the previous version was better Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 03:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sean congrats on the MBA! – Lionel ^(talk) 04:56, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Lionel, thanks! I'm surprised anyone noticed!  ;-) SeanNovack (talk) 14:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • This place is a jungle: we have to watch out for each other. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:20, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[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

Sean,If you could leave MMfA disputes there, or to the user's talk page, it might help an already difficult talk page settle down. Even though that hardly seems imminent.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:19, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to, when arguments that support a particular point of view on one page aren't reversed on another to support that same point of view. The Occupy Wall Street page is an absolute mess filled with WP:RECENT issues and WP:NPOV issues. The moment soeone tries to add anything remotely "against" the project in any way they are swamped and steamrolled under dozens of edits an hour. SeanNovack (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[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

If you want to keep all that cruft, I'd suggest you get over the Star Trek wikiproject and argue your case as at the moment, I don't see support for your position and a lot of articles are going to start being cleaned up to being them into line with policy. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:23, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron, I have started a discussion of this on the Star Trek Wikiproject, please continue the conversation there before blanking sections in other articles similarly. Thanks! SeanNovack (talk) 16:51, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 02:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SN, just wanted to take a second to apologize if i came off sounding bitey by replying to your reply that sounded bitey.  :) My point was simply that the language chosen could be taken out of context and sound like a position was being belittled. I have no doubt this isn't the way it was intended, and I certainly didn't mean to spark up such a focus on that micro-nonissue. Sorry for the mix-up! Returning to the actual issue... do you think we should AFD the article? Thanks! //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 15:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! Blake Burba (talk) 18:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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) 19:41, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[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

Minneapolis History edit-a-thon

The Minnesota Wikipedia community and local historians are invited to edit entries in Wikipedia on Minneapolis history. Please help increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by utilizing materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own Minneapolis History topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections Librarians.

Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
When: Saturday, February 25, 2012, 10-5 pm
10 am - 11 am Orientation to Minneapolis Collection
11 am - 5 pm Edit-a-thon
Website: Hennepin County Library, Special Collections, Map & Directions
Parking: Metered street parking or pay ramp in basement, enter on 4th Ave

For more information see Wikipedia talk:Meetup/Minnesota#2012. —innotata 01:26, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SCNCurrent.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Cloudbound (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the area? You're invited to the Great American Wiknic.

Place: near Minnehaha Falls at Minnehaha Park, Minneapolis
Date: Saturday, July 7, 2012 (rain date July 8)
Time: 12–3 pm

• Accessible from the Minnehaha Park light rail station, bus, walk, bike, or car
• If driving, free parking available at 46th Ave. S, and pay parking in the park
• Food and drink options nearby, or bring your own... maybe even to share!

See the meetup talk page for more. —innotata 00:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the area? You are invited to Wikipedia Loves Libraries in Minneapolis.

Hennepin County Library's Special Collections is hosting a Minneapolis history editathon on November 3. Help increase the depth of information on Minneapolis history topics by using materials in the Minneapolis Collection. Find your own topics to edit or work from a list developed by Special Collections librarians.

There will also be an intro for people new to Wikipedia, and tours of Special Collections.

Where: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
Special Collections (4th floor)
When: 10am-4:30pm, Saturday, November 3, 2012

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page. —innotata 22:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

hi

I work at the Gerald Ford Presidential Library and Museum, and we are uploading materials to Wikimedia Commons. We have a number of documents that might be of interest to you - they are located at Wikimedia, Category:Documents at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum.

If you are interested in writing articles/stubs, I may be able to provide you with pictures from our archives as well. We have a limited number of artifacts, to also at Wikimedia, Category:Artifacts at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library and Museum.

Let me know if I can help in any way, and please feel free to pass the word about these docs; I'd love to see some content generated around them....thanks! Bdcousineau (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is going out to all who are listed as active members of WikiProject:Freemasonry. We are attempting to determine the "consensus of the project" on an issue relating to categorization. Please see: WT:WikiProject Freemasonry#Dispute over instructions at Category:Freemasons and share your opinion. Thanks. Blueboar (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi SeanNovack! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! SarahStierch (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota meetups.

To kick-off monthly meetups in the Twin Cities, two events will be held in Special Collections at Minneapolis Central Library this summer. These are mostly planned as opportunities for Wikipedians to discuss editing, but all are welcome!

Special Collections contains many valuable historical resources, including the Minneapolis Collection, consisting of files on hundreds of topics related to Minneapolis from neighborhoods to politicians (it's best to call or email in advance to request materials). Free wifi and several public computers are available.

Place: Minneapolis Central Library, 300 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis
Special Collections (4th floor)
Dates: Saturday, June 1
Saturday, July 6
Time: 12:30pm–2:30pm+

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 14:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the area? You're invited to the Great American Wiknic.

Place: north of Minnehaha Falls in Minnehaha Park, Minneapolis
Date: Saturday, June 22, 2012
Time: 12–4 pm

• Accessible from the Minnehaha Park METRO station, bus, walk, bike, or car
• If driving, free parking available on 46th Ave. S, and pay parking in the park
• Food and drink options nearby, or bring your own... maybe even to share!

For more, and to sign up (encouraged, not required) go to the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 02:58, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota monthly meetup on August 3.

Place: Lavvu Coffee House
813 4th St SE, Minneapolis 55414
Date: Saturday, August 3
Time: 1:00pm-3:00pm+

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list.

—innotata 23:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the area? You are invited to the upcoming Minnesota meetup in commemoration of Wikipedia Day.

• Place: Seward Cafe
  

2129 E Franklin Ave, Minneapolis, MN 55404

• Date: Saturday, January 18, 2014
  
• Time: noon

For more info and to sign up (not required), see the meetup talk page.

This invitation was sent to users who were interested in past events. If you don't want to receive future invitations, you can remove your name from the invite list. —innotata 04:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the invitation and I'd like to attend, but that is the day of the Minnesota Grand Lodge One-Day-To-Masonry event at the Minneapolis Scottish Rite building. I will be there from 7-6. Please let me know of any other events in the future though! 71.63.192.24 (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed that you used to work for the Department of Defense. I was wondering if you would be willing to help improve Category:Women in the United States military. I've been trying to improve articles about women on Wikipedia and any expert help would be an asset. Asarelah (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our MOS states that the lead section should summarise salient points which should be fleshed out and referenced in the article. Our article on Fraternity dates fraternal organisations to the Greeks and Romans, to which I could add the kiva societies of the pueblo peoples and probably the whole Spartan army. In a more recent setting, when the English trades started to form their own fraternal bodies in the second half of the 14th century, the masons were pretty much the last off the mark. In the Elizabethan era, they started to admit important outsiders to enhance their prestige and fill their coffers, and it's impossible to say when, or who started the rot. If you search "Worshipful Company of" you will see a huge list of trade organisations and fraternities who can pretty much all claim to be older than the masons. The first fraternity myth was, I'm afraid, started by masons. While masonic websites have to be pretty accurate on current practice, I'm afraid they are pretty bad at history as a species, and tend to uncritically regurgitate common (self-congratulatory) assumptions. Thanks for taking an interest.

The vexed question of what the hell Freemasonry is does not appear to be easy to answer, as every Freemason has a different take on the question. It's easier to answer functionally, breaking the craft into ritual, social, and charitable components, of which each Freemason has his (or her) own mixture. This is addressed in the body of the article, but I am personally at a loss to provide a neat summary for the lead. Any ideas would be welcome, probably best discussed on the talk page first. Fiddlersmouth (talk) 12:05, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Military.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 12:30, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minneapolis Institute of Art edit-a-thon

Date: Saturday, October 24, 2015, 12pm–4pm Location: Minneapolis Institute of Art Friends Community Room, 2400 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis Sponsor: Minneapolis Institute of Art You are invited to attend an Art+Feminism edit-a-thon at Minneapolis Institute of Art which will be held on Saturday, October 24, 2015. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to women artists. For more information and to RSVP: → click here ←, you may register online for the event or call (612) 870-6323 --gobonobo + c 21:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[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) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your useful contribution to Christianity and Freemasonry. While it helps me understand what the hell is going on, I'm afraid it can't stay in the article without a reference. Could you please provide one? Fiddlersmouth (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a source quickly, feel free to remove it and I'll redo it when I have got one. Thanks SeanNovack (talk) 04:09, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:NovackPoliceAwards.jpg.

This image is a derivative work, containing an "image within an image". Examples of such images would include a photograph of a sculpture, a scan of a magazine cover, or a screenshot of a computer game or movie. In each of these cases, the rights of the creator of the original image must be considered, as well as those of the creator of the derivative work.

While the image description page states the source and copyright status of the derivative work, it only names the creator of the original work without specifying the status of their copyright over the work.

Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the original image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other derivative works, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. Thanks again for your cooperation. Kelly ^hi! 19:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:RamstadLetter.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly ^hi! 15:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Loft Literary Center edit-a-thon

Date: Thursday, February 11, 2016, 6–8pm Location: Loft Literary Center, 1011 S Washington Ave, Room 203, Minneapolis Sponsor: The Loft Literary Center Hello SeanNovack! You are invited to attend an edit-a-thon at the Loft Literary Center which will be held on Thursday, February 11, 2016. This editing event is dedicated to improving and increasing the presence of cultural, historic, and artistic information on Wikipedia pertaining to artists from marginalized communities. Please bring a laptop. Refreshments will be provided. For more information and to RSVP: → click here ←

We have also recently formed a user group for Minnesota editors. If you would like to join, please add your name to our page on meta. Thank you, gobonobo ^{+ c} 23:50, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SeanNovack, I've reverted your GA nomination of this article. As you have not actively worked on the article (four minor edits in 2010 do not count), the GA nomination instructions are quite clear: Nominators who are not significant contributors to the article should consult regular editors of the article on the article talk page prior to a nomination. Furthermore, the nominated article has a "refimprove" template on the "Arrest and charges" section: it would likely be quickfailed for that problem alone, given that only one of seven paragraphs has any references at all.

If you work on addressing the article's referencing problems, both in Arrest and charges and also other places where the material should have inline citations, and then want to renominate the article, that would be great. Thank you for your understanding. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SeanNovack. 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]

Hello. Here's an event happening soon. Might you be able to make it? Jonathunder (talk) 01:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the area? You're invited to a
Minnesota Wikipedia Meetup
	Saturday, December 17, 2016
	Meet in the MIA Main Lobby at 1 p.m.
	2400 Third Avenue South, Minneapolis

Please come and join if you can!

In the area? You're invited to
Wikipedia as Social Activism
	Saturday, April 15, 2017
	St. Cloud State University Library at noon
	720 4th Avenue South, St. Cloud

Shaded0 (talk) 22:57, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I saw that you were a member of WikiProject Politics, and was wondering if you'd be willing to give input/assistance on a task I've set out to do on changing the consensus regarding the political position (or rather lack thereof) on the Republican Party (United States) page. If you're interested, you can participate (either by stating your opinion, or responding to others regarding inaccuracies, etc) on the talk page. Thanks! HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 03:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there! I just re-launched the WikiProject Investment.

The site has been fully revamped and updated and I would like to invite you the project.

Feel free to check out the project and ping me if you have any questions.

I'd like to invite you to join the Investment WikiProject. There are a lot of Investment related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help get this project off the ground and a few Investment pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks!

Cheers! WikiEditCrunch (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, SeanNovack. 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]

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, SeanNovack. 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]

The file File:Medals-211x86.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

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 files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Also:

• File:PMNovack1996.jpg

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	US Banknote Contest
	November-December 2019
There are an estimated 30,000 different varieties of United States banknotes, yet only a fraction of these are represented on Wikimedia Commons in the form of 2D scans. Additionally, Colonial America, the Confederate States, the Republic of Texas, multiple states and territories, communities, and private companies have issued banknotes that are in the public domain today but are absent from Commons. In the months of November and December, WikiProject Numismatics will be running a cross-wiki upload-a-thon, the 2019 US Banknote Contest. The goal of the contest is to increase the number of US banknote images available to content creators on all Wikimedia projects. Participants will claim points for uploading and importing 2D scans of US banknotes, and at the end of the contest all will receive awards. Whether you want to claim the Gold Wiki or you just want to have fun, all are invited to participate. If you do not want to receive invitations to future US Banknote Contests, follow the instructions here

Sent by ZLEA at 23:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk)[reply]

2022 Greater Minnesota History Wikipedia Edit-a-Thons

Saturday, July 16 - 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. West-Central Minnesota History Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Location: Kandiyohi County Museum, Kandiyohi County Historical Society, 610 Hwy 71 Service Rd, Willmar, MN Saturday, July 23 - 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. South-Central Minnesota History Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Location: Blue Earth County History Center and Museum, Blue Earth County Historical Society, 424 Warren St, Mankato, MN Saturday, August 6 - 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Central Minnesota History Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Location: Weyerhaeuser Museum, Morrison County Historical Society, 2151 Lindbergh Dr. S, Little Falls, MN Saturday, August 20 - 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Northwest Minnesota History Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Location: Clearwater County History Center, Clearwater County Historical Society, 264 1st Street, Shevlin, MN Sunday, August 21 - 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Northland/Northeast Minnesota History Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Location: Minnesota Discovery Center, 1005 Discovery Drive, Chisholm, MN Saturday, October 8 - 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Southwest Minnesota History Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Location: Nobles County Historical Museum, Nobles County Historical Society, 225 9th St, Worthington, MN Saturday, October 29 - 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Southeast Minnesota History Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Location: Winona County History Center, Winona County Historical Society, 160 Johnson St, Winona, MN Saturday, November 12 - 11 a.m. to 4 p.m. Park Region Minnesota History Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon Location: Otter Tail County Historical Museum, Otter Tail County Historical Society, 1110 W Lincoln Avenue, Fergus Falls, Minnesota, MN Hello SeanNovack, You are invited to attend a Greater Minnesota History Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon at a Local History Museum. Help increase and improve the depth of information on Greater Minnesota history topics. Find your own topics to edit or work from a list of suggested topics. Please bring a laptop. Lunch will be provided. For more information view the information page at the Minnesota Historical Society. If you are not attending the event in person you do not need to register but only need to sign up on the Event Dashboard. Myotus (talk) 12:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]