User talk:PhGustaf/Archive

collaborate, don't bully

hi gustaf - the place for this kind of comment is on teh discussion page. i put in the superior version of this arrticle and further improved it, and have explained my improvements. if you don't like them, you're supposed to discuss the changes with me on the article discussion page and reach a consensus with me.Cimicifugia (talk) 16:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia[reply]

September 2007

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Brookhaven College: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Tiptoety 18:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is Carmen Chu's website. Clarifying some spam.

The website you recently reverted was really her personal website, not spam. I'll prove it. So, he was trying to help. I'm not on anyone's side, but I'm also against vandalism. So, I clicked the link, and turns out, it was Carmen Chu's personal webpage! Check it out! I'm not lying! -Goodshoped35110s^My Talk!_Contribs 23:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Pearson

Hi there. I've found some evidence of notability for Ron Pearson. It originally made realistic claims of notability, so it did not qualify for {{a7}}. Further research confirmed the article's claims, so if you still want to challenge it, I suggest WP:PROD or WP:AFD. Cheers! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 18:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. 18:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual BTNH

Not sure if you're an admin, but the above 'subject' has been deleted and salted before. He's just sockpuppeted an account and renamed his Spiritual Bone article to avoid the 'salt.' Fabrictramp handled it before (as per my talk page). Let me know if you need more info on this hoax. τßōиЄ2001 22:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion over deletion request for Recyclebank page

Just wanted to see if you could give me some guidance as to what I can do to the Recyclebank article I created so that it is not deleted for blatant advertising. That certainly was not my intention but I think that a company like this should be represented. I included all the major reliable references for this company such as the New York Times, Ceres, Boston Globe and Columbia University. Please advise. thanks. ~m (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I don't think it's blatant advertising any more. You took out the bits I was responding to. I'm not supposed to take off the tag myself, though. An admin will likely do it soon. Given the talk, it's not going to get deleted PhGustaf (talk) 01:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Thomas

In view of your edit you may wish to comment at Talk:Dylan Thomas#Welsh. TerriersFan (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marriage

Usenet is not a reliable source. At any rate, you didn't even provide a usenet source. Please see WP:BLP. Frank is still alive, and any unsourced information on him must be removed. Cool Hand Luke 02:07, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that I don't believe you. It's that you must have a reliable source. Cool Hand Luke 02:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another Black Day

I have posted my reasoning for not speedy deleting their page on the talk page.--Crazy4metallica (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I wouldn't have flagged it if you hadn't deleted the "unreferenced" box. You're going to need references. PhGustaf (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to get references and then the speedy deletion came up to quick on me--Crazy4metallica (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have the references add now. --Crazy4metallica (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that I don't decide what happens here -- some admin will look at the flag and decide what to do. But you need better references, at least a newspaper review, something to indicate that the group is notable. Lots of people have put out CDs. Check out WP:MUSIC. Good luck. PhGustaf (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lowbah

I have never heard of "lowbah" or "CHORSEL", and I find it extremely unlikely any poker game involves a "scramble to find the jokers." Please provide some credible sources. --Andrews Palop (talk) 20:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Lowbah" is admittedly slang: It's A-5 low 5-card draw with the sevens rule and a Joker in the deck. The more proper term is "lowball". And, since most poker games these days don't use Jokers, it's usually a hassle to dig them out, and they're often conspicuously unworn. I'm not about to make a big deal out of this, however. PhGustaf (talk) 20:46, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkably I did actually work out that "Lowbah" was slang for lowball, which I know to be 5-card draw where the lowest hand wins. However, not only does slang not belong in an encyclopedia entry, describing it as a "scramble to find the jokers" was ambiguous and I have never heard of a HORSE variant which includes a draw game. I could, of course, be very mistaken, and if this is the case, my apologies, but I still believe your additions to the HORSE article should be rewritten. --Andrews Palop (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a sec, it would appear that CHORSEL is a real game. My apologies for my error. If you wish I will rewrite your edits for you so that they are suitable for an encyclopedia entry. --Andrews Palop (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead, and thanks. This is the sort of interchange that helps Wikipedia work. PhGustaf (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Electro Homeopathy

I've done some work on this page with is currently an AfD. Nonsense though the science behind the topic almost certainly is, it does have some interesting history and might be saveable. Have a look at the rewrked page and see if you think there's the basis for an article there. thanks Brammarb (talk) 20:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Berg obama

Thanks. Just bored, and i figure if it doesn't get deleted, or until it does, it should be as appropriate and good as possible. Go well.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cubs vs. Red Sox

Maybe they'll have a centennial rematch in 2018. I thought for sure it was going to happen in 2003, but fate intervened. Obviously I had to root against the Yankees in the Series, despite what the Marlins did to my Cubs, so my most positive memory of that Series is the extraordinary performance by Josh Beckett, pitching a complete game shutout to clinch it in Game 6 and, unknowingly, close the book on The Stadium's World Series history. The Yankees' collective deer-in-the-headlights look, as Beckett mowed them down inning after inning, was priceless. Just a prelude to 2004, though. To this day, I still can't believe, and have to go back to the DVD to be sure of it, that the Red Sox came back from 3 games to none in the ALCS. Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? 11:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Up until September I thought this year might be the year. Both our teams let us down. Pox on Manny. PhGustaf (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of folks thought the Cubs were the team of destiny this year, or possibly the Rays. Who'd have thought it would be the Phillies? I wonder, though, how long before Manny's act wears thin in L.A.? Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? 22:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama profession

Please discuss this on the article talk page rather than reverting it again: this has been hashed out before, and my revert and Tarc's subsequent revert were in keeping with consensus. Thanks Tvoz/talk 00:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh - didn't see you were already discussing this with Tarc - and on the article talk. (Agree for sure that it's not a big deal.) Tvoz/talk 00:26, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brought it up on the talk page, too. Mea culpa is this is old news, and I'm not going to hold my breath and turn blue about it in any case. PhGustaf (talk) 00:31, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama ucc

He has renounced his membership of Trinity, without transfer to another UCC church. I'm not sure if you understand how this works. Renoucing membership is not the same as ceasing to attend. It is a repudiation and a separation. You need a 3rd party source that says he is UYCC since that repudiation.Die4Dixie (talk) 12:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, you need to show that he's renounced the denomination as well as the congregation. "Membership" could get dicey; last time I checked, UCC didn't issue photo IDs. PhGustaf (talk) 22:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely not. You must show a source that he continued to be UCC without a church and that he is still in communion with the UCC.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:13, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also see where you said I had an agenda in your edit summary. Please comment on edits and not editors or I will have you up on ANI quicker than you can say shit. Call this a non template warning, level 1Die4Dixie (talk) 22:17, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are putting your personal spin on what constitutes membership in a denomination. That's original research, and it will not do. You have also stated he has "renounced" his membership, without offering any citation for that alleged fact. Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? 22:57, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wanna see that ANI report. Dealing with D4D would be like dealing with Ernie Lombardi as a pinch runner. PhGustaf (talk) 23:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, he's got a gun in back o' that pick-em-up. Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? 23:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken my concerns about Die4's behavior to the WP:ANI page. Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? 23:43, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing vandalism

This editor User:DegenFarang has stated he's deleting certain links over his problem with wanting to post links to his site. 2005 (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He also moved David Williams (card player), which I moved back. It's all pretty weird. 2005 (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you bring this up on the proper talk pages, and file through the proper channels if you really think vandalism is involved. The way you're handling it now seems heavy-handed to me, and I disagree with your deletion of criticism from your talk page. This doesn't mean I don't appreciate your many contributions to the poker articles. PhGustaf (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm simply reverting dozens of changes he made, after he threatened to do so on my talk page simply because I upgraded the reference on an article from one to his site to a more official one. There is nothing heavy handed out about that. I could have just reverted them without comment, but that would not have given the correct picture. 2005 (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you and he should take a deep breath and talk it out between yourselves. I've looked at his contribs; he's mostly removing references to poker-babes, which is a pretty dicey reference, though I myself wouldn't charge around removing the references wholesale. If you get a talk going that doesn't include "spam" or "vandal" you might get somewhere; edit warring and snarky edit summaries won't. PhGustaf (talk) 01:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to explain things on his talk page: User_talk:DegenFarang. 2005 (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed that you beat me to it, even to the "deep breath" line. Let's hope for peace in Dodge City. PhGustaf (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black president

I have rewritten this article and fully cited it. I hope you can read over it and share your thoughts. • Freechild'sup? 15:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama

Read the cite. It says he resigned from the denomination.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2009 (UTC) "The United Church of Christ, the denomination from which Obama resigned when he left Wright's church, issued a written invitation to join a UCC denomination in Washington and resume his connections to the church." From the cited material. read the cite please.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds to me like an unwarranted conclusion on t he part of the reporter. Talk page, please. PhGustaf (talk) 23:21, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See you there. Sounds like your OR vs. a reliable 3rd party source.Die4Dixie (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Inaurguration address mistake

There is no such policy that forbids this information. That is the article that it belongs in. As a historian, I am appalled by the president's apparant lack of knowledge on U.S. History. I have no idea why. Perhaps it comes from his many years going to school abroad, but he has a serious lapse in that department. There is no other article or section to place this information. It is best suited there. Regardless of party or support, the sentence was cited properly and has been placed in its proper section. Any removal means that those removing it are not interested in improving wikipedia, but are only here to protect Obama's image. It is not a biography, so WP:BLP does not apply. It is only one sentence, so WP:Weight does not apply.--Jojhutton (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's one quite long sentence about an entirely trivial matter. It probably doesn't belong anywhere on wikipedia at all. Please mind article probation, and let's see what others have to say on the talk page. PhGustaf (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you should know

Titles of Nobility Amendment

It's not a part of the Constitution. -- Fifty7 (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ooops. Thanks much for the correction and the interesting history. PhGustaf (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

As the user didn't see fit to inform you, you have been mentioned at ANI. Grsz^11 00:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I saw the complaint, but for some reason I don't feel terrified. PhGustaf (talk) 00:33, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus does not actual definition to "Majority"

If one hundred people vote that one plus one equals three and one person votes that one plus one equals two what should happen? Are accuracy and description accuracy important to you PhGustaf? Do you agree that it might be ironic if there is a Wikipediaish conspiracy that attemps to surround and or beset the conspiracy theory article with subtle sabotage? The sublte yet obvious ilhint with the phrase cabal seems to be attempting to blame all middle eastern people for conspiracies, are you, perhaps unwittingly, guilty of that PhGustaf? 208.59.112.152 (talk) 16:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama

Please consider discussing on the talk page assuming you stand by it.[1] I think the consensus (if you can call it that - the discussion is not very orderly) is to simplify the description of Obama's teaching, and leave the discussion of terminology to the footnote. If it's important for the record to clarify that "professor" is a legitimate description, that can certainly be in the footnote. It's very close to one of the proposals that I advanced and Hoary seemed to approve on the talk page at 08:10, 5 May 2009. I don't think we're going to get a clear consensus until the discussion becomes more orderly. Maybe that means we close the discussion as no consensus, which I'm fine with. One way or another it looks like we may be headed for a car wreck on the talk page unless certain people can tone things down by a few notches.... well, as long as we do it with a smile, that's 90% of the battle, right? Cheerio, Wikidemon (talk) 01:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be there. It was my notion that the discussion was leaning towards "professor" in the text, leaving the more formal title in the footnote. Leaving the page as it is is fine with me. (And, I'm smiling. I don't think you've seen me get hostile often.) PhGustaf (talk) 01:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three Banks Fail on a single weekend; 40 Closures So Far This Year

I was being droll. However, my indulgence was not irresponsible; it amply points out why this is far from an exceptional situation, how it is (not) handled in that most exceptional situation, and why it won't be added to the article. Without this background, it's quite possible some well-meaning and responsible editor like Wikidemon (not to mention some malicious and irresponsible editor) might think it reasonable to seek to find a way to add bank failure information to the article, or to be alarmed by the statistic, or to be convinced that our lack of action on the issue is an example of editors with their heads in the sand, seeking to whitewash negative information, as is so often accused. Indeed, the talk page isn't a forum, but as it stands now it's basically Grundle's blog, a compendium of alarmist, newsy, anti-Obama screes with multiple links to editorials and partisan sources. Editors with a certain perspective feel these issues are never adequately responded to, and so the issues come back again and again, sometimes even before the previous attempt has been archived.

It's ignorance that causes it, and responding with factual refutation—while I'm sure it will fall on deaf ears for some—is what is called for. You teach a lot more flies with facts than you do with honey. But that doesn't mean we have to have bilious tastes in our mouths or acidic tongues while we're dispensing those facts. An encyclopedia is supposed to educate its reader. But without some historical perspective, the articles would be like the talk pages, with every news item that someone can sneak in, or fool, or scare, or wear us down into adding. (Like Grundle did with the Indiana Pensioners vs. Chrysler bit.) If that means we need to do some educating of the editors on this talk page first, within reason, then so be it. Abrazame (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why you've deleted my contribution to Poker Flops and called it spam

Hi PhGustaf, I think you were too quick to delete my contribution with what seems like hardly any consideration. The article is about poker flops, I found the article to be very basic. I added useful information to the article about poker flops from a professional poker player's perspective, which helps people learn about the deeper levels of the game, and provided a link to the only site I've seen which has an analysis of every one of the 22,100 possible poker flops at up to 10 levels of opponent hand ranges each, which is notable! How is this spam? Wikipedia is supposed to be welcoming of public submissions, and promote increased knowledge. I can understand if you think my writing style needs work, I am not experienced in writing wikipedia articles, but spam? I put considerable effort into writing it so that it was clear, understandable, concise but gave the reader a bit more insight into poker flops, and some conceptual starting points which they could use to further their knowledge of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillimon (talk • contribs) 04:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the writing was fine. My main problem with your contribution was that it seemed aimed at promoting a particular site offering flop-analysis software. I could be mistaken about this. Please bring the matter up on the article's talk page; there are plenty of watchers there who will help resolve this. I remove lots of stuff from poker pages and may have pulled the trigger too soon here. Cheers.

PhGustaf (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC) Okay thanks, I'll check out the article talk page. Perpaps I gave too much detail about the analysis available there, but since its relevant to poker flops I personally think its informative, though maybe too deep for newbies and the scope of the article. I don't think there are any other sites on the internet that analyze every possible poker flop. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fillimon (talk • contribs) 05:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread on the talk page, and we should have a few other opinions in a day or two. Your attitude is appreciated. PhGustaf (talk) 05:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't resort to edit warring

[2] Don't bait editors into continuing edit wars. It is currently being discussed on the article's talk page. Please discuss the change before resorting to reverts. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of what's going on. Particularly in an article on probation, it's up to the includer to justify new material. I just reset to zero. And I am not "baiting". PhGustaf (talk) 00:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information was justified on the talk page when you reverted. Please read Abecedarian's post. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The post in the thread precipitated by the reversion? PhGustaf (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The post by Ferrylodge was made at 23:56, you reverted at 0:05. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:03, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. You said "Abecedarian". I spent a few minutes checking what I was reverting. I would probably have still reverted even after reading Fl's comment. PhGustaf (talk) 01:12, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BO

Could you take a look at my this comment ? I am afraid it might have been lost in all the traffic and I would like to hear your views. You can post a reply on the article talk page itself. Regards. Abecedare (talk) 01:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done; I agree. I was going to reply sooner, but dinner happened. If Boone is the only one, no mention as it's too trivial. PhGustaf (talk) 02:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing survey

Hi PhGustaf. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.

Link to the survey: http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.aspx?sm=P6r2MmP9rbFMuDigYielAQ_3d_3d

Thanks and best regards, Mike Lyons lyonspen | (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent reversion of one of my edits

In this edit, you reverted a bit of cite-supported information which I had added to the Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories article, saying: "rv good faith addition, material already included below". My addition of the information was based on considerations of article style similar to guidance which is available in the English Wikipedia style guideline "Wikipedia:Writing better articles", particularly the "Information style and tone section of that guideline. That section discusses what it describes as "Two styles, closely related", which it says tend to be used for Wikipedia articles: News style and Summary style.

Regarding news style the guideline says, "The main feature of news style is a placement of important information first, with a decreasing importance as the article advances."

Regarding summary style the guideline says, "The idea is to distribute information in such a way that Wikipedia can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. It is up to the reader to choose how much detail to which they are exposed. Using progressively longer and longer summaries avoids overwhelming the reader with too much text at once." The idea being to enable a reader to get an overview by reading only the "==" level topical sections, and progressively greater detail on subtopics of interest by reading "===", "====", etc. level sections of those subtopics.

Regardless of which style the article uses, it makes sense to set the stage before introducing detailed information. I feel that the stage-setting information which I introduced and which you reverted was entirely appropriate at the level where I introduced it.

Comments? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition was well written and well supported. I removed it because it was duplicated a few paragraphs below, in a sequence where one person said, "it wouldn't matter if he were born on Mars", and another said, "oh, yes it would, she was only 18".

I disagree that it belongs at the top of the section, though. It's a detail: it would be important only if Obama were born outside the country, which we know to not be the case.

If you're uncomfortable with this, we should use the talk page to get extra opinions. I don't mind being shown if I'm wrong. Cheers, PhGustaf (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I don't think any stage-setting is necessary there. PhGustaf (talk) 04:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I still believe that information about why Obama's place of birth is important should be introduced prior to all the falderal about the COLB being posted, etc., but I'm not going to argue about it. Subject article is a mess in any case.

In reference to the Correction About Natural-Born Citizen Law item cited in support of what you characterize as an "oh, yes it would, ..." remark, I see that remark goes on to say, "[...] Congress made the law retroactive to 1952, doubly covering Obama. [...] Any legal challenge would have to argue that Congress can't make someone retroactively a citizen at birth, and prove [... <elided -- irrelevant to this point re ability to transmit citizenship>].", regarding which might the writer (Volokh, I think) might be interested in seeing this recent case and other similar cases. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I'll read up in the morning, and think about the organizayion. Thanks, PhGustaf (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This case might be closer to what Obama's situation would be if his claim of having been born inside of US jurisdiction is called into question and he is unable to substantiate that claim. It was decided in March of 2009 under the 1952 INA on the basis that the applicant had failed to meet his burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that his mother had 5 years of physical presence in the United States after her 14th birthday. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

Don't canvass. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[3] PhGustaf (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was asking a question to an administrator. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. You also have more experience than me, so where would one go for mediation if a group of editors seems to be disregarding wiki standards and applying personal bias? DeltoidNoob (talk) 01:36, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom

Thanks for the tipoff. I was unaware of that page, and in an obvious moment of forgetfulness, CoM had failed to tell us about it. Shazam! Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 05:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought that you had heard of if, but made it known you weren't interested. Your name is mentioned, way up top in the official stuff. Glad you put in your piece, and you inspired me to add a line or two. PhGustaf (talk) 05:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I actually was notified, I don't recall it. I could be wrong, though. Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 05:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a good memory, it's just short. Sceptre informed me last week, and you and I even had some discussion about why I didn't want any more to do with it. I then erased it from my memory, though thankfully not from my talk page. However, if not for CoM's backstabbing, I still likely would have stayed away from that page. So once again, CoM throws down the gauntlet. Great. Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 05:21, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I had forgotten about that too. That's the one where the guy who was playing WP:IDHT about Obama and his teleprompter came by and accused me of canvassing. He got bored and went away, and last time I looked he was doing the same thing about waterboarding not being torture. PhGustaf (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've said all I can think of to say on that page now, but of course it's on my watch list now, like I needed another contentious page to watch. The one thing I learned from defending pages like Palin and Obama is that it's hopeless - constant battles over minutia like teleprompters. I can't even imagine what it's like on Arab-Israeli pages, or Creationism-Evolution. Sometimes I think of wikipedia as simply a huge social experiment Mr. Wales is conducting, and he must certainly have some interesting data by now. Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 05:36, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of spiraling, check this out, where he refers to "many (most?)" wikipedians as "psycopathic" [sic] [4] Maybe he should reiterate that on his request for lowering the topic ban. Might help, eh? Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 06:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pits

CoM's real complaint is that he's topic-banned and doesn't get to join in the fun. Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 22:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And will get topic-banned again in a New York second unless he changes his ways before the ban expires. Till then, it's just another train wreck[5]. PhGustaf (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny stuff. Alfred Hitchcock once said the reason we like to wartch horror movies and disaster movies and such, is that we're just so glad it's them and not us. Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 23:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think I should have signed up for that no-drama-thon, given that I'm doing a better job of honoring it silently than certain ones (or one, anyway) who actually signed up for it. For example, I've almost totally stayed away from editing on ANI, yet there Mr. No Drama is, defending the perpetually difficult user Badgagnani or whatever it is. When threatened with a block, Badgagnani complains that it sounds like a threat. Nothing gets past that boy. I was tempted to add something about "that's not a threat, it's a promise" (speaking of badgags) but I'm trying to avoid official drama. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has to fight bias and censorship and POV-pushers. PhGustaf (talk) 01:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've lost count of the number of indefs who made that their mission here. Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 02:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps his goal is to be as annoying as possible in front of as many admins as possible[6], so that next time he comes up on ArbCom or AN/I they'll all feel noble enough to recuse themselves. PhGustaf (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On that general topic, here's another user, who's on a 2-week block [7] and is wondering about the idea of a "countdown clock". Interesting idea, although if he's watching the clock for the next 10 days it's liable to go slowly. But I expect something like that could be programmed. But what about an indef-block? I'm thinking a visual, of a calendar with the 12th of the month circled, for the month called "Never". Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 03:04, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. Tantalize them. The last day of the month is circled, but on the day before the calendar rolls over to the next one. PhGustaf (talk) 06:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Online_Poker well-wikified spam

You should have a look at link #21 (tightpoker.com) it IS spam also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.216.32 (talk) 07:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no problem. sorry for not listening.

Speaking of Train Wrecks

As you've had positive interaction with Grundle2600 (talk), perhaps you can help get his return to editing of banned topics back on track. Unfortunately, he seems off to a bad start. I left him a note on his talk page, and a couple on an article's talk page he's editing, trying to nudge him in the right direction. Others have also made note of some deficiencies on the same article's talk page. Thanks (I want to help), --4wajzkd02 (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left some avuncular but stern advice on his talk page. Feel free to add comments. I frankly don't have high hopes. Grundle seems like a nice guy, but his doe-eyed naïf persona is wearing thin. PhGustaf (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a topic ban myself. I'm forbidden to write about any subject where cuneiform is involved. They claim I babble-on. →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 02:22, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Bradley, Dave Kingman, etc.

"7 down, 23 to go." Good one. He's making things tough for himself, though. With all those caps he's worn, how will he narrow it down to one, for his Hall of Fame plaque? →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 01:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He'll wait till Dave Kingman get in, and follow Kingman's example. PhGustaf (talk) 01:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Kingman played for 4 different teams in one season. Bradley is downright stable by comparison to "Dave Ding-Dong", as Mike Royko called him. (Hard telling what Royko would have to say about Bradley, though.) →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 02:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who has the HoF record for number of teams. Rabbit Maranville has five, which is a lot. (Of course, he's the sort of HOFer who makes statheads grumble.)

Mike Royko was one of my favorite Chicagoans, ahead of Marlin Perkins but behind Studs Terkel. 03:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Maranville is from the day when it was a hall of fame rather than a hall of stats. But while I'm sure he was a good player, he's more of a Chick Hafey than a Babe Ruth. In case you couldn't guess, Chick Hafey to my mind is like the quintessential "how did he get in here?" kind of player. He has less business being in the Hall than Morgan Bulkeley does, and that's saying something. →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 03:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to measure Hall of Famers by the number of teams they were on. The incredible Cy Young was on 5 different clubs no less, although I would say he was only dominant on a couple of them - Cleveland NL in the 1890s and Boston AL in the 1900s. I would put an asterisk next to his two years in St. Louis NL, where he was sent from Cleveland as part of the rape of that ballclub by the Robison brothers (who owned both teams), and skedaddled for the AL as soon as they turned major. And he hung on for a couple of years at the end, with Cleveland and Boston NL. But that's an interesting question - most different clubs for a Hall of Famer. You almost have to narrow it to roughly 1900-1975, because before then a lot of teams came and went, and after then free agency put an end to team loyalty, and one might expect Hall of Fame caliber players to be on a number of different teams. Reggie Jackson, for example, was on 5 clubs. →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 04:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skimming through the list a little bit, Roger Bresnahan played with 5 different clubs. Rogers Hornsby also had 5. He might have had fewer had he not been such a prickly character (not as bad as Cobb, but definitely within sight of his neighborhood). Dan Brouthers played with a whopping 10 teams, but most of that was 19th century. Satchel Paige played for like 17 teams, but most of them were Negro League clubs which tended to come and go. →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 04:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I should have thought harder before I asked. You'd be right to leave the 19th century and the Negro leagues out of any such count. (Maranville had a year in the minors in the middle of his career. Not sure how to count that, or possibly the Federal League.)

I was thinking of beloved loyal Red Sox like Teddy and Yaz and now Rice as typical HOFers, but sheesh, Pedro has five teams already and a few years to play. Bet he gets a Sox hat, though. PhGustaf (talk) 04:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as interesting would be the number of players who spent their entire careers with one club, neither getting traded nor going free agent. Stan Musial and Cal Ripken, respectively, come to mind immediately. I'd give an asterisk to the Flying Dutchman, as Wagner went from Louisville to Pittsburgh simply on account of the owner merging the teams. →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 04:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to earthbound players, Bob Miller played with 10 different clubs, which is twice as many as Bob "Suitcase" Seeds had. Bobby Bonds played for 8 teams, and had that fact immortalized in Terry Cashman's song, "Talkin' Baseball (Willie, Mickey and the Duke)" when he said, "Now it's the 80s, and Brett is the greatest, and Bobby Bonds can play for everyone." And back to Dave Ding-Dong,[8] he played for 7 clubs, typically for only 2-3 years at a time, as he tended to wear out his welcome quickly. It was 1977 that he played for the Mets, Padres, Angels, and Yankees. I don't know if 4 clubs in one year is a record, but it's got to be close. He was traded by the Mets at the June 15th deadline. I think it was Mets catcher John Stearns who described Kingman as having "the personality of a tree stump." He was only on the Angels roster for 9 days. He went to the Yanks but did not play in the post-season. I'm a sucker for sluggers, and I watched Kingman with some interest when he was on the Cubs, and especially the 1979 season where he showed some discipline at the plate for probably the only time in his career and hit some seriously long home runs. He was probably the most one-dimensional player I've ever seen, though. He couldn't field his way out of a paper bag. But when you can hit the ball 500 feet, clubs will be forgiving... for awhile. He was like the opposite of Dal Maxvill, the outstanding Cardinals shortstop who couldn't hit much better than Casey Wise. If you could clone a ballplayer with Maxvill's fielding skill and Kingman's hitting skill, you'd have... well, you'd have Willie Mays. But being only half Willie Mays, one way or the other, seldom gets you into the Hall. →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 04:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that the subject of Kong Kingman came up, as I went to his article and discovered a number of factual errors. I think it's factually in pretty good shape now. Kingman was apparently not much of a teammate, but he was certainly an entertaining character from the fan standpoint, and one of those guys you make sure to watch when he comes to bat, since you never know when he might hit a 500-footer. →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 06:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. I'm not so sure about him being half of Willie Mays, though — Mays made a lot fewer outs. I'm thinking 1982 here, the year he led the NL with 37 HR but batted .204 and fielded like a statue of Dick Stuart. I'm sure I'm not the only one who would have loved the irony of that average creeping down to .199 PhGustaf (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeh, I was being a little generous. In terms of batting average, Kingman was in Maxvill's neighborhood, not Mays'. But Kingman was certainly more of an impact batter overall than Maxvill was. Truth to tell, Bob Gibson was more of an impact batter on that Cardinals club than Maxvill was. Comparing anyone to Mays gets chancy. I heard Mike Lupica recently call Mays the greatest player ever. I still defer to Ruth, for reasons that go beyond the field. But Mays was the ultimate every-tool player: Great defense, power, average, speed, you name it. He never pitched, as far as I know. But he probably could have. Certainly the greatest all-around player in my lifetime. →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 00:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, yes, Kingman could safely be described as a butcher defensively. I have this vague recollection of watching a Cardinals-Giants game on TV in the early 70s, and the Cardinals TV announcer (probably Jay Randolph) commented on a situation where there was a Cardinal on first and the pitcher was throwing to first. Randolph said the pitcher ought to be careful throwing over to first, "the way Kingman covers that bag." And we're just talking catching a thrown ball, never mind a batted ball. Kingman was a born DH, but unfortunately for him he didn't get to DH until late in his career. →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One side note on the Kingman article: I noticed that Kingman had hit that 550-foot shot at Wrigley in 1976 just a few days before that home run orgy between the Cubs and Phillies in which Schmidt hit 4 of them. That was a vague precursor to the 1979 Cubs-Phils 23-22 game. Someone tried to take away the Schmidt reference from 1976. Maybe that's "synthesis". I dunno. But this is baseball, not nuclear physics. →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 00:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, in the articles I generally follow, I still have to revert "born in Kenya" twice a day. Count yourself lucky. PhGustaf (talk) 00:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Obama, I suppose. They're still whipping that deceased equine? Oy. Although, for some similar entertainment, check out the Carmen Miranda talk page sometime. →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 00:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2012 could be revenge time, as some liberal-leaning "birthers" might present claims that Sarah was actually born on Mars. →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 00:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, for some reason I saw the Miranda page. So many of these dumb arguments are about what things are called — see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Harry_Benjamin's_Syndrome. Essentially, a group of gender-dysmorphic people decided that they weren't transgender at all, so they made up a new name for it and want an article about it. For the most noise about the least issue, though, I lean towards Speed of Light. PhGustaf (talk) 00:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's one thing I find irksome here, the amount of time wasted trying to define what to call something, when we have redirects just to cover situations like that. Who cares what an article's called, as long as you can get to it. Likewise with categories, which are constantly being created, renamed, deleted - a total waste of time that I avoid like the plague. If I create a baseball article, I call it "Category:Baseball" and let someone else figure out how to fine-tune it. And, o lord yes, I've seen some of that ridiculous arguing on ANI about stuff concerning the speed of light. It's hard to imagine editors getting themselves into the threat of being indef'd over such silliness. Baseball and cartoons are relatively non-controversial, although I remember a minor edit war once over someone insisting that "Dumas" was Daffy Duck's middle name, just because they used it as a joke in "The Scarlet Pumpernickel". →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 01:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the Miranda thing, it seems like only about 3 editors are actually watching that page. That one guy goes on for a long paragraph, and the other editor goes on for a long paragraph rebutting him - with the same arguments back and forth, ad infinitum. I'm doing the same thing, except I've reduced it to the simple statement, "You're wrong." That's a signficant time-saver, and accomplishes the same thing, i.e. nothing. →Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your removal of relevant, well sourced material is inexcusable.

This edit is inexcusable. When a politician says he has one position on an issue, but he acts the opposite of his claim, the article should cite both of those things. Obama said he would stop the raids, but his true position is that he is still continuing them. If he truly wanted to stop them, he would have issued a simple one page executive order to do so.

Furthermore, NPOV states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

Grundle2600 (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by the edit.

1. As others have pointed out, your interpretation of WP:NPOV is faulty. Your approach also treads close to WP:SYNTH.
2. The matter is at best questionable under WP:WEIGHT.
3. You didn't even mention my lovely haiku edit summary.

PhGustaf (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your haiku is lovely, now that you point it out to me. I just didn't realize it was a haiku because you want people to pronounce "W" with only syllable.

Now, regarding this new edit of yours: There was consensus to have a single sentence about Van Jones resigning after it was revealed that he was a self described "communist" who blamed the 9-11 attacks on the U.S. government. Please explain why you think the article should mention Obama's actions against offshore drilling, but not his actions in favor of offshore drilling. Also please explain why you think citing one of those things without simultaneously citing the other does not violate NPOV, which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors." How is it not noteworthy that Obama's choice to head the "Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools" has an extensive history of illegal drug use, and avoided reporting the statutory rape of a 15 year old student? If there's going to be a section on Obama's claims of transparency, why shouldn't the section mention cases where Obama was heavily non-transparent? How is Obama's nationalization of General Motors, and firing of its CEO, not notable? How is the questioning of the constitutionality of Obama's czars by two different Senators from Obama's own party not relevant to the section on those czars? Grundle2600 (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding this, if you feel that way, please feel free to respond to his latest accusations at ANI. Thanks. Grsz^11 23:49, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Amendment#Statement_by_Grundle2600

FYI, your recent edits are (unfairly) mentioned by Grundle2600. I read your clear explanation of your edit, but Grundle2600 seems to not get it. Cheers, --4wajzkd02 (talk)

Thanks. I have made my opinions known at the right place. PhGustaf (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama's ethnic categories

I saw the adding of the category 'Irish Americans' and then saw it changed to 'Irish American Politicians' and was going to revert it too. But I searched on the Obama page and there are two links that are used as references that seem to prove that President Obama does have Irish in his background. Here and here. Both are in reference #6.

Now, I realize that it has been decided(and rightly so)that President Obama should be referred to as African American as his race. But that doesn't exclude, imo, from placing his bio in the category of his ethnic heritage also. It seems that it has been proven, by reliable sources, that President Obama is definitely of at least partial Irish Heritage. I don't think this is a slippery slope and is just a category placement. DD2K (talk) 20:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama certainly has distant Irish relatives. So do I, more than he, in fact, but they don't make me Irish-American. Unless he makes his marginal Irish heritage an issue himself, it;s a non-issue. Do look at the archived talk, and thanks for the thoughtful response. PhGustaf (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rather not wade through the old archives for this particular issue, I just thought it was interesting. But not interesting enough to pursue. heh-heh In other words, I can live with it either way. And thanks for your responses too, thoughtful and interesting. DD2K (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trolling

Please stop trolling on Grundle's page and posting links to a train wreck image. That kind of disruptive baiting is unhelpful and isn't collegial. You should know better. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have enough history with Grundle to trust him to complain to me if my criticisms of him ever get out of line. And I really love that picture. PhGustaf (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meanwhile, I note that you and a certain Cubs fan have this page on each other's watchlists, but are prohibited from dealing with one another. My call on my page is to have at it, like Killer Kowalski and Haystack Calhoun. PhGustaf (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Watch list

That watch list tool on Grundle's page is pretty handy. I was shocked (though not very) at how many eyes are glued on my page, and it sure looks funny with all those eyes glued on it. (Apologies to Doodles Weaver). Probably mostly users who made one comment and then forgot to disable the "watch" checkbox. The next question, then, is who is on the most watch lists? ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep your eye on the ball, your ear to the ground, and your nose to the grindstone. Then try to work in that position." PhGustaf (talk) 06:49, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

National Lampoon once had a cover illustration depicting someone with his nose to the grindstone. It weren't pretty.[9] ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They also had a "split beaver" centerfold once. PhGustaf (talk) 07:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I recall that. That wasn't pretty either. That expression also was the punch line to a shaggy dog story of an HBO short film called "Disco Beaver from Outer Space". ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the first minute or two of that film:[10] Not coincidentally, it was produced by NatLamp. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And the last 8 minutes or so.[11] Featuring a young Jamie Widdoes. Not sure who the other players are. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nyt and holocaust

hi - i'm sorry, i didn't understand what you were explaining to me on my talk page re the request to delete the entire nyt and holocaust article. could you please walk me through it step by step? thanks. --Cimicifugia (talk) 18:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia[reply]

I nominated the article for deletion because it was a horrible hatchet piece that violated a whole alphabet soup of wikipedia policy. During the ensuing discussion (see the link on your page) the article was cleaned up and kept. I'd still like to be of it, but (feeble) consensus seems against me. PhGustaf (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.

The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you. -- TS 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do we change?

I see your Obama religion comments. Christian, last associated with UCC seems reasonable to me. I was thinking of UCC but your suggestion makes sense, too. Should we change it? Christian (alone) seems to be the worse choice as many agree. A few want that, however. Some people there really don't like me. JB50000 (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We should keep discussions like this on the talk page. See what the other editors say. "Non-denominational" looks accurate to me too, but would be OR. Do go back and look at that old argument. PhGustaf (talk) 05:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After 13 months in office, the Obamas have still not settled on a church? ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last I heard, the closest thing to a regular church he has is the private chapel at Camp David. I think regular attendance at a public church would be unlikely — for one thing, the rest of the congregation would get tired of getting frisked every Sunday. Obama also has a collection of pastoral advisors who visit him at the White House. (Wasn't the bad guy in that debate last year later found to be part of a sock farm?) PhGustaf (talk) 06:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's so terrible, one of his pastors was a sock on Wikipedia! Seriously, I think Obama is not into details as far as religion. With some people, if they are one denomination, they will stick with it. Politics is in Obama's blood. He picked Trinity UCC since it was the "in" church for a community organizer to join. He still smokes. For some religions, that is a "no no". Now that he is in Washington, DC, there is no "in" church. He doesn't want to join the UCC church near the White House. I think he doesn't go to church that often. So picking the military chapel is the neutral thing to do. If he misses church, the military chaplain isn't going to say anything because he doesn't want to be reassigned to Alaska or Iraq. That doesn't mean that Obama is not a Christian. Ford smoked, too, even a heavier smoker than Obama. He smoked like a chimney. Probably nerves after pardoning Nixon! JB50000 (talk) 06:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, one of the wikipedia debaters was a sockframer sockfarmer, not an Obama crony. As far as the "morality" of tobacco, keep in mind that Virginia and the Carolinas, which are certainly heavily religious, are also heavy producers of tobacco. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder where Bush went to church, assuming he actually did? Also, Abe Lincoln, the darling of the Republican Party, was apparently an agnostic, and would probably be amused that "In God We Trust" covers his head on the cent like a large non-denominational yarmulke. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bush W. has a shady, unchristian-like past. Very heavy drinker. JB50000 (talk) 07:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should also point out that our only divorced President was another GOP darling, Ronald Reagan. For some religions, divorce is rather a bigger "no no" than smoking. It's amazing what behaviors are tolerated when a guy supports the same "general" viewpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, speaking of religious beliefs, do you know why Southern Baptists don't have sex standing up? ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(unresolved ec's)Jefferson wasn't much of a fundamentalist either. Is a sockframer anything like a rughooker? My grandmother was a rughooker. Anyway, the UCC is quite low on dogma so it's reasonable to suppose that Obama is pretty flexible himself. It also seems that he considers the details of his faith private. PhGustaf (talk) 06:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the "sockframer", although it occurred to me it had some value as it was (e.g. the guy who created a bunch of fake Axmann8 socks in order to get him in further trouble). Keeping his beliefs to himself? There's a novel idea that hasn't been tried for awhile. As for me, I'm in the Church of Baseball. On off days I attend the Church of What's Happenin' Now. And the answer to the question is, "Because someone might think they're dancing." ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:47, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt anyone outside the USA cares what Obama's denomination is or would be. And it's mainly of some concern due to the notion that he's a Muslim, which is apparently worse than being a Godless Communist - never mind that his "Muslim" father was an atheist. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In 1964, Nelson Rockefeller' Presidential campaign got in deep trouble because he was divorced. Didn't seem to be a problem with Ron "family values". Of course, Rocky did die whilst porking the help. I know you can't comment, but you might find the current ArbCom proceedings concerning an old friend of interest. PhGustaf (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CoM???? JB50000 (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't watch ArbCom any more.

But I don't watch it any less. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you aren't that witty wabbit? JB50000 (talk) 07:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Half-witty, anyway. That joke I'm sure has been around forever, but the one that stuck with me, and may be fitting in reference to GWB, is when Charley Weaver, who used to talk about his enjoyment of Scotch, was on the Tonight show once. He told Johnny Carson, with a straight face, "I don't drink any more, Johnny." Johnny bit, and asked seriously, "You don't?" Weaver said, "No. But I don't drink any less!" You had to be there, or to be old enough to remember Charley Weaver. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, Charley Weaver. Best known for reading letters from Mt. Idy, sitting in the center lower left Hollywood Square, and having a seriously hot granddaughter. PhGustaf (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, yeh. I was just re-reading the article. Charley's humor was pure corn, in short it was my kind of humor. I remember listening to Moran and Mack records from the early 1900s, with the same kinds of jokes, and they were probably already old then. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You probably liked Victor Borge, too. He used ancient jokes, but they were his own ancient jokes. He died at 91 after giving a performance; he probably hadn't made up a new joke since he was 35. PhGustaf (talk) 08:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't Nelson Rockefeller die while having sex with another woman? The other woman delayed calling the ambulance for several hours because it's very hard to put underwear and clothes on a dead man. JB50000 (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the term "porking the help", which reminds me of a line from Animal House. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast, I would guess that the big eater W.H. Taft died from a helping of pork. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:06, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re JB50K's observation above: Bush has admitted to drinking heavily in earlier time but says he gave it up in 1986. Some contest this; see George W. Bush substance abuse controversy. We have an article for everything. PhGustaf (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Don oriya film

Hello PhGustaf. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Don oriya film, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to films. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'll avoid that mistake in the future. PhGustaf (talk) 23:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Even (company)

Hello PhGustaf. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Even (company), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSD#A7 requires only that an article assert importance, not that it establish notability. The article says Even is listed on the Brazilian stock exchange. According to WP:COMPANY, that's not enough by itself to establish notability, but I thought it was an assertion of importance. You might want to try PROD instead of WP:CSD. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking back at that article shows I was far too quick on the trigger finger with it. I'll just leave it be. Thanks for the advice. PhGustaf (talk) 23:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Public image et al

FYI: 3RR report. You may wish to chime in. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Erik Gustavson

This is a notable filmmaker, and the initial version of the article did make that sufficiently clear, in my read of it. Paul Erik ^(talk)(contribs) 04:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

speedies

Please look at the history of an article before you nom for deletion, and give people a chance to write the article. A speedy of a 19th century figure John Evan Thomas (1810-1873) just 4 minutes after the article was start is a little too quick. As you can see, the article is now fine.

I also see the notices above, and I see that you have most recently marked for speedy a TV show The Strange World of Coffin Joe (TV Show)‎ . Such subjects are also not covered by CSDA7. Looking at your contributions, and some comments above, you have been primarily marking articles for speedy, and going very fast. At least 20% of your taggings are in error, having been removed by other administrators--the other 80% are excellent, but that's a little too high an error rate. I see you are using Twinkle, which makes it easy to go more rapidly than advisable. I would like to suggest that you stop using it, for a while. -- DGG ( talk ) 23:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or at least take a breath, look away, and actually read before clicking. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cautions. I will use more care. PhGustaf (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kemal Atatürk Lisesi speedy declined

as it's a high school, the infobox was malformed. Dlohcierekim 00:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hertelskiwax speedy deletion declined

Hi PhGustaf, just wanted to let you know that I have recently declined the speedy deletion request you placed on the article Hertelskiwax under G11 criterion, as I do not see any promotional language or wording in the article. Thanks, and keep up the great work. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was a close call. I'm trying to keep my speedy requests at 90% or so; I do miss sometimes. PhGustaf (talk) 21:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, you'll get a good hang of it over time (no one's ever perfect at it, of course). You seem to be doing a nice job. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:19, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the best possible result is that I nominate something for a speedy and it turns into a good article. PhGustaf (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, a featured article would be more like it :) Whenever I come across an article that I'm about to tag, I ask myself, after reading it, "What makes the article an attack page, or spam page, or whatever it may be?" If I don't have a specific answer (by that I mean an answer in which I can look at a specific portion of the article and go, "there it is"), then I wouldn't tag it for speedy deletion. But whatever works best for you. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Langra in Wikipedia and I'm Thaumaturgist in Wikimedia Commons.

I wanted to have the same name (Thaumaturgist) in both places but was not allowed to. It appears that everytime I'm going back and forth between Wikimedia & Wikipedia, copying my own stuff back and forth, I'm triggering an alarm. That is costing you useless extra work and hinders my progress at the same time.

If that is indeed the problem, can you suggest ways to fix it please ?

Any other suggestions to this layman is always welcome.

Thanks for your understanding. Langra (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AUTOCONFIRMATION

Am I 'Autoconfirmed' yet. What are the advantages, if i may ask please. Thanks.

Langra (talk) 23:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'm not sure why you're asking me about this. But if you pick one unique name, and poke the right buttons under "preferences", you'll automagically get logged onto wikiwhatever with that name. Apparently someone else on Wikipedia has grabbed "Thaumaturgist" already; you should consider being "Langra" wikiwide. Good luck; I've exhausted my knowledge on this.

"Autoconfirmed" happens when you've had your user name for a few days and made a few edits to nonprotected pages. It's no big deal; it just assures people that you're not making one cheap shot. PhGustaf (talk) 00:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you're the person who posted the isolated mango photograph. You'd be best off incorporating your material into whatever articles we already have on mangoes. Delicious they are, but hard to peel. PhGustaf (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fraser

You were a bit too quick proposing speedy deletion on this one. Aren't you supposed to give people a chance to develop the article rather than attempting to delete it within minutes? This will be a proper objective referenced article. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 02:05, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fraser

I suggest you send this issue to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see what the article looks like in a day or two. PhGustaf (talk) 02:33, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am unclear why you think the article is some form of advertising. What exactly concerns you? Its all objective I think and sourced from national newspapers. Thanks. Maidonian (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funny stuff is going on with the Speedy Delete of Angel Monroe

A new user, with only two contribs to this article, just popped and removed the tags. Please see the talkpage discussion. This article was previously Speedy Deleted early this morning. It has COI issues. --Morenooso (talk) 05:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy of The Greek Gods

I've gone ahead and replaced the speedy and all content with a redirect to Protogenoi. To me, this seems like the right target for such a search. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like the right way to handle it. Thanks. PhGustaf (talk) 17:02, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why am I getting deleted. Why is history in the making being deleted? I saw seaplanes, floatplanes, regular planes, but I don't see retractable pontoon planes. I am a pilot and many people are interested in this new technology called the RAPT system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnnywes05 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mamas Gun

Hi PhGustaf. I am afraid that I have had to turn down your speedy deletion request regarding Mamas Gun. WP:CSD#A7 does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance. I feel that the chart placing in Japan, playlisting by the UK's most popular radio station and championing by the UK's most popular DJ would constitute such a claim - note that this standard is deliberately lower than that set out at Wikipedia:Notability. You may wish to consider listing the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion - the article is not speediable, but it may well be a borderline case in terms of inclusion. Best wishes, Rje (talk) 14:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anaheim, etc.

I think I know what's coming next, you've just got me wondering when. Reminds me of the old one, "How do you keep a moron in suspense?" ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:31, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever. More or less seriously, Benny was known for breaking character when presented by a straight-faced character like Blanc (as Sy, whose sister Sue sewed) or George Burns. How much of this was part of the act we'll never know. PhGustaf (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benny had a tough time keeping a straight face when Blanc would do this deadpan "Little Mexican" shtick. Speaking of keeping a straight face, tell me if you found my cherry yogurt joke on the humanities page offensive. If you do, I'll zap it. I expected, at worst, someone to say, "ooo, gross" (which it's not, really) and instead I'm seeing an astonishing overreaction, and they say they've taken me to the ref desk talk page yet again, although I'm not watching it anymore so I don't know if it's true or not. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would not have made that particular joke, but I don't see the matter as a big deal. It's not going to get you banned for a year, or anything like that. Sometimes I wish smilies weren't against my religion. PhGustaf (talk) 00:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I get banned for a year over that, then it's time to find something else. Smileys are not against my religion, but I only have about 3 or 4 that I use. Not quite mono-smiley-istic, but close. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 or 4 what, religions? Not a bad idea. tedder (talk) 02:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley gods... Smiley :) Frownie >:( Angel 0:) Devil >:) Hall of Famer d:) ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GHD Inc.

Just a courtesy note to say I've redirected GHD Inc., which you nominated for deletion, because it was a cut and paste move of the existing page GHD Group. I did not mean to decline your speedy, so feel free to renominate the parent article if you wish. But note that I have removed some of the promotional language in the original article, which was added by the same user that did the cut & paste. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 06:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I noticed. Thanks. The parent article is still on the edge, I think, but I'm too sleepy to bother right now. I was wondering why all those tags were dated more than a year ago. PhGustaf (talk) 06:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

alithia

i am more then sure putting in the truth about the cheating at pokerstar is not constructive for the site. but it is unfortunately a fact that need to be address and in wiki it is a public site, i just joined and found this, and i will figure out how to add this informnation in here without you (obviously working for the site) to delete this info, in is vandalism for you to delete the truth. so stop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebobhenry (talk • contribs) 20:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RS. Your opinion, no matter how well informed, is not encyclopedic. PhGustaf (talk) 20:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

it is not opinion, they cheated me and many thousands of other people, these are facts. if these are not allowed then this page needs not be allowed, no matter how much money they donate to wiki. period. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebobhenry (talk • contribs) 21:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pokerstars

this is a wiki site, it is not an advertising web page for pokerstars. it is widely believed they cheat and use many cheat programs. i personally have been cheated by this site as specified befor. you phgustav need to stop reverting this. like life some things are fun and comforting and some things are bad and uncomfortable. this is one of them. it is easy for this pokersite to site we are from here and here and it is surely true, but they can also leave of specific information as well this site is ran by indians from a indian reservation in canada, i am more then sure they have servers in many other countries. this is why it is easy for them to hide who owns it and where it truely is.

so you need to stop editing and policing this information, yes it is something bad for them, but this site wiki, is not for their personal promotions. let the truth be told!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebobhenry (talk • contribs) 21:22, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply] 

it is not vandalism, as you put in the thing when you reverted it. if you want "factual" then research its whereabouts. it is hidden in mystery, they say cabo or some carribean island, but it isnt from there so that is not factual. it is from an indian reserve in canada, i cannot remember the name at this time, but it starts with a k. sure they might now have a server down there, but the reason why they do not have any located in the united states is because then a real gaming commision would have the authority to regulate them, so they keep them in these third world countries where they can pay the governments off. and when a new country allows them to operate from there, that is another place they can say they are from, thus hiding there real whereabouts. a server can fit on a motorcycle, so it is easy to have many of them scattered all over the world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joebobhenry (talk • contribs) 21:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok phgustaf i did some research and you stated earlier that you removed my edit to the pokerstars page because it was my opnion, and that quote from you "is not encyclopedic.". Well i went to Mirriam-webster > http://www.merriam-webster.com/ and searched a few things, first off this is there definition of :>

of, relating to, or suggestive of an encyclopedia or its methods of treating or covering a subject : comprehensive <an encyclopedic mind> <an encyclopedic collection of armor>

— en·cy·clo·pe·di·cal·ly \-di-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

I also searched for the encyclopedic meaning of pokerstars, and low and behold there is none, which means it is all opinion.
This means you need to do one of 2 things either remove this term, or allow in all relevent information pertaining to this subject. And again ill say this is not an advertising site, as you are trying to make it, and that is all the current pokerstars page is.

i am new here at this wiki thing but in time i will find a way to get this information placed permanently in there, i know a page can be locked from editing from people such as you protecting these paying companies to keep the truth out of certain pages, but as you stated earlier you took mine out because you deemed it as vandalism, it is only the truth boy. like it or not. ill give you a couple of days to put together your own unbiased version of how this site cheats, in that time ill figure out how to stop you from keeping out harsh truths of these huge companies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.52.150 (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unjustified deletion of Cartel Client Review

Please check the references given and explain why the article could legitimately be described as an attack. Pls msg my TP. Thx. Andrewjlockley (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I've declined this speedy as it is not unsourced. ϢereSpielChequers 09:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BoMill AB

Hi,

Tried to post a page on BoMill AB, but the first version of the article content was refused. I think I have made enough changes to make the article comply with the rules and furthermore added well verified references to the content. What is there left to edit before it way be publishedP

Best regards /Karl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sousenwest (talk • contribs) 01:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you've improved it enough, I suggest you just post it. I won't flag it for deletion, but some else might. I am concerned that the article seemed to mostly be promoting the company, and that isn't OK. If you yourself are associated with the company, that's an issue too: see WP:COI. Ideally, the article should be derived from independent second-party sources rather than company literature, and assembled by someone with no connection to the company. And, thanks for your polite response. You have no idea how often I get yelled at. Cheers, PhGustaf (talk) 02:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaim gebber

Hey Ph, I declined your speedy: I believe there is a claim to notability, for instance with that UNESCO award. I'll grant you readily that it is not a great article... Drmies (talk) 04:14, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me; it has enough tags on it now. I try to keep my speedies at 90% or so, and I sometimes miss. Thanks. PhGustaf (talk) 04:23, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformative_Teacher_Education

I have a bunch of teachers upset that an article one of them wrote about a very current topic is being deleted with an AfD. I'm trying let them learn how to edit, make changes, etc. The deletion of the AfD notice was inadvertent. Please welcome them as newcomers and treat them with good faith in mind. I would appreciate helping them get a registered ID instead of using their IP addresses for edit. I will be here rescuing this article.  kgrr ^talk 21:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor in question deleted the notice twice. As far as the article goes, I have no opinion about the content; it's a huge wall of text, WP:TLDR kicks in, and mine eyes glazeth over. PhGustaf (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Gulnar Elî

Hello PhGustaf, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Gulnar Elî - a page you tagged - because: Author of two books, claims of being published in journals and anthologies. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. decltype (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

April 2010

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.(Movieguruman (talk) 05:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]

It would be helpful if you were to suggest just what that defamatory content might be. PhGustaf (talk) 05:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Senator Edward Kennedy Revert

The edit to Sen. Kennedy's page was based on fact from the Senator's own testimony from the event, and included a reference/link to his very statements. What part of the edit was vandalism?

The "vandal" tag was incorrect, I apologize. It was a matter of a slow connection and a mispressed button. But the material you added failed at least WP:UNDUE and WP:WEIGHT — it's far too much detail for a life story. The matter is already better described at Chappaquiddick incident. Again, apologies. PhGustaf (talk) 01:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith and actually letting an article get developed in the first place

Frankly I find your nomination of Fluidic Energy to be speedy deletion candidate to be callous and also incredibly unfriendly to the development of Wikipedia. I am right in the middle of trying to write a real article here about a company that I happen to find quite interesting, and am in the middle of trying to organize my thoughts and come up with an outline.

There sure as hell is no reason or any possible rationale and justification for doing an immediate speedy deletion request on what should obviously be a brand new stub.... and put that notice within mere minutes after the creation of the article. I'm a long-time wikimedian who has been around the block and knows full well when something abusive is happening here, and this is abusive behavior. Some discussion has happened as to why users are being driven from the project, and this is precisely the kind of BS that causes that to happen.

Rather than wasting both your time and mine on a pointless edit war, at least let an article develop first! --Robert Horning (talk) 23:37, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhGustaf,

I think you need to take Robert's advice seriously. It appears that an above-average number of your speedy nominations are being declined by admins, which means that you are tagging articles that do not meet the criteria. In particular, I think that you want to be very careful about how soon you tag a page after its initial creation: You need to give the editor a fair chance to add sources.

If you are working from Special:NewPages, let me encourage you to diligently follow the directions, and to choose the often overlooked links to the "one hour" or "one day" delays rather than the single most recently created articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Course Selection at Earl Haig Secondary School

PhGustaf, you are moving my page Course Selection at Earl Haig Secondary School to the Speedy Deletion Process. This article will provide lots of information to future students about course selection. It might look unspecific, but it really is specific.

I placed a {{Hangon}} on top of my article, stating that the speedy deletion is contested and the article may not be deleted. I'm a Wikipedian for only a few months and I quite an unexperienced writer. However, this article weill improve greatly into the future. Thank you. Challisrussia (talk) 20:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

seeking consensus

Please see the discussion in Talk:The New York Times and the Holocaust#Seeking Consensus. I am seeking consensus on whether the three contributors who voted for deletion have support for their actions in removing the improved original article and substituting a stub.Cimicifugia (talk) 13:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)cimicifugia[reply]

Comment

Hi, PhGustaf

May I know what you meant by your comment here, it you don't mind (I'm not that perfect in English lol)?--Email4mobile (talk) 18:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Holocaust denial

You may be interested to learn you've been accused of this. I've raised the matter here [12].Bali ultimate (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I'm following the thread, but haven't felt the need to say anything. I don't see much chance for this to be resolved peaceably, though. PhGustaf (talk) 23:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fertilizer

I'm confused — where did you get the Estes quote about fertilizer that you posted at WP:ANI? I couldn't find it in the article history at all. Please leave me a talkback if you reply here. Nyttend (talk) 03:35, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, okay; I've never heard of Sherman before, and I didn't understand Bugs' comment immediately afterward. Thanks! Nyttend (talk) 14:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing lists

Please see Wikipedia:Lists#Listed_items. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:45, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it applies. The notability of the persons of the persons listed is implied by their articles, and entries here who come up red are quickly removed. Cites for them being banjo players are at their articles. List of guitarists, list of jazz pianists, and a zillion others have no local cites either, and would would be a huge and silly effort to bring them all to you standards. PhGustaf (talk) 05:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't the responsibility of the reader to have to search through multiple articles for sourcing. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked for further input at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Sourcing_lists. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I was just suggesting the same sort of thing, but got an edit conflict. Cheers. PhGustaf (talk) 06:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there!

Hi! Physalia physalis (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Physalia physalis being disruptive at Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government

Hi -- I saw that you reverted the edit of User:Physalia physalis at Economic policy of the Hugo Chávez government. He is repeatedly adding the same thing over and over again, against the consensus of every other editor there. He's being extremely disruptive, and ranting about communism and being rude in edit summaries, etc. ... He recently added the same thing that you removed (and that other editors have removed several times already). You said "sock of banned user grundle2600" -- are you saying that User:Physalia physalis should not be editing at all? What should we do about this? Have you reported this user as a sock yet? How do you know?, ITacho (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are several of us, mainly from the Barack Obama topic area, who you could say are seasoned veterans at spotting Grundle2600 sockpuppet accounts; we've had a long and unfortunate history with him. This "Physalia..." account is now permanently blocked, so feel free to undo any material added by him to the Hugo Chavez article, if it has not all been excised already. Tarc (talk) 12:36, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. He's used several dozen sock accounts, all blocked now. It's quite likely he'll be back on the Chávez page; it's a hot topic for him. Look for a joke user name and the same old postings. PhGustaf (talk) 14:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Hussein Obama's birthplace

Hi, please show me some evidence he was born in this hospital. There are no witnesses to his birth at this hospital. Not one nurse, physician or staff member working there in 1961 has ever come forward and acknowledged he was born there. For sure there must be one nurse or assistant still living that can remember a black baby being born to a white woman on the day he was born in 1961 in Hawaii. If he was actually born there someone would have already come forward. That is why his birth hospital is an alledged birth place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.134.244.230 (talk) 18:09, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TUFF Puppy

You tagged this article under CSD G1. That tag is for articles that are clear nonsense, which this one is not. In fact it is describing an animated TV series. I have removed your tag and edited the article to provide some context. Jimmy Pitt talk 21:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Lasse Le Saux

Hello PhGustaf. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lasse Le Saux, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Playing for a notable team indicates importance/significance. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Socialist Obama

Many prominent people, such as U.S. Senator Jim DeMint and Tom Coburn have used this "random name calling." A few years ago, it would be random, but today major figures are calling him this. In addition, 55% of the country believe Obama is socialist according to a recent poll. So it is relevent, whether you like it or not.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:49, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obama is not a socialist. He's a crony capitalist. 71.182.178.123 (talk) 12:34, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite the poll you mention above, and provide a link. Thank you. If the poll really does say that, I agree that it's relevant that majority public opinion believes it, but that doesn't make it an accurate allegation. I would be willing to bet money that 95% of the people who are calling him a socialist couldn't accurately define the term if their lives depended on it. JTRH (talk) 17:51, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ESaid/BHObama

I disagreed with your edit here. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 22:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I see you've brought it up on the talk page; I'm sure other comments will be forthcoming soon. PhGustaf (talk) 22:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uptown (film)

I have been spending some time improving the style, tone, and sourcing for Uptown (film).[13] As it was only recently released on DVD, I think we might reasonably expect more coverage in the next few weeks. Though I fully expect the nominator to adamantly disagree, I ask that you revisit the improved article to see if it might at least now be worth either keeping or sending to incubation. Thank you, Schmidt, ^MICHAEL Q. 01:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On vandalizing Obama page.

I disagree.

Combo Pwner (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism and me??

look. i was not vandalizing it, i was reverting an edit by an unregistered member. see that clearly again. Because somone else reverted even before i finished, it went back again. Anirudh Emani (talk) 15:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incarceration chart in Alvin Greene article

User:Innab has reverted both your and my removal of the incarceration chart from that article (and that's just today; it's been taken out many times before). I asked him to explain why it's relevant. His response is on my talk page, and my response to that is on his talk page. I don't find his reasoning persuasive, but given the number of us who've removed that chart at one time or another, I think we can safely say he's operating outside consensus. JTRH (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Whigam

Hello, I'm new to Wiki...so tell me what you don't like about Nate Whigham's article and maybe help me to improve it. He is a prolific figure in our Country's political history and very highlighted in the Tea Party Movement. Please help me collaborate to improve it so that our generations can know the history of the Tea Party that was started in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Divageek2010 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to provide some sources that show he's notable. One interview on what's essentially a blog doesn't count. I'm also concerned that all your contributions involve Mr. Whigham and his movie, and that you continue to insert promotional material at the Tea Party article. If you are involved with the movie in any way, you shouldn't be writing about it or its maker: see WP:COI. PhGustaf (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore

Hello, PhGustaf. You have new messages at Talk:Al Gore#Laurie David.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re an edit summary

Cornish and penicillin are both cultures, but Cornish is capitalised... LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. I'm pretty casual with capitalization in edit summaries. But thanks. PhGustaf (talk) 21:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sushi Edit

Hello, My Name is Tatsushige Shigure, I am the Australian that has invented the Thermonuclear Sushi Roll .. I will up load a photo of the Sushi Roll as soon as I can. I run Australian Pie Co in Japan and the Thermonuclear Sushi Roll will be on the menu come May 2011. So far everyone that has tried it has enjoyed it. So please do not delete my edit on the Sushi Page

Kind Regards Tatsushige Shigure — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatsushige Shigure (talk • contribs) 16:25, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted my name off of the Edit and there is no reference to my company so why can it not stay.

Kind Regards (Tatsushige Shigure (talk) 16:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Thermonuclear Sushi

As you claim I have a Conflict of interest because I am the inventor of the Thermonuclear Sushi Roll, can you post it? There is no reference to me or my company. Australia Pie Co will be interviewed by Fuji TV in July 2011 as we have the worlds hottest meat pie at 7,000,000su. I am trying to have it entered in to the Guinness World Records.

Hottest Sushi Roll Invented by an Australian, who is a permanent resident of Japan, the Thermonuclear Sushi Roll has a heat rating of over 1,735,000su. The roll contains Pressure Fried Chicken (Using a Fagor Pressure Fryer to produce a Kentucky Style Friend Chicken), and a Coleslaw consisting of Cabbage, Carrots, Onions, Miracle Whip, Tarragon Vinegar, Sugar, Blair’s Ultra Death Sauce and ground Bhut Jolokia Chillies.

Kind Regards (Tatsushige Shigure (talk) 16:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)).[reply]

Sorry, I can't post it. First, there's no citation—no mention of the topic in a reliable source. You can't make posts based on personal knowledge or experience to the encyclopedia. Second, it probably fails WP:WEIGHT: it's not important enough to be mentioned in an article on sushi in general. Sorry. I know the wiki rules can be really annoying. PhGustaf (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lila Rose Edits

Not sure where I committed any vandalism, she is clearly a right wing lunatic who is against a woman's right to chose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.165.137 (talk) 23:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe I flagged your edit as vandalism, but I might have pushed the wrong button. Sorry if I did.

I'm not disagreeing with your opinion, but wikipedia articles are not places for opinions. Everything has to be backed up by a reliable source. This is especially so when discussing living persons, and even more especially if the material is critical or derogatory. This apples even for bad persons.

The alphabet soup of wikipedia policy can be daunting to new editors. Spend a while reading the introductory material for a start, and happy editing. PhGustaf (talk) 00:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mic ( Michael ) Neumann speedy deletion tag

Redirects cannot be deleted under WP:A7. I recently moved Mic ( Michael ) Neumann to Mic (Michael) Neumann, so tag the article page if you wish. Also, because of the move, I am not the author of Mic ( Michael ) Neumann. Guoguo12--Talk--  21:24, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sanger

You beat me to that one. (I clicked "rollback" but I guess you were faster.) Time for AIV, do you think? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think by now he's ready to punt. But we'll see. PhGustaf (talk) 03:01, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll file if it happens again. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternately, should I request semi-protection? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One more post and I'll do it. But I think he's pretty discouraged my now. PhGustaf (talk) 03:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

Since your post did not concern me exclusive of the article, it should be placed on the AA talk page. It will be of little help to other editors if it stays out of the way on my talk page. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC) Hello. You have a new message at WikiManOne's talk page.[reply]

Two Pair

Kings up nines is a two pair, but Kings over nines is a full house. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.47.92.9 (talk) 18:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of banjo players edit reversal

Hi PH, Good to hear from you, its been a while. With regard to the recent edit to the List of banjo players, it wasn't my contribution. I just noticed that it was formatted improperly and corrected that. As the for Red Link issue, I thought you were on the side of leaving red links because there is nothing in the guidelines, RED or LISTS that prohibits it. This topic has also been rather strenuously debated in the article's talk page, but you already know that. I Googled the guy and its a legitimate entry. He's even on the priority list for articles to be created. I can't remember if you or Binksternet created that list.

On a separate note, I'm getting ready to reformat the list of suggested articles on the talk page. It's a bit messy and hard to read. I thought I'd organize it a bit and then work on addressing the priority list. I'll see Buddy Wachter at the Sacramento BanjoRama and I can hit him up for any articles that have been written about him. Plus whomever else shows up.

Otherwise, how's life on your end? Been doing any banjo related stuff since last August? I've never asked previously, but you're a banjo player, right? I kind of assumed it judging by your interest in the list. Chris --Scalhotrod (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm a banjo player, and my favorite instrument is a 1964 ODE with an aluminum pot and Brazilian rosewood resonator and neck. Can't get one of those these days. I do oppose redlinked musicians, though. They don't get listed unless they have articles of their own. PhGustaf (talk) 19:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very familiar with OME, very beautiful and great sounding instruments. I almost bought a Juggernaut a few years ago, but I opted to go with a full custom from Renee Karnes in CA. Are you a tenor, plectrum, or 5-string guy? I've been a tenor player since '77.

As for RED links, OK. Since we have a fairly organized and comprehensive planning area in the Talk page, I can abide by your personal policy. --Scalhotrod (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also have an OME Jubilee, and open-backed five-string from 2001 or so. you probably know that OME is ODE's stepson; the father is Chuck Ogsbury, who has been making better and better banjos for more than fifty years. I'll check out Karnes.

The redlink policy isn't a personal one for me, but it's one that seems to work well with lists. Else every Wayne-and-Garth garage band would be listed multiple times. Best, PhGustaf (talk) 20:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Planned Parenthood

Just making sure you saw the editnotice about the new general sanctions on abortion-related articles. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware, but thanks for the note. PhGustaf (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Here, have some banjo too. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of, care to weigh in on the talk page re: the edits of 184 (who still has not showed up, alack)? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Purna Das Baul Samrat article proposal by PhGustaf for deletion due to lack of references cited in first edit entry

Revision as of 00:28, 2 March 2011

Purna Das Baul Samrat article proposal by PhGustaf for deletion due to lack of references cited in first edit entry ___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Hi PhGustaf, have not only responded to your concern regarding references for the living person bio of Purna Das Baul Samrat, but was surprised to see your quick registration of this concern when I had to save the material entered so far due to an offline interruption. What wonderfully quick reflexes you must have! The second edit, as I would ask you to please review, has provided not only references but Infobox and Persondata and ref section and so forth, and more content and references are expected to be added by me and others in the course of the coming year.

This article has also now been linked to the previously extant article on Bapi Das Baul, and may have picked up links to it from citations of Purna Das Baul Samrat in other Wikipedia articles in which his name was previously displayed in red because an article was non-existent.

Are you satisfied concerning your proposal to delete this article? I am unfamiliar with this aspect of Wikipedia procedures. If you are satisfied, besides informing me, will you be the one removing any deletion proposal outside the edited content of the article, or is there anything I need to do, and if so what, please? You are welcome to request my personal email on my Edit page if you would like that for more direct and detailed instructing or discussion on what may be merely my ignorance of settings.

Warmest regards, and thank you for your original and now responding attention,

Pandelver (talk) 00:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandelver (talk • contribs)

Pandelver (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pandelver (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please advise on current status and procedures, you haven't yet told me who/what does what next and next after next and so on, please, PhGustaf?

Pandelver (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PhGustaf, your help with other language search for links via Wikipedia group sites and in general for use in citations, please

PhGustaf, perhaps you can help me on a related issue. The first reference citations are chosen to complement the official website of this subject, as outside sources in English. There are a number of other available references in non Latin-Cyrillic-Greek languages, might you know how I might most easily input via Google or within Wikipedia and Wikimedia searches for these, perhaps using Google translate to find Hindi, Himalayan languages and other character sets? Your veteran experience in such interlinguistic matters at Wikipedia would be greatly appreciated! Pandelver (talk) 00:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC) Pandelver (talk) 00:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for your help, PhGustaf, look forward to hearing from you! :) Pandelver (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good to hear from you.

PhGustaf, if a Talk: page is created with a note on this source-gathering possibility in addition to what we add in English, will it alert those editors with either facility or technological ability to find, render English translations of relevant portions and cite (also in English as well as original font/characters such as Telugu) those other articles? There is enough for what might be a sort of standard volume on this individual, particularly with extant related articles already at Wikipedia, but of course as most of this caste's work is in other non-Latin-Cyrillic-Greek languages, now and through the future, a more complete encyclopedic-conscribed article would benefit from this. It's surely also a global Wikipedia concern regarding all the language-designated subbranches of Wikipedia? What are long range prospects planned by Wikipedia programmers for example?

Again, look forward to your advise or referral to those who know. :)

Pandelver (talk) 12:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the people among us looking at these linguistic issues, not as a field topic in itself, but in application to the near future of Wikipedia operations?

Pandelver (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Daniel Hernandez Jr. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Hernandez Jr. is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Abortifacient

Hello! You're getting this message because you are involved in a content dispute at Abortifacient. Please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

speedy deletion of my page, sorry :P

sorry, I should have been using the sandbox, I didn't know it was going to be put up as a page!, I was experimenting :P, this new user based wiki is nice but takes some learning, I'll focus better next time, take care stip arnholdo Stip arnholdo (talk) 04:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Happy editing. PhGustaf (talk) 04:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CSD

Can you please slow down the CSD tagging. My Mentee's article Satellite Broadcasting and Communications Association v. FCC has been tagged twice by you in two days. This is a supreme court case that is the subject of a school assignment. cheers --Guerillero | My Talk 00:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1RR reminder

Seeing that you just did a revert on Crisis pregnancy center, I just wanted to remind you about the 1-revert restriction on abortion-related articles as listed here. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the caution. Actually, I hold myself to 1RR pretty much everywhere; there are lots of eyes on the more controversial articles I edit anyway. I can always just play my banjo for a while, and someone else will fix the problem. PhGustaf (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable use of Twinkle

What was this all about? - Haymaker (talk) 16:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Offhand, I'd say it was about changing 5 different things while claiming in your edit summary you were only changing one.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:08, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does leaving a poor edit summary warrant the use of a anti-vandal tools in a content dispute. - Haymaker (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the edit wasn't tagged as vandalism, and a descriptive edit summary was left, I see no problem here.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged it as I did because you made several changes, some of them highly POV, and mentioned only a trivial wording patch in the summary. That was deliberately misleading, and I ask that you don't do it again.

Remember that 1RR isn't an excuse to just watch the clock a bit before putting the same old stuff back. PhGustaf (talk) 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds are you accusing me of being deliberately misleading? None of those changes were vandalism, none of them justified the use of a tool. - Haymaker (talk) 20:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say "vandalism". I could have used the basic "undo" rather than TW's "rollback", but to the same effect. I explained above how and why you were deliberately misleading. PhGustaf (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why you think I was deliberately misleading. You think I don't know how many eyes are watching every change made on that page? You think I didn't make that edit expecting it to be scrutinized? You should have used undue - those tools are specifically marked for non-controversial maintenance and vandalism - they are explicitly not meant to be used in content disputes. - Haymaker (talk) 20:49, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TW has three rollback buttons: One for vandalism, one for inept but AGF, and one for neutral. I used the neutral one on you, which I think was kind. You are undoely harping on a trivial matter; bring it up on AN/I (where you will be giggled at) or go away. PhGustaf (talk) 01:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Haymaker (talk) 06:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. As others have noted at AN/I, your complaint has no merit, and unless something unsuspected comes up I won't be responding there. PhGustaf (talk) 17:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crisis Pregnancy Center

Refactoring my comment was unnecessary: a reading of the Talk page shows that there is a certain irreverent decorum, a sarcastic banter many of us engage in. However I would stop short of saying there is esprit de corps. In any event, no need to be a killjoy. And btw, no Filet-O-Fish for you. Lionel (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not too fond of McD's fish. Anything at this place is fine, though. PhGustaf (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK the stuff on Grendle's talk page was funny. The "I have no sense of humor" is funny, too, and dry. I retract prior comment. Do you know how many Filet's I'm giving out? You're gonna have to make your sushi run with your own wallet.. Lionel (talk) 23:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for 1RR violation on Planned Parenthood. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

PhGustaf (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Really? For two minor unrelated reversions to consensus? This is just silly.

Decline reason:

1RR applies whether or not the reverts are "minor" or whether they are supported by consensus.  Sandstein  06:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well, it's a damn lame block. But 24 hours isn't long, and I can live with it. PhGustaf (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Pro-life feminism"

Thanks! *facepalm* Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I have found some sources for the Lennert van Dessel article. A rather interesting figure, I must say. Polozooza (talk) 20:20, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just wanted to say that I agree with Polozooza removing the CSD tag as the article does make a credible assertion of importance. By looking at the original way the article was written, I can understand why you felt it should be deleted, but after the work Polozooza has done on it, I am increasingly convinced that not only is A7 not applicable, but that he may even survive an AfD. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article has been improved. Good. I'll keep it on my watchlist, but will post no more tags unless something comes up. PhGustaf (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone still believes it to be a hoax and has tagged it for speedy deletion once again. He is not a hoax and I can easily proof it, as he played an important part in a 2009 Belgian movie, see IMBN IMBN Polozooza (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you're interested, I now think that the article is a hoax and I've put a hoax tag on it. When I saw Polozooza adding the sources, I just assumed good faith, but I don't think they stand up to closer scrutiny. There are zero mentions of the guy online (except IMDb, which probably less reliable than Wikipedia). Anyway, I'll probably send it to AfD in the next day or so. Jenks24 (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Lennert van Dessel for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lennert van Dessel is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lennert van Dessel until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. andy (talk) 22:31, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI regarding DMSBel (talk · contribs)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.OrangeMarlin ^Talk• Contributions 05:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

David Ortiz

The IP has violated the 3-revert rule, and I've also asked for semi-protection. In keeping with the situation... Did you know that both the old and the new Yankee Stadium were bordered by 161th Street? ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but if you hum a few bars I can fake it.

More importantly, Jacoby Ellsbury just put my Red Sox ahead of the evil Yankees, Adrian Gonzales added one for seasoning, and the evil CC Sabathia got sent to the showers. And, just now, Ortiz whopped a 2-RBI double. Life is good.

I really like that Navajo kid. PhGustaf (talk) 04:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I keep waiting for the creaky Yankees to run out of gas, and maybe this will finally be the year. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation around Abortion articles location

After the latest move request has landed up with about equal numbers for both sides I've started a mediation request. Please indicate there if you wish to participate. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea; thanks for letting me know. PhGustaf (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, February 2009 Carey Cash Melissa Winter Obama Day New Energy for America Poker boom No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act Barack Obama Academy Giant-Landover Barack and Michelle Robert Bauer Of Thee I Sing (book) List of people pardoned by Barack Obama Catastrophe (book) Alyssa Mastromonaco Mount Obama Scout Tufankjian Care Net Patrick Gaspard

Cleanup Oprah Winfrey's endorsement of Barack Obama 2011 State of the Union Address Biculturalism Merge Death of Osama bin Laden Casey Knowles Reactions to the death of Osama bin Laden Add Sources Artists for Obama Barbara Boxer List of places named after Barack Obama Wikify Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate Change Federal Digital System Personhood USA Expand Kirsten Gillibrand Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies Pete Rouse

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to a no-consensus version.

You would need to find out first if there is consensus for that change. Definitely didn't look like it last night, and still doesn't. Straw polls don't make a consensus. In any event "before viability" contradicts MEDRS. Best. DMSBel (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of discussion belongs on the article talk page, not here. PhGustaf (talk) 20:45, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you changing the lede without consensus for the change? This is bad faith editing. 71.3.237.145 (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DMSBel is now on a 72-hour block. Is 71...145 a sock, or a coincidence? ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think not. DMS sometimes posts as an IP, but it's nowhere near that one. 71 is apparently a sock of another IP: both of them got into trouble at, of all places, Huzzah!, both have moved on to the abortion debacle, and both find canvassing their sacred duty. PhGustaf (talk) 01:25, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say "Hurray for them", and then was reminded of this old one: "Three Chinese cheers for them: Fooey! Fooey! Fooey!" ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I insist that mr.george soros has nothing to do with philanthropy he is not a philanthropist and please let me remove the word philanthropy from his section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thk777 (talk • contribs) 09:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Award

	The Order of The Fen
	For long-term persistence despite 86 years of being Yanked around. ←Baseball Bugs ^What's up, Doc? carrots→ 08:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not to yank you around or anything

But "sigh" seems like a rather inadequate summary for an article edit, perhaps even a wee bit condescending. Could you please try harder next time? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at AN/I regarding your POV tag deletion. The thread is Newly placed POV dispute tag subjected to multiple reverts. Thank you. — JakeInJoisey (talk) 03:11, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion page

Someone changed the definition of abortion today to "the ending of a pregnancy together with the ending of a fetus or embryo." I reverted it because it hadn't been discussed or agreed on on the talk page. Your change undid that and put back the "ending of a fetus or embryo" version. Was that what you intended? I seem to remember you supporting the viability version at one point but maybe I'm remembering wrong. Anyway in any case that change to the lead was not put forward or agreed on on the talk page. That should be done first if the lead is going to be changed that way. Friend of the Facts (talk) 02:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, was the version you want to revert to agreed at the talk page? I don't think so. Even if it was, please see Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus".Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by January 24, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Hiya

Thanks for the input, even if it was only on the talkpage. I wish I could somehow make the wider community take a look at the editing behavior on this article. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:19, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Case: Abortion

This message is to inform you that you have been added as a party to a currently open Arbitration case, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion, per Arbitrator instructions. You may provide evidences and comments at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^dance in the air and follow his steps 01:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Margaret Sanger/GA1

A GAN on Margaret Sanger is on hold to allow time for editors to improve prose, inline citations and presentation and formatting before the review looks at accuracy, POV and coverage. SilkTork ^✔Tea time 22:16, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user helped promote Margaret Sanger to good article status.

SilkTork ^✔Tea time 21:29, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Waterboarding

Received your response to the Waterboarding edits however I would have to agree with you that this has been talked over and over in the ["Waterboarding discussion talk"] and many continue to disagree that the content you reverted back to as a "neutral point of view". I also agree that posted content should follow Wikipedia's core policies to be written from an actual neutral point of view. I, and others, do not view the content posted prior to my edits as conforming to the definition ["Neutral Point of View"] as set forth by Wikipedia; as should be well indicated by the discussion talk exchange. Your message posted as "last chance" was perceived as personal and threatening. Be advised, a copy of the page showing the words posted "last chance" has been saved for future use. Others have also posted talk exchanges with you asking you not to ["bully"]. Aggressively pouncing on editorial changes and contributors talk posts does not make your position right, justifiable, or even in keeping with the ["core policies"] and ["Principles of Etiquette"] as set by Wikipedia. This practice also does not support complete, accurate and neutral portrayal of content and essentially undermines the ["integrity"] of Wikipedia content overall. Please consider the gravity and importance in what it means to respectfully follow the Wikipedia core policies. This makes Wikipedia a more inviting and truly valuable place for content exchange and ultimately, human enlightenment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.63.143 (talk) 23:49, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello PhGustaf! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: October 2011

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

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^dance in the air and follow his steps 04:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Stuff: November 2011

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

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio ^Let's talk about it! 12:28, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this

Abortion in the United States

Hi PhGustaf, can you tell me exactly what in my edits is highly POV and uncited? NYyankees51 (talk) 19:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You made a lot of changes, and added no references. Your changes were not helpful in any way, and in some cases were actively destructive. I would suggest in the kindest way that you revert them forthwith. PhGustaf (talk) 20:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. "Abortion in the United States has been legal in every state since the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, on January 22, 1973." --> "Abortion in the United States has been legal in every state since the 1973 Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade." (Wording change)

2. "Prior to "Roe", there were exceptions to the abortion ban in at least 10 states" --> "Prior to Roe, abortion was illegal in 30 states and legal in certain cases in 20 states." (Wording change)

3. "Various anti-abortion statutes" --> "Various statutes against abortion" (A statute against murder is not an anti-murder statute)

4. "Federal law" --> "federal law"

5. "the first time the court" --> "the first time the Court" (refers to a specific court, a proper noun)

6. "came from moderate justice Anthony Kennedy" --> "moderate justice Anthony Kennedy" (already linked)

These are all not helpful or destructive? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion amendment request

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang ^Join the DR army! 04:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Stuff: January 2012

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

Abortion article titles notification

Hey PhGustaf. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 23:05, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Triage engagement strategy released

Hey guys!

I'm dropping you a note because you filled out the New Page Patrol survey, and indicated you'd be interested in being contacted about follow-up work. This is to notify you that we've finally released both the initial documentation about the project and also the engagement strategy, which sets out how we plan to work with the community on this. Please give both a read, and leave any comments or suggestions you have on the talkpage, on my talkpage, or in my inbox - okeyeswikimedia.org.

It's awesome to finally get to start work on this! :). Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 02:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Requesting another topic ban for User:BruceGrubb. Thank you. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]