This is an archive of past discussions with User:RightCowLeftCoast. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
You commented in the RfD discussion about Criticism of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#Criticism of Wikipedia. That discussion was closed as "moot" due it having been unilaterally converted to an article during the discussion. I chose to boldly implement the apparent consensus of that discussion and the previous discussions linked from it, and reverted it to a disambiguation page. That action has been reverted due to a perceived lack of discussion. I would welcome your comments at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia to see if consensus can be reached again for an dab page, article or redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 00:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Americans, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Afro-Caribbean and Intermarriage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Re your Sept. 23 edits of Cecilia Manguerra Brainard article in Wiki
I'm not good at this, so thanks for your patience. Thanks for removing Notability Tag on Cecilia Manguerra Brainard. Your concerns have been addressed:
1. Article has been edited further to neutral tone; If stripped of too much info, it could turn into a Stub.
May I ask you a separate question. I've edited biography of Lina Espina-Moore to address the tag on her article re need for inline citations - the editor who put in that June 2010 tag doesn't seem to be with Wiki any more. How can that tag be removed? Thanks.Palhbooks (talk) 14:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Any editor can remove any tag, if they believe that if the concern has been met, but that isn't stopping other editors from retagging or adding new tags.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 149th Armor Regiment (United States), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Flares and KQED (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi RightCowLeftCoast. The 3O is mainly about the earlier incivil behaviour of the other editor. I am busy now with an SPI but I refuse to participate while even under your 3O involvement this person keep personally attacking me: diff. If they do not retract these attacks I will not participate in the 3O. By the way the original dispute was about an earlier series of attacks which I removed here. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.λόγοςπράξις22:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IED (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stars and Stripes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
You're invited! FemTech Edit-a-Thon at Claremont Graduate University
October 26 - FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable - You are invited!
Everyone is invited to the first FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable at Claremont Graduate University on October 26 from 3-6 pm. The event will open with a roundtable discussion about feminism and anti-racist technology projects, followed by an edit-a-thon focusing on feminists & women in science. Experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to support new editors. We hope you can join us!
Sign up here - see you there! 00:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
Edit Notification of Demographics of Asian Americans
I wish to speak to you about this subject whenever you're free because I have something I like to address. I further like to explain that I don't know how to use Talk Pages that well, so I wish to apologize for any errors I may have cause on your talk page. IceBrotherhood (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi RightCowLeftCoast. First let me commend you on your hard work on this and other pages. Much appreciated! Part of the reason why I replaced Ethiopians and Somalis with Kenyans and Ghanaians is because it states in the "Black and African Americans" section that "according to the Office of Management and Budget, the racial category include those who self-identify as African American, Sub-Saharan Africans, and Afro-Caribbeans." However, Ethiopians and Somalis generally do not self-identify racially as "Sub-Saharan African". They identify on a geographical basis as such since that's the half of Africa where the Horn region is situated. Similarly, few identify as "black" (c.f. [1], [2]). This in turn is due to the distinct genetic history of the Afro-Asiatic communities in the Horn region (e.g. [3], [4]), as well as their differing traditions of descent (c.f. 1, 2). Even fewer regard themselves as African American. The latter population is instead considered a separate community of West African origin, with a very different history, culture and ancestral background. Additionally, Somalis and Djiboutians are part of the Arab World and are classified as Arab Americans by the Arab American Institute (c.f. [5]). This is an altogether separate classificatory designation. I think, therefore, it's best to either replace the Afro-Asiatic Horn populations in this particular section table, or create a new table for Arab Americans that would accommodate most of them and the Sudanese as well. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
I responded to your comment both because I wanted to provide another perspective, but also because I quite enjoyed your comment about intelligent and civil discourse from opposing viewpoints. Corporate08:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
BTW - I like your edit-notice. Do you know anyone else that has a good civility-based edit notice for their Talk page? As a disclosed COI, sometimes I only come into the picture after a company has made someone (usually justifiably) very angry. I would love to make a similar edit notice, probably by copy/pasting one from someone else. Corporate09:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Hardly worth citing, it's common knowledge, not WP:OR. We don't cite that the sky is blue and we don't need a citation for the fact that Republicans generally favor defense spending, social conservatism, and pro-business policies (just look at the platform for Pete's sake). Soxwon (talk) 19:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Some of the content that was added appeared to be biased OR, and since no reference was provided, was subject to removal. If the reference which is provided is the party platform, then please add it. Please do not allow the article to devolve into an WP:ATTACKPAGE.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm well aware of the policy and perhaps corporate welfare was not appropriate. However, I would maintain that any discussion of the Republican Party's policies of "limited government" would be wise to include their main fiscal and social policies in the subject, i.e. their pronounced social conservative policies and their views towards defense spending. Both of these would seem contrary to the idea of limited government. Soxwon (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
That is an opinion, and one that is not verified. There is a constitutional arguement for defense spending, and that is my opinion. However, our opinions have no place in the article space, what can be verified by reliable sources does. The article needs significant work to verify the content, and what content cannot be verified should be removed. Furthermore, due to the controversial nature of the subject perhaps what is there should also be attributed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
The proper course of action, is that getting a third opinion is the first step in dispute resolution, and more importantly in attempting to reach a consensus so that an edit war is avoided in a civil manner. The third opinion is suppose to begin such a consensus building process, and is often sufficient to moving past an in-pass where only two editors are involved in a discussion. If an opposing editor does not agree with the third opinion provided, an editor can bring the matter to dispute resolution or open an request for comment.
I sincerely hope that this helps. Additionally, having not returned to the thread at this point I am assuming good faith of the other editors (an administrator's actions). If it is an editors opinion that an administrator has acted in a manner inconsistent with their office (being an administrator) there is a review process for that.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Coast Guard articles
I saw your message about Talk:William Trump and did answer there. There are many more articles created by Geo Swan about Coast Guard personnel and light house keepers (such as Henry Blake (lighthouse keeper)). To put it mildly, I'm on Geo Swan's shit list. I have a feeling if I do any more Proding, they might end up be blocked. Could you take a look at the articles? I recall on first glance that several people might be notable, so not all will be a redirect. Bgwhite (talk) 07:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
If there is a concern about the subject's notability, then PRODing or placing an article up for AfD is the proper course of action. If there is an opinion that too many PRODs at one time may cause someone to be blocked, my advice is to slow down, and see WP:TIND. The articles will be there after the older PRODs and AfDs are resolved. Given that most of the subject's of these articles are deceased, their change in notability will not likely change, and thus a couple weeks will not alter the outcome of the consensus build through an AfD. If the subject is notable, an AfD will only verify moreso that the notability is valid, so assuming good faith of the nominator there should be "no harm, no foul". I hope this advise helps.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an Eye on the WPUS talk page
I just wanted to say thanks for keeping an eye on the WPUS talk page. I'm glad to see someone is still watching it. Kumioko (talk) 04:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for January 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Benghazi attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Eulalia (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi, I am the one who posted the page for Rick L. Evans.
Here is a start for third party verification of his life before The Imperials. I have many other sources that I am tryingto access and deliver to upgrad this article to full compiance.
Rick L, Evans, as spokesmen for The Imperials, has listed information, in this radio interview, that is notable and is “third Party” verification about his notoriety before The Imperials. Quote -- “These days, the group is comprised of a rock solid line-up of founding member Armond Morales (bass), 29-year veteran Dave Will (baritone/lead), popular alumni Paul Smith (tenor/lead) and new member Rick Evans (tenor/lead), who has traveled extensively with Billy Graham, Harvest Crusades, Promise Keepers and more”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHEYqEXNeTkhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POdtJkjWaX4
This is just one of many outlets that list his accomplishments before The Imperials. I am working to find the verifiable information and would like your input on what I need to bring to the table to keep this article from being deleted. I admit to being a bit new to this but want to comply with criteria to validate this person of notoriety, and accomplishment, in the Christian Community — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Karnbach (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
Medal Of Honor GA Review
I noticed you contributed to my GA review of the Medal of Honor page. No one has replied in a while so i was wondering if you had anything further to add to our discussion on the review page?
I had not seen that you had made a new response on the GA review page. It is not on my watchlist, as I was not its nominator. However, as it appears that I have been the one who has been making the fixes I will remedy it. Additionally, I will be busy with work for the next couple days so I maybe slower in responding than I was before; sorry in advance for my tardiness.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI
Hi RightCowLeftCoast, I just wanted to let you know I commented out your references at Battle of Benghazi. They're certainly useful, since the term is likely to be controversial or novel to some, but WP:DABPAGE generally proscribes references on dab pages. If you'd like to discuss the issue further, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, BDD (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rick Burr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War in Afghanistan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Congrats on getting the DYK thingy for David Pendleton!!! I was the second guy to make an edit to it, but you're the one who pretty much made the whole entire freakin' thing, gratz! Enjoy your stroopwafels! Helicopter Llama21:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The work done to the article is commendable, but I have done my searches of available reliable sources, and agree that the subject passes WP:NACTOR. That being said, outside of entertainment focused sources, the subject's significant coverage is minimal outside of gossip about the subject. I support keep, but due to lack of more significant coverage, I have to say that I weakly support notability outside of his entertainment career.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 14
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Distinguished Warfare Medal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
Hi. I want to thank you for your quality addition to the above article. It would save you problems with it in the future if you could find some other community reaction to it that was in favor of the school's action (which I by the way, find indefensible.) I am afraid another editor will show up and gut it as POV. Good luck and again, Thanks! Gtwfan52 (talk) 01:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Whenever I see your comments on talk pages, AfDs or what-have-you they are always very articulate and it definitely comes across that you actually put thought, effort and *gasp* logic into your comments and arguments. There really needs to be more Wikipedians like you. — -dainomite08:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Again, thanks. Many people write off Wikipedia because it can be edited by anyone. However, because it is also its greatest strength. If the editors who continue editing, despite the criticism, remain use reliable sources, work to improve content, and remain civil with one another Wikipedia can achieve the equivalent quality of older encyclopedias that the naysayers find more reputable.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the information. I am new to editing in the selected anniversaries area, and saw that the article was GA quality, and that it was the 460th anniversary of her coronation, and was being WP:BOLD. I will try not to duplicate such things again in the future.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 14:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
If I understand the DYK process correctly, the last icon on the page is what DYK bots and manual editors look at in order to determine whether or not to promote the article. I suspect you have reviewed and passed the Template:Did you know nominations/My Hands. Therefore, all it needs now is the code {{subst:DYKtickAGF}} (which generates a ) placed at the beginning of a line near the end of the review or at least after the placed on the 15 February. It is normal to add a comment after the icon such as "Good to go" followed by your signature. Then the article will be passed for DYK. I hope this helps --Senra (talk)23:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
Hi, RCLC. Petraeus is spelled wrong in the Benjamin Freakley DYK. Can you use some of your vast influence here to get it corrected? I mentioned it on the Main page talk page about an hour ago. Thanks. --108.45.72.196 (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
What would that be? Please provide diffs to show this edit war that this warning accussess me off. 3RR has not been violated, and I have been civil in my discussions on the talk page.
This notice could be seen as coming from a battlefield mindset, and could be viewed as being continued WP:WIKIHOUNDING and I kindly as the editor to stop. I have already asked the editor to stop once before, and this is the last time I ask. Additional wikihounding actions will be documented, and if need be will be reported. Please do not continue to engage with me in this manor, and I once again ask for civility.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
I was not seeking "back up". I was very clear at WP:RIGHT when stating that I notified all WikiProjects which the article had been tagged with. I did not remember tagging the article as I have been reminded, and thus to assume the I tagged it for the particular purpose of advancing a POV is not assuming good faith.
Viriditas has a history of accussing me of pushing POV over a number of talk pages, including at Talk:Burrito. Multiple accusations, over a lengthy period of time, over numerous talk pages. If the reason for this is that the editor believes me to be a POV fighter, that is not assuming good faith. If it is Viriditas' mindset that I am a POV fighter I can understand why Viriditas maybe doing what it appears Viriditas maybe doing, but that does not make it right.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
Final vote
The debate you are involved in at the Dispute resolution noticeboard is reaching finality and your final input is needed here. Could you please weigh in at your earliest convenience? Thanx! -- 108.13.143.74 (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
Ft Hood casualties
Re:the most recent response by ROG: Can you explain to me, the difference between "32 counts of premeditated murder" and the number of casualties at an active shooter crime scene. ANY shooter massacre, not just Ft.Hood. I would ask at the article talk page but ROG would just say, "AGAIN?? I already told you why."....and call my question trivial. He is determined to have it his way. ```Buster Seven Talk20:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Earlier in the discussion, when I suggested 32 might be the correct answer of wounded, I was told that would be OR. What I know is what can be verified, reliable sources give numbers from 29 to 38, with many reliable sources at different times giving different numbers. The casualties technically be all wounded/injured/hospitalized/medically treated plus dead/killed. Therefore the number should be wounded plus dead/killed. I am willing to compromise with ROG in saying "more than X" were wounded (which is what the Austin Statesman has been doing in later published articles).
If ROG is calling our contribution to the article trivial, that isn't really being civil, and is not assuming good faith of fellow contributors.
The RfC does not appear to be bringing in new editors to provide additional comments regarding this issue. Once RfC closes, if no consensus can be formed, WP:DRN might be the next course; however I hope a consensus that all can be amicable towards can be achieved.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC) --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
United States
Hi I am sure an experienced Wikipedian like yourself would know that a change like this would be controversial and would need a consensus before enacting it. Strangely enough I cannot see where you sought such consensus. Could you please point me to it? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 18:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
It was a bold change, resized, removed one external media file, and added one image.
I do not see the change as controversial. May I kindly ask why it is controversial?
I would argue that having an image and speech by one individual would give undue weight to that one individual. Moreover, most sections have two images associated with the section. Adding an additional image would be appropriate. Other appropriate images could be used such as:
No past discussion, that I am aware of, said that there was a past consensus on what images to use in the history section, what sizes they should be, etc.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Fair enough. Well, now that it's been reverted I am sure you will be going to article talk to argue for the change you wanted. --John (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Query
Sorry to bother you again. I noticed you requested that another user remain calm a few days ago, but then tonight, you personalised the discussion ("Because ROG5728 says so?") Do you think these two posts are mutually compatible? I can see the other user getting wound up; is this your intention? --John (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
No, perhaps I should have been more civil. My question was meant to ask why the reasoning behind the other editors logic.
It's a fair question and it deserves an answer. I've seen you around before, and I noticed your interactions with ROG5728 at the Fort Hood Shootings page, where I've edited before and recently disagreed with your suggestion about the casualty figures. When I saw your edit at United States being reverted (it's also on my watchlist, one of 48,545!) I thought I would come over and give you a "word to the wise". As I've noticed you refer to me as an admin, let me reassure you that I would not use my admin tools if I saw you doing anything that looked funny; on the other hand I do know (as I'm sure you also do) the routes down which someone being disruptive could go. I feel hopeful that you can use me as a barometer, if you can see our interaction as an opportunity rather than a threat. Quite apart from my admin bit, I've also made over a kazillion edits here and been around for geological amounts of time, by Wikipedia standards. I've almost never shied away from controversial articles, and maybe I can help you; looking at your contributions I can see you have a lot to add. I helped get Margaret Thatcher to good article status if that counts for anything in your world-view. Anyway, I'm not reviewing your edits any more than I do with any other editor I interact with. Take care, and let me know what I can do for you. --John (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.
The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."
WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"
A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.
I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.
On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.
The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.
Q: Tell us a little about yourself. A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.
Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects? A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.
Q: What makes a WikiProject successful? A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership? A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.
If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.
The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page.
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.
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.
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.
On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.
Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline.
Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.
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.
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.
There is absolutely nothing to eat on this talk page. You must be starving. Here, I know it isn't Friday, but munch on this:
Lionelt has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
Spread the goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You didn't build that until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.
.jpg)
