Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:11, 18 March 2013

Email

I've send you an email. Please respond.Teeninvestor (talk)

re:

coordination

Oops. My bad. I thought that was your discussion page...like an idiot. byelf2007 (talk) 17 July 2011

The Right Stuff: September 2011

By Lionelt

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

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

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

By Lionelt

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

I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Misplaced Pages!" 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.

By Lionelt

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

The Right Stuff: October 2011

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 Misplaced Pages.

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 Misplaced Pages 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.

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.

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[REDACTED] 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.

The Right Stuff: November 2011

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.

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.

The Right Stuff: January 2012

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.

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.

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.

Edit warring

December 2012

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Misplaced Pages again, as you did at Talk:Socialism, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Don't remove other editors' talk page comments RolandR (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

it was actually the other editor that changed my comments, i simply reverted. see here: the edit was formatted as its own section to allow others to comment on the specific source. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:38, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not the case. You removed all of the other editor's comments. I restored them. RolandR (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

apologies, thx for restoring his edit, which would not have been mistakenly removed if the editor followed the wp policy of not altering others talk page comments. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

See WP:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments (section headings). There is nothing wrong with removing redundant discussion thread headings. But it is wrong to edit other editors' comments, except in rare circumstances. TFD (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

i miss you too. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

you may not have read all of the guidelines as you have changed/removed your own comments, It is best to avoid changing your own comments. Use deletion and insertion markup or a place-holder to show the comment has been altered. and you may not have understood the part you did read, To avoid disputes it is best to discuss a heading change with the editor who started the thread, if possible, when a change is likely to be controversial. what the editor did was merge to sections about different sources to include it in the rfc. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

the two faces of RolandR

On the one face, it is absurd to suggest the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was socialist, while the other face makes the opposite point here: Of course Marxist-Leninist socialists are Marxists - the clue is in the name.. Facepalm... Darkstar1st (talk) 01:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Please, strike through your personal attack and apologise

Please strike through this and apologize.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

you are continuing to pursue a minority pov against consensus, such behavior may result in a block or topic ban, plz stop. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI

– S. Rich (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

back at ya, muah. still looking for the smoking gun here. could you highlight the worst offense for me, perhaps i can strike thru my comments when i know what it is he did? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like I'm playing the role of Henry II. See: Murder in the Cathedral. The quotes were provided outside of the diffs so that the pattern of dis-etiquetee could be seen. Xerographica's attitude may come from his infantryman days, which is one of "fuck it!". (I don't mind that at all. I've trained with infantrymen in the field. And they kept me alive in Iraq.) But such an attitude is an exception, not the rule in WP. And while occasional rudeness is fine, his is pervasive. Moreover, it is in addition to his disruptive quotefarming, POV pushing, absolutely lousy OR, etc. Jeez, if I had added those problems to the list, I'd have people saying "Rich, there must be a pony somewhere in this pile of horse shit you've given us!" – S. Rich (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

understood, ill look again. which of the 100+ diffs is the very best example? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Darkstarbaby, I'm getting sick of the whole topic (not you, I'm your Richiepoo buddy). So I'll give you a Xerographic style (e.g., actual quote) answer: "Let me know when you thoroughly read them so that we can have an informed discussion on the topic." – S. Rich (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

thx for having a sense of humor, as my comments were designed as such. X and i haven't always seen eye to eye either and this would be a easy pile to jump on, i just sincerely didnt see the violation here. one thing i am happy about is to make a new friend, you seem like a great person, cheers! Darkstar1st (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Characterization of anarchism

Darkstar1st, your characterization of anarchism on the Talk:Libertarianism page appears largely inaccurate, and I'd like to elucidate our position if you don't mind. If not, that's fine too. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

please do, lets start when it was first invented and who coined the term.

Actually, I wanted to explain that there are differing ideologies that go under the name of anarchism. The one you described on the Talk:Libertarianism page is called egoist anarchism, and is/was mostly a literary phenomenon (like individualist anarchism in general); this is not the anarchism most anarchists support. For most of us, anarchism means without rulers, and egoist anarchism (as well as the relatively recent anarcho-capitalism) is viewed as an ideology that permits or even encourages rule. Max Stirner, who first expounded egoist anarchism, stated that "hoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property." In other words, might makes right and the weak will be subdued by the will of the strong.

You mentioned that animals live in an anarchy, and you are correct in that, but this egoist anarchy doesn't comprise the totality or even the majority of this political philosophy. For most of us, Stirner's egoism is a form of rule, as is capitalism. This is why anarchism is traditionally associated with socialism and is opposed to capitalism and egoism (which more closely represents feudalism than socialism). So, just to reiterate, your characterization seemed to imply that all anarchism is egoist, which actually represents an extremely tiny fraction of the philosophy. Most anarchism, though, (mutualism, communist anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc.) does not conform to the image you painted. Thanks for your time! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

ok, perhaps the anarchism talk would be a better place to explain such? you think anarchism in humans predates libertarianism by countless millenium, i agree, therefore we should minimize mention of the term here. you believe some libertarians are not anarchist, i agree, and suggest those who are can not possibly be libertarian as property rights enforced solely by private means is simply anarchism. liberty is not anarchy, rights are not mights, rather the opposite, a free association of individuals upholding the rights of strangers, which requires a leader, laws, and justice. anarchy has existed in the past, liberty has as well, the muddy soup of both never. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not quite following what you just said. For an explanation of what I think ought to be done to the Libertarianism article, please see the talk page (the section entitled "Can we at least agree... ?"). I just wanted to explain here that your characterization of anarchism is nowhere close to how most anarchist philosophers and proponents view it. Anyway, thanks for your time. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

what i meant is anarchist aren't libertarians, they are anarchist. libertarians dont call themselves anarchist, only socialist professors in the usa who think europeans think such, which they dont, do. anarchism was around long before libertarian and there was no reason to invent the word if it meant the same. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the first person to adopt the term anarchist for his philosophy was Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1849, and libertarian was coined soon after (in 1857) by Joseph Déjacque in order to distinguish Proudhon's mutualism from Déjacque's communist anarchism (Déjacque and others viewed mutualism as too pro-property). From that time until about 1950, most of the world used libertarian to mean anarchist, which also carried the connotation of socialism. It's only since that time that libertarian has acquired pro-capitalist and pro-property associations. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO message

Darkstar, besides restoring your remark, your revert also removed SPECIFICO's post. – S. Rich (talk) 16:13, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think SPECIFICO has fixed it just now. I do not doubt his good faith. – S. Rich (talk) 16:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

no problem. several of my talk comments have recently been re-factored or otherwise molested. one editor has moved a well discussed section i created into a one post section he created perhaps so his comment wouldn't look so lonely? edit conflicts are definitely confusing, i recommend anytime an editor sees that message they simply open a new window to avoid the same error. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Xenophrenic (talk) 20:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You have been added to an RFAR

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

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, KillerChihuahua 14:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

hi KC, glad you are back, hope you are feeling better :). would you provide a dif of why i am an involved party? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:21, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much; I'm on new meds and still doing the round of tests. I'm doing better but they're just treating symptoms while they figure out the cause and decide on a long term treatment. There is no one diff of why you were added; in going through the history, I found you have been a strong contributor, and party to some of the past disputes. Some examples: etc. KillerChihuahua 15:40, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Is there a specific policy those edits violated or came close to such? Would you expand the "etc"? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Without getting into too much detail here (I believe this case will be accepted and I see no point in writing the case twice) I think it is likely you have transgressed BATTLE and possibly others. KillerChihuahua 18:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

did the above difs transgress battle? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tea Party movement arbitration case opened

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2013, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 23:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Please get in the habit of following instructions

before using the last evidence template, please make a copy for the next person

You neglected to do this. I'm going to do this now. Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

apologies, will do. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Clarification requested

Oppose I found my way here from Viriditas, who made a comment on my talk page a few days back.

I'm sorry, but that comment doesn't parse. How does my comment up above about following instructions in an arbcom case have anything whatsoever to do with an RfA? Unless you are admitting that you are engaging in wikistalking my contributions and following me around to oppose candidates I support, I would very seriously suggest striking that comment immediately. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

i have some advice for you and a clarification, wikistalking has been abandoned here and you should strike thru your accusations of canvassing. you and i have not had any interaction in the past until your arbcom post, and with any luck, we wont in the future. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

It has not been "abandoned" in any way, and that's quite possibly the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The only thing that has changed is the verbiage, and I prefer the older term. In any case, since you refuse to respond, it looks like I'll have to take this to ANI. Per the instructions, I attempted to resolve the problem with you here and you refused to address it. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

if you thought that was ridiculous, wait until you read this wp:boomerang. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Does your mother know you are using her computer? Viriditas (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)