Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by JBW (talk | contribs) at 13:22, 29 August 2012 (Correcting ridiculous typo that reversed the meaning). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is RightCowLeftCoast's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This user is fallible, and is only human. If this user has made a mistake, please be civil and kind when explaining what the user has done wrong. The user has flaws, include at times pride, so please accept the user's apology in advance. This user reserves the right to remove comments from his own talk page per WP:UP#CMT Before placing a template please see WP:DTTR

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

This page has archives. Sections older than 91 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

ged

well i am trying to get my ged and need to know what philipians are please help me.....(6/29/11)

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 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.

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.

This is a crime

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!

Invitation

	Great American Wikinic at Pan-Pacific Park
	You are invited to the second Great American Wikinic taking place in Pan-Pacific Park, in Los Angeles, on Saturday, June 23, 2012! Last year's was a blast (see the LA Weekly blog post on it) and we hope we can do better this year. We would love to have you there! —howcheng {chat} 19:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
	If you would not like to receive future messages about meetups, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Meetup/LA/Invite.

The Bugle: Issue LXXIV, May 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Bomzibar on Chiang Kai-shek; Nick-D on the Falklands War Interview: Article writers discuss biographies Op-ed: Nick-D examines using news articles as sources

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed  15:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

GOCE July 2012 Copy Edit Drive

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Chaco War and the Bougainville Campaign Op-ed: Remembering conflict

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed  19:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Image galleries

In accordance with WP:Galleries, I have removed the unit crests at Distinctive unit insignia. If you look at Category:Misplaced Pages image galleries, you'll see it's duplicating a number of existing image gallery articles, all of which, in accordance with WP:Galleries, should be on Commons (eg http://commons.wikimedia.org/Field_Army_insignia_of_the_United_States_Army). Buckshot06 (talk) 03:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 13

Hi. When you recently edited 40th Infantry Brigade Combat Team (United States), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 40th Infantry Division (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012

This was a very poor edit. We do not include lists of non-notable "victims" on Misplaced Pages per WP:NOTMEMORIAL; and, per Help:Reverting, the reversion tool is to be used only in cases of vandalism or edits which degrade the article in a manner akin to vandalism. If you abuse your revert right it will be revoked. As the editor wishing to depart from project consensus the onus is on you to present compelling reasons in talk to include this material, or to point to such a consensus having already been reached. This you have not done. In the future, you should try to find a compromise version rather than just blind-reverting changes you do not like. Your call. --John (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Please see WP:CIVIL & WP:AVOIDYOU. The above statement does not adhere to either and appears to be a threat against my editing.

The action, (the removal by the above editor) in question, was done boldly and thus is subject to reversion; furthermore, the content was verified by use of reliable sources. If there is consensus for removal of the content, than the content can be removed after a discussion on the talk page per WP:BRD

In the future please do not threaten myself or other editors as have been done above. Further threats maybe reported per normal protocal.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Uh huh. I see bluster but I do not see any substantive response to my concerns. I stand by everything I said. WP:DRNC is an interesting essay which may help you to avoid running into sanctions by repeating your mistake. Again, it is totally up to you how you wish to proceed. I strongly suggest learning from this and improving your adherence to our norms in future if you wish to retain your privileges, but you must do as you see fit. It isn't necessary to send me a {{tb}} template, as I will watch this page. --John (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to the essay. However, the statement above still contains content, being the threat of reduction of editing privileges because the above editor disagrees with a reversion of an edit, that does not appear to adhere to WP:CIVIL. I understand that other editors may disagree with edits from time to time, but that does not mean that editors, especially those entrusted with administrator privileges, should threaten other editors due to disagreements that they may have with one another when those times arise.

Please in the future, refrain from threatening other editors.

If, in regards to this disagreement, a simple please see template was used to direct myself to the discussion that is ongoing at the talk page of the War on Terror article, the incivility would not have been created; the incivility in this case being the threat of reduction of editing ability.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 16:56, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

If you perceive my polite message reminding you of your obligation to adhere to our policies as a threat, that is your problem, not mine. You were wrong to revert me without a rationale based in policy. You were wrong to blanket-revert my changes, rather than the ones you specifically disagreed with. You are wrong on the content issue too, which is ok, but it is not ok to just revert edits you disagree with. If you continue to do this, it is likely your privileges will be restricted. If you wish to avoid this, you should change your editing behaviour. I am not sure why you refer in your message to he War on Terror article, as it was not the one we were discussing. Other than that, I have nothing further to say to you regarding your conduct, and I think you should concentrate on crafting a proper rationale for the material you wish to include in the article, if you still wish it to be included. --John (talk) 17:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please again, see WP:AVOIDYOU, the message above appears to be incivil. I thank other editors in attempting to improve my editing, as I have remained a positive contributor to Misplaced Pages. That being said, incivility leads others to stop editing and thus reduces the number of positive editors that wikipedia has. In the past I have taken WikiBreaks due to incivility from other editors which negatively impacted my ability to positively contribute to wikipedia as a whole.

Again, please refrain from threatening other editors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:18, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I am intimately familiar with WP:AVOIDYOU; I am not making a personal attack however, as I am not commenting on you but on your edits. Please muse on this distinction; if you are able to learn to take others' criticism of your conduct in your stride, you have the potential to become a better editor. If you are not, you will have a miserable time here and probably end up being blocked. You are free to now have the last word as I will not reply further here, but I undertake to keep an occasional eye on your edits in the future to ensure you do not repeat this sort of behaviour, for your good and that of the encyclopedia. All the best, --John (talk) 17:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:WIKIHOUNDING, please do not as stated above "keep an occasional eye on your edits in the future to ensure you do not repeat this sort of behaviour". Such action would violate WP:CIVIL, and be a determent to my positive contribution to Misplaced Pages.

Additionally, the previous statements have contained threats, as described at WP:HA#Threats.

As such I will notify the appropriate noticeboard.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors: Wikimania 2012; special projects note Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the Australian 25th Battalion Interview: Article writers discuss buildings and fortifications Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports on a weekend workshop

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed  09:45, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK nomination of 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech

Hello! Your submission of 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!  Ryan Vesey 04:22, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That was fast.– Sir Lionel, EG 04:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen this {{Infobox speech}}? – Sir Lionel, EG 04:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't. Thanks for letting me know about it.

Also, the image below, is that meant as something like a Barnstar, or a wikicookie?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:50, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Cookie. Take a bite--he's delish.– Sir Lionel, EG 05:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

← If you believe that this particular speech is worthy of a standalone article, do you also believe we should write a standalone article entitled "corporations are people, my friend"? The phrase gets 56 million Google hits, and 20,000 Google News hits, thus fulfilling the criteria under which you've advocated for the Obama speech article. How about Romney Hood (26 million Google hits, 49,000 Google News hits)? What do you think? MastCell  02:58, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm still interested in your response, if you'd care to provide one. MastCell  18:51, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Notability is to be determined on a case by case basis while looking at the appropriate notability guidelines that cover the subject. I would not object to other users creating articles which they believe are notable; other editors may differ on their opinion, and other may feel strongly enough to bring at article up for AfD due to their opinion. That is all I will say regarding the two subjects which you are inquiring about.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:53, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll let you plead the Fifth and draw my own conclusions. MastCell  21:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

ANI

An Editor has taken your name here but has not informed you , AS per the ANI policies I am informing you, regards--DBigXray 17:44, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:50, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You are a STAR!

This may be a little premature, but with the !voting about to close and the Keeps at +2, I'll bet ψ100 wikidollars you get a "No consensus."
– Sir Lionel, EG 04:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

KEEP! My wikimoney was on No consensus. Impressive save. – Sir Lionel, EG 05:39, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Although there were statements about the dislike of the "wall of text" and the unnecessary actions of replying to every new !vote that occurred, I believe that the practice helped focus the though process on both sides on why we believed that it should be kept, and they believed it should not be. By discussing their reasoning thoroughly and rebuking that reasoning with a logical argument, it is my belief that is why a KEEP was the outcome rather than no consensus.

Thanks for the acknowledgement by the way, and your continued efforts.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 05:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

How did you like the T-shirt I made for you and added to the article? – Sir Lionel, EG 00:06, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

Hi. When you recently edited Demographics of Filipino Americans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bicol (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

You didn't build that page history

I have restored the original creation history at You didn't build that according to your suggestion. Thanks for that. "G6: Deleted to make way for move" is an automatically generated message when an admin moves a page thereby overwriting a redirect (see WP:MOR). Such deletion is necessary to prevent the automatic mixing up of page histories. I apologise on behalf of the MediaWiki developers that it gave you the false impression of a "unilateral" deletion. Deryck C. 08:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Deletion Review of Sandra Fluke

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you participated in the original deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, and a question

With regard to how those who self identify as military experts came to the {{afd}} on articles I started -- I have always been aware that normal and policy-compliant use of deletion sorting could easily explain this, without leveling suggestions of non-policy-compliant off-wiki solicitation of !votes. I too have been unfairly accused of off-wiki solicitation. It it not pleasant.

Thanks for your friendly good faith advice on my suggestion we initiate a new guideline that would cover all extrajudicial captives.

What I was hoping for was that those who read the reasons in User:Geo Swan/BLPs started 2011-02 to 2012-08 would help clarify how we interpret "one event" by taking a stand, like "IMO those are all second events, except being listed on a 'most wanted' list." Or, "IMO 'writing a book' is a second event -- all the other reasons you suggest remain part of the original 'single event'."

Thanks Geo Swan (talk) 11:08, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Asian Americans

Thanks for your award from last year . I'm interested in becoming more active on articles about Asian Americans. Could you direct me on how to find articles that need work? I found Asian Americans in arts and entertainment by a fluke. thanks--Aichikawa (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Copied your comment

The discussion on the most decorated person in the Viet Nam War has moved to Talk:Joe Hooper (Medal of Honor) now that Jorge Otero Barreto is no longer in the running. Since I thought it was pertinent, I took the liberty of copying your post to the new discussion (after editing out material pertaining to Sgt Otero).--Lineagegeek (talk) 20:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

RTAFB

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Airports#Royal Thai Air Force Bases Petebutt (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages 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.

Military history of Asian Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Argonne Forest

San Diego Comic-Con International (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Chuck

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit-warring

You're up to 4 reverts at You didn't build that in just over 24 hours. I'm going to ask you to slow down and, ideally, self-revert your last edit. I'm sure you're aware of the three-revert rule and broader policy on edit-warring, but if not, please consider this a formal notification. MastCell  17:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There are a difference between reverts and substantial edits, and my last one was a substantial edits by virtue that it was not a reversion of others work, IMHO.

If others wish to WP:TAGTEAM and WP:GAME the system, that is not in the best interest of the project or the article in question.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. MastCell  19:24, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Please see the discussion at WP:AN3#User:RightCowLeftCoast reported by User:MastCell (Result: ). It appears that you made four reverts in 25 hours. If you will reply at the noticeboard and promise to take a break from editing this article, you may be able to avoid sanctions for edit warring. You have argued above: "There are a difference between reverts and substantial edits, and my last one was a substantial edits by virtue that it was not a reversion of others work". If you check the language of WP:3RRNO you may notice that 'substantial edits' are not a recognized exception to the rules about edit warring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I will refrain from editing the lead section, on my own accord for a 48 hour period. However, if others take this time to POV push in the lead, I would kindly ask that others assist in maintaining the neutrality of that section of the article.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I object to that. From my personal viewpoint, RCLC and one or two other editors are sort of owning the article by leveraging the unwillingness of other editors to edit-war with them. It's not just the lead, although that's one problem area. MastCell  19:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Is the objection that there is POV pushing in the lead?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012

Template:Z10

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

Request reason:

As stated by other editors, some of the diffs cited by the proposing editor, in their opinion, didn't warrant a reversion. As of this posting the discussion there is not closed. Others were tag teaming the article to advance a non-neutral POV, and this effort to get me block is an effort to game the system so that this movement towards making the article non-neutral can continue. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

You repeatedly reverted in the same article. That is called "edit warring". Whether other editors thought that edits "warrant a reversion" or not, the fact is you were edit warring, and Misplaced Pages's policy is, essentially, "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you are right". I see no evidence that there is any attempt to "game the system": if there is any such evidence then you need to provide it, not just state your opinion that it is so. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

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.

• Here's my usual offer for edit warring blocks. If you'll agree to step back from the article for the duration of the block, I have no problem lifting it. That means you need to steer entirely clear of the article and discussions until the block would have expired. Does that seem reasonable? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 04:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)