Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by R-41 (talk | contribs) at 00:14, 14 July 2012 (→Although I disagree with you on the topic we are currently on, I apologize for saying something rather crude about you out of frustration: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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.

Magi: Lost Kings or Aliens w/ GPS

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.

Happy Holidays..--Buster Seven Talk 25 December 2011 (UTC)

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.

WQA

Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion

Hello, The Four Deuces. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collect (talk • contribs) 12:21, 14 April 2012

Classical liberalism dispute

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zac Gochenour (talk • contribs) 21:10, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Cotton Rogers

I'm must disagree with the charge that I'm edit warring I only reverted your edit since you claimed my source did not say Cleveland was not a conservative it clearly states in the second paragraph Cleveland took a conservative course as president therby making your claim false and I have been using the talkpage probably too much so how is it edit warringCotton Rogers (talk) 00:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have replied to you about edit-warring on your talk page. I will discuss content disputes on the article talk page. In the meantime, you should familiarize yourself with liberalism and conservatism. Policies which today seem conservative once were considered radical. That is part of what conservatism means - a return to earlier values. TFD (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have sourced my information which you unrightly deleted my putting it back up is not edit warring also you need to look up Paleoconservatism that is Jefferson in a nutshellCotton Rogers (talk) 01:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The article says that paleoconservatism developed in the 1930s in opposition to Franklin Roosevelt and stesses "tradition, limited government, civil society, anti-colonialism, anti-corporatism and anti-federalism, along with religious, regional, national and Western identity." Paul Gottfried, who coined the term, does not consider himself a paleo. Russell Kirk, the leading paleo writer, said in The Conservative Mind that Jefferson's election was a defeat for conservatism. What relevance does this article have? TFD (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I searched the whole article but could not find that quote from Kirk I might have missed it which section is it in? That aside I was refering to the line in the Conservative Heritage Section that said when many view the start of paleoconservatism "They often look back even further, to Edmund Burke, as well as the anti-federalist movement that stretched from the days of Thomas Jefferson to John C. Calhoun." which shows many thought Jefferson was the start of the paleoconservatism movement also his strict-constructionist views of the constitution, his oppposition to the a national bank, his anti-coporatism, his small goverment views, along with his supporting the gold standard and finally Jefferson's non-interventionist stands and reducing the size of the military all mirror paleoconservative views which clearly shows he had a mostly paleoconservative outlook when it came to governingCotton Rogers (talk) 02:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Also thought about the warning you gave me about edit warring since we are having the differance of opinion I don't believe you can objectivelly give me a seroius warning stating that I'm edit warring I want my habeaus corpus rights I think you need a completely unobjective third party to fairly give such a warning it seems to me the right thing to do whether your initial warning was justified or not Cotton Rogers (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

See Kirk, pp. 72-73: "These Federalists, the first conservative faction in an independent America, found themselves menaced by two radicalisms: one of French origins, the same enormous social and intellectual convulsion that Burke confronted; the other a growth in part native and in part English, the levelling agrarian republicanism of which Jefferson was the chief representative, zealous to abolish entail, primogeniture, church establishments, and all the vestiges of aristocracy, and to oppose centralization, strong government, public debt and the military.... if a true American Revolution can be said to have occurred, it came with the successes of Jefferson and the Republicans in 1800...." TFD (talk) 07:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Repeat of what was said on Talk:Nazism that a user said I should post here

I honestly did not remember using Kuehnelt-Leddihn, it is an unusual name and I didn't remember it because it was unusual. You have said this: "The fact that he forgot that he was the one who made those complaints says something about his memory." That is a personal attack - you have no legitimacy in declaring your assumption about my personal nature (the state of my memory) to everyone here on the talk page - that is inappropriate and it was clearly intended as a condescending personal attack. Are you going to rescind the implicit comparison of my argument here to the material that you mentioned by Holocaust denier David Irving? I do not support David Irving's views, if you do not rescind that comparison, that is poisoning the well and misrepresenting my argument - violating Misplaced Pages talk page guidelines, and I will report if you do not rescind that comparison. Secondly I have the right now to report you for personal attacks now that you have insulted me by saying I have poor memory - I suggest you rescind that immediately - it is personal and not about the material being discussed at all, I am within grounds to report that as a personal attack.--R-41 (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

R-41, what TFD in reality said about the source, which, as he believes, had been used used by you, was: " He even quotes David Irving's discredited estimates of the number of deaths at Dresden, which originated from Nazi propaganda (p. 104). This historiography has received no notice in mainstream academic writing and does not belong in this article. " From one side, this argument is weak: the author quoting some Holocaust denier is not necessarily fringe. However, from the another hand, cautious and accurate TFD's language leaves no doubts that he neither drew nor implied any connection between you and the Holocaust denial.--Paul Siebert (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. And my point is that Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn scholarship is so poor he is willing to use highly inflated figures from a pseudo-historian. Von Kuehnelt-Leddihn btw was the subject of a discussion by R-41 and myself. The user who "forgot that he was the one who made those complaints" is not R-41, but about the user who "informed" R-41 about the complaints. TFD (talk) 22:07, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

You are involved in a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard

Here is the link: --R-41 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Although I disagree with you on the topic we are currently on, I apologize for saying something rather crude about you out of frustration

I said to user Collect that I thought you had "gone mad" because you couldn't understand my argument. That was a crude way for me to put that I thought that you were arriving at an irrational conclusion in your rebuke of my claims about the issue over fascism and claims of democracy by it. For that I apologize.--R-41 (talk) 00:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)