User talk:216.114.194.20

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Pekin, Iowa has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/IA/Airfields_IA_W.html#pekin (matching the regex rule (?<!jeff560\.)tripod\.com).
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 03:44, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

1. Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added such as to the page Pekin, Iowa do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  
   Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://members.tripod.com/airfields_freeman/IA/Airfields_IA_W.html#pekin (matching the regex rule (?<!jeff560\.)tripod\.com).
   If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
   If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Use of "radical right" for the John Birch Society

Hi. "Radical Right" is a term used in academia to describe movements such as the John Birch Society. If you read the Radical Right article you'll see plenty of examples of this (and how the term was coined with JBS in mind). Academic terminology is typically favoured, as it denotes greater precision of definition than in everyday conversation. All the best, VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Re: "a term used in academia" by whom? A liberal professor at some liberal university makes this ridiculous partisan attack, and WP takes it at face value?--216.114.194.20 (talk) 18:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Archive pages

Please don't edit edit archives of talk pages.   Will Beback  talk  02:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I did it in error, and fixed the error immediately. I forgot I was on the archive page.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 02:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks.   Will Beback  talk  02:39, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject conservatism

Please do not let yourself be "run off" the discussion page by childish, erroneous and vindictive posts (and/or officious deletions) from any other user. I disagree with your view that the source in question is inadmissible. I strongly disagree with your claim as to how the source has described himself (I cannot find any supporting reliable sources); also with your reasons re. excluding the source, and your views about a left-wing bias in Wikipedia distorting the history it records (incidentally the project talk page is not the place to air general views based on personal opinion). But like anyone else, you are entirely free to contribute re. the substance and detail of the project, with suggestions that may help to improve it. Please also bear in mind that under WP:BLP anything presented as fact about a living person (e.g. a contention that a person has described themselves in a particular way) must be supported by impeccably reliable sources; and take care to keep within the WP:Forum policy! Happy editing and a happy new year. Best wishes, Writegeist (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Dealing with the established liberal gatekeepers

I have observed for a long time the tactics of what I suspect are full-time liberal wiki "gatekeeper" editors employed by the professional left think-tanks, etc who work in small groups to support each others edit wars on political pages. These gatekeepers are relentless, and will keep reverting edits and targeting individual editors for months on end regardless of proper citations, sources, etc, knowing that sooner or later their target will just give up. These are established editors, but when you look through their histories, they are filled exclusively with non-stop edit wars on political pages, always supporting left-wing agendas with blatant, often absurd bias. Attempts to escalate their edit wars only bring out their posse to defend each other. The problem here is that these gatekeepers are the judge, jury, and executioners and nothing can get by them. The result is that a small group of radical left-wingers are rewriting history and using WP as a propaganda platform.

Another thing I've seen is how they establish multi-layer levels of obfuscation of terminology that is nearly impossible to unravel. For example, the left wingers themselves define what "radical right wing" means, and then use their own definition to label other pages, saying that radical right wing has been defined, so it is proper to use freely. They have turned what used to be middle-of-the road conservatives in past decades (such as Reagan and now Paul Ryan) into "radical right wingers". They freely cite works from known left-wing authors as being sources to support their statements, and edit-war any attempts to refute those citations. I sincerely worry about what our children are learning from these pages.

The question is, how can these established editors get flushed out for who they are, and what they are doing in tandem with each other? They absolutely control the political pages, and are responsible for the liberal propaganda platform Wikipedia has become. It almost requires a group of moderates to relentlessly target their edit wars to try to bring NPOV moderation. --216.114.194.20 (talk) 16:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Now you know that the "established liberal gatekeepeers" aren't going to like this. <smile> I am loathe to move this here--freedom of speech and all--but this would definitely be used by the critics of WPConservatism as ammo to harm the group. The basic issue is that these are unsubstantiated allegations and you know they'll say that this is a conspiracy theory. I invite you to bring to the wikiproj tak page specific instances of provable POV edit warring with diffs. Sorry about this but I hope you understand... this is Wikipedia after all. – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 22:08, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You invite people to bring edit warring diffs to the project? How is that under the projects mission? They should take it to the admin noticeboards. Complaints about "liberal wiki gatekeepers" advocates can simply be dismissed as wholly unsubstantiated. Wikipedia isn't a democracy, you don't have the right to free speech. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:27, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Writing neutral conservatism-related articles is part of the mission--as it is with all content Wikiprojects. If an editor has a NPOV issue at a conservatism-related article WPConservatism is an acceptable venue.– Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 23:56, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

This is exactly what I am talking about. Any time you try to address this problem and get WP's political pages disinfected of these agenda-driven hardcore editors controlling everything, it starts a never-ending circle of "bring it here" and "bring it there". When you do bring it to those places, guess who is there waiting? You guessed it - the liberal posse who will try to drag it out as long as possible for months on end, and the final determinations for content and sanctions are made by guess who? The liberal posse themselves.

I've also seen instances where they knew that edits/additions to a section were not supportive to their agenda, so they then start trying to justify that the entire sections should be removed. It's a never-ending circle.

All it takes is a handful of hardcore biased editors to make it very, very difficult to put up any other content than their own. In WP's case, there are groups of hardcore liberal editors doing exactly that, and they are working in conjunction with each other. "Democracy" doesn't work in a place like a prison, where there are 5,000 inmates and 100 guards. The 5,000 inmates may complain they are being abused, but the 100 guards will have the final opinion. --216.114.192.45 (talk) 14:31, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Check this example out. This is one of my personal examples, but I am really referring to a much bigger picture after watching countless pages with others over the past couple of years. it's an everyday, non-stop thing.

talk:Progressivism#United_States_section_-_list_of_Progressives_in_Congress This is a perfect example. After starting moderation and knowing he was going to be flushed out and possibly sanctioned, the editor simply removed the entire section instead of accepting the well-cited additions that he didn't like.--216.114.192.45 (talk) 14:41, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I'm very familiar with the two editors you tussled with: TFD & WillBeback. Will is indeffed btw. I love TFD's exclamation in exasperation: "You are just Google-mining for sources to support your views." IOW yeah you have the sources--but I'm gonna revert anyway. LOL. Bottom line: if it's not required by policy, and it's not prohibited by policy, it's up to the discretion of the editors at the talk page, i.e. "consensus." IOW it's a vote! You were just outvoted 2-1. The cool thing about WP is WP:CCC. Go back, add your libs, and see what happens this time. Any other issues you'd like for me to look at? – Sir Lionel, EG^(talk) 21:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

November 2013

Hello, I'm Mark Arsten. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to USS Bataan (LHD-5), because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I reverted back to how I edited it. Please do not undo again. This was off-topic political opinion grandstanding being forced into an article and was completely off-topic. Opinions on whether enhanced interrogations are "torture" do not belong being interjected into an article about a warship. WP is not a propaganda platform, and thus I removed.--216.114.194.20 (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

---