Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from RichardWeiss! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:
I don't have a problem refraining from what you describe as "personal attacks," but I would feel more comfortable in the knowledge that there were other admins who are monitoring the behavior of that user, who-from all appearances-is simply here to vandalize the PW article, cause conflict on the talk page dealing with that article, and serve as an impediment to improving the discussion surrounding Protes
t Warrior.
Granted, those might all be construed as "personal attacks" under this policy, so I won't repeat them. However, I don't think they are inaccurate, especially if you check that user's history of "contributions."
I can understand how you feel, but as always, you have to remember that the legitimate editors must hold themselves to a higher standard than those who are here to compromise the integrity of the project. :) --Kuzaar-T-C-01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know.
It's just slightly annoying having to deal with the same disgruntled person, and the same baseless, churlish complaints, who follows you to multiple websites.
It's as if the Black Israelites, instead of confining their gibberish to a small quadrant of Times Square, decided to accost people as they moved around midtown Mahattan.
In any case, I understand what you're trying to accomplish, and appreciate the advice.
It's not my website, and-to the best of my knowledge-not a commercial site either.
The only reason I included a fan site is because it had more material about the subject-relatively speaking-than other sites I had come across in my admittedly brief Web search related to her career.
Hello. I have noticed that you have recently added a number of external links to the Azmi Bishara article that do not appear to have been written by or directly about the subject. Additionally, most of the articles appeared to be tendentious or polemic sources, and as such are not appropriate to link to externally. See WP:EL for external linking guidelines. I have reverted to an older version in the meantime and suggest that if you want any of these to be included, you screen for neutral point of view in the links and ensure that they conform to the EL guidelines above. --Kuzaar-T-C-18:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How is the International Committee For The Defense of Azmi Bishara not a tendentious/polemic source?
And if it is, why didn't you remove that link as well, or at least add one that criticized the people coming to his defense?
Bishara has been accused, credibly, of engaging in acts that constitute treason, has met with officials from countries that are in a state of war with Israel, and has defended the actions of organizations that murder innocent Israeli citizens, and attack members of the Israeli military.
There are even allegations that he is acting as an agent of foreign powers, e.g. his trips to Syria, where he has denounced the Jewish State, even though he serves as a member of the Knesset with political immunity for any seditious remarks.
Don't you think it's odd that there's almost no critical material about such a controversial figure included in that article?
I have no issue with critical material being added. My problem is with external links being added that are not up to guidelines. I'm certain you can find a newspaper with a website that has openly criticized him. Blogs have never been and will never be appropriate external links for public figures unless those figures are from the blog community. If there are allegations, as you said, that have come from a reliable source as described in WP:RS, then I can only encourage you to add them. However, I would like to remind you that it is never appropriate for Wikipedia to advocate one side or another in a debate, that its duty is to frame the debate as a whole, and finally that undue weight should not be given to a position held by a minority. All of these rules are outlined at Wikipedia's page on neutral point of view. You seem to have an interest in several politically controversial topics, so I would be encouraged if you went through them. --Kuzaar-T-C-14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by a "minority?"
Are you implying that a majority of the Knesset is in favor of obliterating the Jewish State?
Since most members are not Arabs, I don't see how you could make that assertion.
Or are you stating that a majority of Israeli Arabs are in favor of Israel's extermination?
I don't see why they are entitled to have their point of view represented, but the other three-quarters of the Israeli population is not.
I'd also like to know why you are requesting that I beg off politically controversial subjects, especially when there are so many others-of a distinctly different bent-who are not able to refrain from inserting their opinions into the body of articles.
I have no intention of doing so, although I'll respect your request not to post any links to blogs in the future.
I would encourage you to keep working the politically controversial subjects. You have a right to and honestly just because he encourages you not to does not mean anything. --Getaway01:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I say is irrelevant, and what you say is irrelevant. What matters is the NPOV guidelines, which are NOT optional and apply to all users. Editing articles in which you have a personal interest is discouraged by guidelines, according to community consensus, not just me. The fact that I encourage this user to take one particular action means less than the fact that consensus does the same. So no, while this user has a right to edit whatever, that does not mean that my opinion on the matter is any less valid than yours, Getaway. --Kuzaar-T-C-13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out on your talk page, you should reframe from discouraging new editors to stop that do not agree with you. NO WHERE do I encourage this new editor or any new editor to break the Wikipedia rules, but I DO encourage them to just keep on editing, despite your attempts to make them stop. Also, I never, ever stated that my opinion is worth more than yours. Where do you get that?? Please point that out to me. I would like to see it. Ruthful, keep on keeping on and don't let Kuzaar, the self-appointed czar of Wikipedia, discourage you from editing. --Getaway14:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per my response on the page, I am by no means telling Ruthful to stop editing. By the same logic as used on the guideline page, WP:BAI, I am saying that editing articles regarding political subjects in which you have a strong interest in makes it very easy to make edits which might be construed as POV or adding commentary. By saying "Disregard what Kuzaar says, it doesn't matter", you imply that the community consensus policies that I advocate are not applicable to the situation and can be disregarded. This is not correct- consensus is a vital cornerstone as to determining appropriate conduct in the Wikipedia project and should not be disregarded. --Kuzaar-T-C-14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, for all of this noise about "blogs" there were only a few links that I posted which would fall under that rubric.
I can't go back and check-since you deleted them-but I do remember at least two of them specifically, which were not weblogs.
One being a weekly column from Al-Ahram-the single largest English-language daily in Egypt-and the other from the Middle East Forum, one of the most respected monitors of Arabic media and political trends in the country.
That does not change the fact that all but one or two of the external links were inappropriate under the WP:EL guidelines in that they serve only to expound a specific point of view, contain unverified original research or opinion, and of course there's the prohibition of blogs, which made up no fewer than half of the links that you did add. Additionally, the reason I cautioned you against editing controversial articles is that first, it appears that you have a personal interest or opinion on the subject (which is similarly cautioned against in some of Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines), and second, that because of the first reason, it is very easy to slip into adding opinion and commentary to the article, which is a fairly serious risk. Because of your response and your insistence that it was appropriate to add those links to the article, I can only surmise that you are still not familiar with the external linking/NPOV guidelines. Becoming familiar with them will help you to make significant contributions to the project without requiring so much review. Thank you, and happy editing, --Kuzaar-T-C-15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've done some good editing, but you should be careful about saying things like "At least not by anyone with an ounce of credibility or intellectual honesty." That could be construed as incivil discourse, and may be a borderline personal attack. In general, I find it most productive in these heated debates to stick to the arguments, as the other party probably won't become more willing to compromise once they are referred to that way, even if you think that is an accurate description. At the end of the day, you just want to get your point across, no? If you have any questions about this or any other issue on Wikipedia, feel free to ask me. Happy editing, TewfikTalk03:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe User:NBGPWS's edits to be in violation of at least three policies in the last two days, namely, WP:AGF, WP:3RR, and WP:Civility. I am working very hard to treat him firmly but respectfully so as to communicate the seriousness with which his actions are viewed. I would like to ask you to do the same. Please do not respond to him with incivility or in any other way that violates policy. That way, if he continues it will be much easier to have him banned from editing that article. Thank you. Lawyer2b17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem doing that.
In fact, engaging him constructively seems to be a lost cause, so I'll just ignore the dispute for the time being.
A commendable attitude. I've made it my cause to see that policies are enforced to protect the neutrality of articles so I plan to either persuade him to stop or document his edits and bring them to an administrator's attention. It would be nice to be able to discuss things privately via email. On the left hand side of everyone's user page is a link to send an email through wikipedia but you have to configure it through your preferences. If you want to correspond via email send me one using that link on my userpage. By the way, your correct usage of the word "pore" in the talk page was most impressive. Lawyer2b21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a wise strategy for the time being.
I just enabled my e-mail, so you should be able to send me a message.
Just saw your plea over at Lawyer2b. I am in a fierce and heated debate with a conservative POV warrior who uses wikipolicy as a weapon right now. I have debated some of the fiercest POV warriors on wikipedia and reached a consensus. I would first suggest the mediation cabal. Not knowing your situation myself, I won't give you any advice beyond this. If you need any help, let me know. I often archive my comments, even a day after I recieve them, after responding to them (you have to respond to them, otherwise another user can file a grievance, see: Wikipedia:Talk_pages#Etiquette). You can't delete warning messages, but you can delete everything else (after you respond). I question whether this user's warning messages are official messages, to be on the safe side, I would archive them, and not delete them--out of sight out of mind right? See my box to see how I handle those who don't know wikipolicy on my talk page, and how I archive my messages. User talk:Travb
I've tried to refrain from responding to the instigation of NBG-having encountered him in other venues I've never found it to be a pleasant nor productive experience-but I suppose deleting those templates-even if I construed them to be vandalism-was the wrong approach.
I'll see what mediation is possible in this situation.
In the Israel-Lebanon conflict page we are having a vote on renaming the title from Israel-Lebanon conflict to Israel-Lebanon War. Hope you vote for Israel-Lebanon War :)
Well, it doesn't really matter-as far as I'm concerned-since there are much more egregious problems with the article in question.
That being said, I won't object to any name change.
Hello, I have recently listed the article Liberty Post for deletion. You can participate in the discussion here.
Thank you for notifying me that you have placed an afd tag on one of my articles, although I would have appreciated it if you had brought your objection to my attention on the talk page prior to making such a rash judgment.
I thought you might want to become familiar with the notability requirements of websites to be included in Wikipedia.
Criteria for web content
Web specific-content[1] is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:
The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
This criterion excludes:
Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.[2]
Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.[3]
The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.[4]
The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.[5]
The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will maybe be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Final Warning
WARNING: you are acting in an uncivil manner. Remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. I will be reporting your continuing insults and personal attacks. You have been admonished for your personal attacks by Wiki admins on mulitiple occasions. Expect another warning. Stop now.
Stop the harassing messages, stop fiddling with the Protest Warrior articles.
You've already attracted the unwelcome attention of several other editors here, so I suggest you stop making a nuisance of yourself, or leave Wikipedia altogether.
Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. -- ~PinkDeoxys~23:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The comments are not legitimate.
They were templates used by a recurring troll who has repeatedly vandalized the Protest Warrior talk page-and the article connected to it-and who has been using this website as a platform to launch his invective against an organization against which he bears some inexplicable grievance.
He has spammed those pages with irrelevant, tendentious links, and has viscerally attacked everyone trying to make a positive contribution to the Protest Warrior article.
If you search his history of "contributions" you'll realize that he does not have any valid complaints.
WARNING: you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remember to remain civil at all times, and don't resort to making personal attacks. Thanks for your cooperation.
WARNING: Please do not remove legitimate messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of legitimate communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. Thanks for your coooperation!
I have not engaged you in over a day, and do not plan on communicating with you in any way, shape, or form in the future. The next time you place anything on my talk page I will be referring your actions to administrative authorities.
I suggest that you cease and desist immediately. Ruthfulbarbarity11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I refer to your comments of 14 August. I will continue to note your incivil behavior whenever and wherever you attack me - on my page OR yours. :NBGPWS11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know unwarranted warning tags are in fact vandalism, if you really feel they are being posted as vandalism they report it as such. Or you can post it at the general admin alert board so you can better explain your position. --zero faults|sockpuppets|00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I have saved this dif since its a wonderful compliment and shows you realize how knowledgable of Wiki policy I am. I put a lot of work into learning the rules before I participate. --zero faults|sockpuppets|09:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I read all your userboxes (well, ok, not all of them) and checked out some of your contribs and you seem like a really good guy. I hope you don't mind if I borrow a few of those boxes. I'm definitely with you on the inclusion of "stance" userboxes. Too bad about your vandal/troll problem; hope you get that sorted out. It's important to remember: if you are being targeted, it probably means you are being effective. Best wishes, TheKaplan05:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't blame you.
I would imagine that plowing through 200+ userboxes would be a bit of a chore.
In any case, they're not my userboxes so much as userboxes that I transcribed from the standard gallery, or from other user pages.
I suppose I should have added the "userbox thief" template to the obscene number of boxes already in existence on that page.
Heh.
The exceptions are the federalist, anti-illegals and New York Blood Center boxes.
It's funny, because there is actually an organ donor template, but I haven't found a regular one for blood donors, which you would think would be more prevalent among Wikipedians. .
I note that you have begun to revise the KLF article. The first day's contribution is exactly the sort of thing I envisioned when I posted the NPOV notice. Well done so far and I hope that you can complete the task without interference from fanatic partisans ... on either side.
Partisans always want to push their agendas, forgetting that Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia, and not a recruiting hand-out. As I said, you are off to a good start with your revision. Good luck. B00P08:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.
I just had a look at the PKK (Kurdish Workers' Party) article, which also has a POV template attached to it.
I'm not sure, but I think the article related to the MEK (NCRI) is the same, with partisans from opposite sides trying to muddle what should be a clear, coherent, factual narrative about that group's history and turning the article into one prolonged, digressive edit war.
I'm trying to find more information about this specific Sikh organization, on Global Security, the CFR website, as well as some online resources from a Sikh perspective.
I thought you might be interested in this comment that I posted in response to yours:
As a follow-up the above comment. There are fifty city council members (aldermen) on the Chicago City Council and every single one of them have a Wikipedia article about them. Chicago is the third largest city and Houston is the fourth largest city. Also, there is no way all fifty of them should have their own Wikipedia article. Please read some them. For example, I'm sure this person is a good person, but what qualifies this Chicago alderman with a Wikipedia article, other than simply being on the Chicago City Council? See John Pope (alderman). Based upon this article, I respectfully disagree that simply being on a city council gets you in Wikipedia. Sekula-Gibbs would be the first Houston city council member with her own Wikipedia article and there are a couple of others who probably should be covered also, but ALL of the Chicago aldermen?? I don't think so.--Getaway19:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point.
I didn't know that about the entries on Chicago aldermen.
It does seem odd that all of them would have an individual article devoted to them, rather than having them merged into one or several larger articles.
The issue I raised earlier in the afd discussion about the NYC Council-which has several prominent members, including former officeholders, who have no article devoted to them-is also worth noting.
My general opinion is that there are a lot of individuals who have Wikipedia articles that shouldn't, and some who quite clearly deserve Wikipedia articles-such as the city councilman/state senator I alluded to-but who don't yet have them.
Personally, I think some editors are much too hasty in recommending deletion for articles that exhibit prima facie cases for inclusion, e.g. the Sekula-Gibbs article.
A random Google search would have demonstrated to the person recommending deletion-on the basis of notability-that Sekula-Gibbs is in fact a moderately notable figure, at the very least.
I think this problem is compounded somewhat by people who either delete out of process, or because they are not as familiar with the subject matter as some other Wikipedia users might be.
For example, someone who follows domestic political developments would most likely be very familiar with a figure like Gibbs-at least within the past few months-whereas someone who is unfamiliar with congressional politics would have no idea who she is, and therefore recommend the deletion of her article based upon his or her own unfamiliarity with the figure in question.
RB, please explain these edits on the Protest Warrior entry, and why you, unlike others, feel you do not need to inform others of WHY you are making wholesale changes to the article, and using what justifications of WP. The edit summary box is there for a REASON. I am looking into the ramifications of your refusal to use it.
(cur) (last) 23:14, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) (→Motivation)(NO SUMMARY)
(cur) (last) 23:12, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) (→Methodology)(NO SUMMARY)
(cur) (last) 23:10, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) m (→Website)(NO SUMMARY)
(cur) (last) 23:08, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) m (→Past operations)(NO SUMMARY)
"Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).[1]
One of them was putting a verification tag on an unsourced, unverified assertion, i.e. most Protest Warriors disbelieve in the idea of global warming, while the other was removing a statement that was also unverified, re: the assertion that Protest Warriors impersonate participants in gay pride parades in order to discredit them.
The others were minor edits, i.e. grammar, syntax, spelling, etc., IIRC.
I'm pretty sure I declared that they were minor edits before I made them.
Ruthfulbarbarity, what would you think about filing a Request for Comment about NBGPWS's behavior? Given that he's now reverting typo corrections because the summary wasn't used, I think he's out of control and has gone too far. --Neverborn04:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree.
It would seem appropriate-in light of his recent behavior-for someone who is an administrator to refer his actions to the proper entities here.
I don't know whether it's a case for arbcom or not, but his behavior has become intolerable.
He has been warned by over half a dozen editors-including several administrators-been flagged for possibly having a sock puppet account, and blocked for violating the 3RR.
Yet he still persists in trolling.
I'll see what I can do, although actually sorting his violations chronologically seems like something that other editors might be better suited for.
Lawyer2b did a pretty good job of that in the cabal NeoCons initiated, for some inexplicable reason.
This is a request for immediate help from Kmaguir1. If you have time, I'd like you to examine the Bell Hooks article and talk page. It's a scholarly article about a controversial writer, someone who drew the ire of a conservative commentator. They wanted me to go get the quote from her book, and I did that. But now, they're arguing it's not notable. As a follower of Wikipedia, you will know that of all the meaningless academic trivia included on her page, that what they wanted to exclude was really ridiculous: that she says as an opening to her book, Killing Rage, "I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder". This may in itself be notable, but David Horowitz wrote about it in 100 Dangerous Professors, and it was written about on front page mag, and all the citations are given on the page. I would appreciate your help--I'm contending with some very difficult Marxists who are attached to her work, and think that they're defending the liberal cause, but really, they're just keeping out material that is very easily notable.-Kmaguir108:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. In the interest of disclosure, I'd like to inform you of a conduct RfC on Kmaguir1. It's here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. If you have time and are so inclined, feel free to provide comments there. Meanwhile, if you go to the bell hooks page, please do join in the discussion. If you read the Talk page and look at my and others' edit histories, you'll see that the picture is not quite as Kmaguir1 paints it. (I have no idea who the Marxists are he's referring to, and I've also edited his text for improvement, and left it in the article, vs. what he's saying here.)
I made a few minor, technical revisions to the section entitled "Cultural Conservative Criticism," and added a link to a critical piece authored by Jamie Glazov.
Other than that, I don't plan on contributing much to the debate over that particular article-although I would suggest that the contention that the only people who view her academic work as racist or controversial are "cultural conservatives" is misleading, to say the least-or adding/subtracting from its overall content.
It does have an adulatory-almost hagiographic-tone that I haven't seen since the Che Guevara article, and even that particular Wiki was more thoroughly balanced, IMO.
Hi. I've noticed that you indent your paragraphs just right on talk pages, but don't do the same with your signature. This can make it a little difficult to follow the thread of conversation at times, so would you mind indenting them to the same level as the paragraphs above? Thank you :) —Xyrael / 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is an official WP warning template ((notyours))
You were wrong....
I noticed that you edited someone else's comment at [[at [[{{{1}}}]]]] for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks,
Thanks for creating the Richard Brookhiser page. I don't know if you have any interest in whether or not the Category:American conservatives page continues to exist, but it's currently under threat of being eliminated. I think it's something useful for anyone who wants to learn more about conservatism. Anyway, whatever your opinion, if you have one I hope you'll go to that category page and follow the link to vote on whether or not to delete it. Again, thanks for the Brookhiser page.Noroton22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, the journalist you wrote up at Michael Signorile already has an article at Michelangelo Signorile, and he's never, ever referred to as simply "Michael". Your article's been redirected to the existing one; feel free to expand that one if necessary rather than writing an alternate one at a name he doesn't use. Bearcat04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the information. Although I would add that others have referred to him by that shorthand, although it appears that you are correct, in the sense that he has never used that diminutive in the byline for any publications he has written for, and doesn't refer to himself in that manner.
Ruthfulbarbarity20:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you edit/create articles on NY Assembly members (and maybe other policticans). Can I recommend that you add a few more categories. These seem like a good start, (obviously changing the names and the birth year.)
[[Category:New York politicians|Englebright, Steven]]
[[Category:Members of the New York Assembly|Englebright, Steven]]
[[Category:1946 births|Englebright, Steven]]
It's actually quite possible, seeing as how my paternal ancestors came from somewhere in Ireland, although most of them probably spoke the Irish variety.
In fact, I still have distant relatives-supposedly-that live somewhere in rural Ireland, and the odd cousin or two who learned how to speak it for purely aesthetic purposes.
Still, I think I'll refrain from the gratuitous userboxen additions for the time being.
I actually agree that Stephenson attained minor notability in his life-time.
I realize that Wikipedia doesn't accept exclusively Web-based notability claims in a lot of instances, which I happen to disagree with in many circumstances.
Hi, just wanted to know if you could offer an opinion on a request for deletion on an article that you looked at once before. I think it's a historically significant interview, because it's one of the few (if only) examples where Clinton has gone on record about his administration's performance on al Queda...
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. BenBurch16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't a personal attack.
It was a generic-rather restrained, considering your previous behavior-observation, which most people would probably agree with.
Don't attempt to utilize my user page in order to post frivolous or unmerited warnings.
That's a violation of Wikipedia guidelines and could get you in hot water if you're not careful.
You have the same rights, and commensurate responsibilities, as any other Wikipedia editor.
No more, no less, and you are expected to abide by the same rules and regulations.
He's being monitored so let's not antagonize him any. If he keeps up with his hate speech, I will extend his block to indefinite.--MONGO05:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough.
It's just frustrating that so much time is consumed monitoring the behavior of one user who seems to delight in serving as a nuisance to other members of the Wikipedia community.
OK, let's keep this off N's page. Here's a rundown of your edits on N's talk page. I emphasize "on" because you have repeatedly been asked to stay "off" it.
Here is N asking you not to post on his page, because you have been harassing and baiting him.[2]
Here is you baiting him (last line, in response to comment having nothing to do with him) [3]
Here is you baiting him, with irony style points [4]
Here is me asking you not to bait him after the above baiting [12]
Here is you saying, on that page, you were merely "correct misconceptions"[13]
Here is me pointing you to the diff showing only baiting[14]
Here is you posting there yet again in defiance of MONGO's request,[15] this time simply repeating again that you were "correcting misconceptions" which you plainly were not. [16]
You are doing every bit as much as N, if not more, to keep this thing going. Post there one more time, and I'll be posting you on ANI. Capiche? Derex20:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I have no interest in engaging the aforementioned individual-either here or on any other forum-I'm merely raising the question of why he can "ban" other editors from replying to him on his user page.
It's possible that this is Wikipedia policy, but I don't see it being raised in response to other repeatedly blocked, problem users.
It's not policy. It's courtesy. Going out of your way to provoke someone, and that is what you were doing, is not helpful. It does enter actionable territory when an admin has expressly asked you not to do so. I do appreciate your good faith in backing off though. Derex23:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.
I'll try to respect that courtesy.
If it hadn't been for unrelated edit wars and afd discussions involving that user I probably wouldn't have even bothered responding to him again. Ruthfulbarbarity23:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lets just stay off his page for now...please. No good can come from direct dialogue on each others pages..keep discussions in article space for the time being. Thanks.--MONGO03:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to let you know that I have modified the language you deemed to be "loaded"; hopefully acceptably, while maintaing the basic truth re the jury attendance at the party in question.
Having looked over your user boxes re your ethnic/geographical background, I hope you are being fully impartial in the matter. Btw, you have two somewhat contradictory userboxes (Roman Catholic, lapsed Catholic), which I recommed be considered for updating.
I don't mind including details about that post-acquittal gathering-if it actually took place and you can come up with the relevant citations and sources to prove it-but I'd prefer to keep the subjective and speculative assertions, i.e. he was acquitted for Reason X, to a minimum. Ruthfulbarbarity04:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please refer to me by my handle FAAFA. People unfamiliar with my 'history' or my previous FULL user name could think that "Neocons" indicates an endorsement of Neoconservatism - which couldn't be further from the truth. Thanks for your cooperation. Sorry Freepers want to delete 'your' article. Another politically motivated AfD, IMHO. (salutation redacted)- F.A.A.F.A.23:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since you broached the subject, please stop referring to me as CP. I don't know where you are getting the P from. My handle is one word, and if one WERE to try to shorten it to two letters, it would be CS. But I know it's just your little private way of insulting me without outright insulting me, so please stop it. And don't expect everyone to instantly warm up to your ham-handed attempts at cordiality. I dropped my guard for you, and gave you a chance, which worked out ok for about two days. Then you apparently perceived it as a sign of weakness on my part, and you fucked me. Don't ever mistake my willingness to compromise and be cordial as a sign of weakness. I'm here for the long haul, and I have the memory of an elephant. - Crockspot17:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stop spamming my user page with your customary nonsense.
Look what happens when I try to be cordial. Some people! Start referring to me by my correct username as of NOW - F.A.A.F.A.20:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 06:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
FAAFA has asked he not be called a neocon...so I guess I have fulfilled my admin requirement for the day...Happy Thanksgiving--MONGO04:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
NAAFA has told me that while he stopped referring to you and others by some slangy username, you and others have continued to do so...this must stop. If this continues then I recommend all parties take the case from the NAAFA Rfc and shoot it over to arbcom for final resolution...there everyone can post their evidence and let the arbitrators find some sort of resolution. I have been looking over the comments on the NAAFA Rfc and there seems to be no compromise there between all parties involved...so if everyone can't work together, then arbitration is in order.--MONGO21:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, that's not a descriptive term on my part.
His original name on Wikipedia was NBGPWS, i.e. "NeoconsBeGoneProtestWarriorSux."
"Neocons" is the shorthand that he replied to on other sites, before he was summarily banned from them.
But if he wants to be described by his current online pseudonym-I still don't quite understand why he felt the need to create an alternative user name, but I suppose that's beside the point-then I won't object to doing so. Ruthfulbarbarity23:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ruthful, I thought you might be interested to learn that in retaliation for my stated interest in enforcing WP:NPOV#Undue Weight, and thereby preventing the article about Free Republic from being the hit piece they obviously wanted, F.A.A.F.A. and the Wiki member he supports, defends and serves in all matters Wiki, BenBurch, have started a sockpuppet investigation against me. It's been going on for seven days now. No request for a CheckUser yet; this accusation is being used solely for the purpose of interrogating me. -- BryanFromPalatine04:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support to Keep Jeremy Hammond and for your edits. I think the article is looking much better. I think I need to take back saying "hackers and parody protesters might be difficult." Edivorce19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know you added a citation for him being a convert to Christianity from Islam, but can you find a source that he ever was muslim?--Sefringle18:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that he necessarily was a Muslim.
If he was, then I don't think it was of the NOI variety, although I could be mistaken.
Hi! I want to thank you for adding the article for the History News Network. I am wondering how to categorize the site and am unsure if it is considered a think tank.
By the way, I would also like to thank you for your political stances. My family still grieves over the 1979 Iranian Revolution and strongly supports democracy in Iran so that we can resume our contacts with relatives and visit without the fear of a death warrant. I also support the peaceful reunification of Cyprus, since the Republic of Cyprus is pluralist, bilingual, and provides a freer society for citizens than the North which has been exclusive. It is for similar reasons that I support India's right to Kashmir and Israel's retention of Jerusalem. Please let me know about the above. --Shamir121:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Howie Hawkins, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. GreenJoe01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been invited to join WikiProject U2, a WikiProject dedicated to improving the U2-related articles on Wikipedia. You recieved this invitation due to your interest in U2 and/or your many edits to U2 articles. If you would like to join, please visit the project page, and add your name to the list of project members.
Hello. Would you be interested in being part of the Bad Religion WikiProject? If the answer is yes, then click here. I'm also looking for other Wikipedians who are Bad Religion fans (or fans of punk rock) who could join as well. Alex21:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to get Randall Flagg's article to either GA or FA status. I've put a lot of effort in the article in the last couple of weeks, expanding and reworking various sections along with adding sources and external information such as quotes and analysis. I put it up for peer review at Wikipedia:Peer review/Randall Flagg. Any suggestions you have would be welcome.--CyberGhostface18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
Just out of curiosity do you think the Bills will ever go to the Superbowl and if so when(in your opinion)? Also, in the Buffalo vs. Giants Superbowl game do you think the Bills should have won? I do. Send a message on my talk page when you get this.The K.O. King (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for answering my question. I just have one more (for now) who do you think is the team of the 90's Buffalo or The Cowboys? Remember, even though the Cowboys won 2 Super Bowls Buffalo usually beat them during regular. Talk to you later. The K.O. King (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).
Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Richard Brodsky, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Richard Brodsky is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Richard Brodsky, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come! You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WHATWikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and
StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.
WINNINGS?
Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!
WHEN
The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.
WHO
All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!
REGISTER
The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.
WHERE
Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:
Greetings Dark Tower WikiProject member, I would like to invite you to palaver about a possible expansion of the Dark Tower Project to include all Stephen King related items. I feel that the large amount of projects related to the author warrants his own Project—but as this one already exists—hesitate to begin a new one. Please feel free to leave comments of any kind and be assured that The Dark Tower will be held in the highest regard within the new King Project. Long days and pleasant nights. Blackngold2902:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, remember me? I just wanted to say Buffalo is doing GREAT!!! I also want your opinion on something...If Treant Edwards wasn't injured in the Cardinals game do you think they would be 5-0? I blame J.P. Losman. Please answer as soon as possible. Buffalo Rules!
The K.O. King (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.
The Bills are now 6-5. How much of a chance do they have to make to the playoffs? And one last question (for now) what do you think of the new QB Trent Edwards? The K.O. King (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can request a mentor to help explain all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you. Here is a list acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
You can vote to merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.
There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.
Another 7-9 season for the Bills. And now they have T.O. Now, don't get me wrong he's a great wide reciever but his attitude is bad and he brings down the team's morale. How do you think they will do this coming up season? Reply when you have time. The K.O. King (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to ask a few (unimportant) questions. Who are your top 5 favortite Buffalo Bills players of all time? Mine are...
1. Andre Reed
2. Jim Kelly
3. Thurman Thomas
4. Marshawn Lynch
5. Trent Edwards
And what do you think of Trent Edwards? And by the way, who were you rooting for in the latest Super Bowl? I was rooting for the Cardinals because they had my favorite quaterback of all time Kurt Warner. Personally I think the Steeleser cheated (everytime Warner threw for a first down there was an imidiate penality flag on the Cardinals). Anyway, please reply when you get the time. The K.O. King (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Trent Edwards and T.O. make a pretty good team looking at Buffalo's schedule I believe they can go at least 10-6 if they play at their fullest potential. They were able to outplay the New England Patriots. How well do you think the Bills will do this year? The K.O. King (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WHATWikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and
StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City.
WINNINGS?
The first prize winning team members will get Eye-Fi Share cards, which automatically upload photos from your camera to your computer and to sites like Flickr. And there will also be cool prizes for other top scorers.
WHEN
The hunt will take place Saturday, October 10th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.
WHO
All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!
REGISTER
The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.
WHERE
Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's fantastic new event space nestled between Chinatown and SoHo. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:
I have noticed that the Buffalo Bills have not been using T.O. in the way that they should. He is a deep TD threat and they havn't taken advantage of that. If the Bills start using him he won't be back next year (and he is Buffalo's greatest weapon). Who do you think would be a better starter Ryan Fitzpatrick or Trent Edwards? Write me back. The K.O. King (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ruthfulbarbarity! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 311 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:
In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!
A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.
This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!
Thanks for uploading File:American rattlesnake.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
Thanks for uploading File:American rattlesnake.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use rationale for File:American rattlesnake.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:American rattlesnake.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —GFOLEYFOUR— 16:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:American rattlesnake.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.
If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You could be having this much fun! Seriously, consider coming.
This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape (directions) in Manhattan's Central Park.
Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.
If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.
You are invited to the National Archives ExtravaSCANza, taking place every day next week from January 4–7, Wednesday to Saturday, in College Park, Maryland (Washington, DC metro area). Come help me cap off my stint as Wikipedian in Residence at the National Archives with one last success!
This will be a casual working event in which Wikipedians are getting together to scan interesting documents at the National Archives related to a different theme each day—currently: spaceflight, women's suffrage, Chile, and battleships—for use on Wikipedia/Wikimedia Commons. The event is being held on multiple days, and in the evenings and weekend, so that as many locals and out-of-towners from nearby regions1 as possible can come. Please join us! Dominic·t01:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
1 Wikipedians from DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York City, and Pittsburgh have been invited.
We are a growing community of editors dedicated to identifying, categorizing, and improving articles related to conservatism. Here's how you can get involved:
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.
Time: 11 a.m. - 5 p.m. (drop-ins welcome at any time)
The event's goal will be to improve Wikipedia articles and content related to the neighborhoods and history of New York City - No special wiki knowledge is required!
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish World Review 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. Herp Derp (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Doing the "Open Space" thing at one of our earlier NYC Wiki-Conferences.
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!
Hi Ruthfulbarbarity! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.
Please join Wikipedia Takes Brooklyn scavenger hunt on September 7, 2013! Everyone gather at the Brooklyn Public Library to further Wikipedia's coverage of— photos and articles related to Brooklyn, its neighborhoods and the local landmarks. --EdwardsBot (talk)
Please join the Wikimedia NYC Meetup on October 5, 2013! Everyone gather at Jefferson Market Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for education, museums, libraries and planning WikiConference USA. --Pharos (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia NYC Meetup- "Greenwich Village In The 60s" Editathon! Saturday November 2
Please join Queens Open History Edit-a-Thon on December 6, 2013! Everyone gather at Queens Library to further Wikipedia's local outreach for borough articles on the history and the communities. Drop-ins welcome 10am-7pm!--Pharos (talk) ~~~~~
Saturday: NYC Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon
Please join Wikipedia "Art and Feminism Editathon" @ Eyebeam on Saturday February 1, 2014, an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists!
You are invited to join upcoming Wikipedia "Editathons", where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on a selected theme, on the following two Saturdays in March:
You are invited to join us at Jefferson Market Library for "Wiki Loves Pride", hosted by New York Public Library, Metropolitan New York Library Council, Wikimedia LGBT and Wikimedia New York City, where both experienced and new Wikipedia editors will collaboratively improve articles on this theme:
Hello, Ruthfulbarbarity. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John J. Miller (journalist) 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 notice from the top of the article. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Cotts 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 notice from the top of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ruthfulbarbarity. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.
After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin Andrevan was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including Winkelvi and the notorious MONGO.
Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story)
WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.
At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."
Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion.
Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.
Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:
53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
"Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
"Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."
In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here.
Hello, Ruthfulbarbarity. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, Ruthfulbarbarity. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Shane Paul O'Doherty, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 17:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Jipping until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article. Snowycats (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you add references to this article? 'External links' just means suggestions for further reading, so this article is in danger of being deleted as an unreferenced biography of a living person. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can delete it if you like. He's a 3 decade-long member of the NYS Assembly, but if you think he's non-notable, feel free to delete it. I'm not really an active Wikipedian any longer, so I don't have a great emotional investment in retaining the articles I've created.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
An article you recently created, Henry F. Gerecke, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Eumat114 were:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of people). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Henry F. Gerecke and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Henry F. Gerecke, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
Hello, Ruthfulbarbarity!
Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 03:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
^Discussions of websites should be incorporated (with a redirect if necessary) into an article about the parent organization, unless the domain-name of the website is the most common way of referring to the organization. For example, yahoo.com is a redirect to Yahoo!. On the other hand Drugstore.com is a standalone page.
^Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.
^Content that is distributed by independent online sites will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such content will be complete regardless. For example, Ricky Gervais has a podcast distributed by The Guardian. Such distributions should be nontrivial. Although GeoCities and Newgrounds are exceedingly well known, hosting content on them is trivial.
