User talk:Rick Norwood

Welcome!

Hello, Rick Norwood, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being 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:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  -- Longhair | Talk 15:50, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

User talk:Rick Norwood/Archive 1

Conservative Media Bias in the United States

Sir if you are going to revert my removal, then I might suggest that, if you truly believe this ought to be in the article, mayhaps you can place this material in its own section. My reason for the removal of that information from the Conservative bias section is that corporate bias is not exclusive to conservative media outlets. --Krakaet (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Liberal bias

your deletion will be undone. Support has been found that there is too much liberal bias in the media. leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.225.84.198 (talk) 15:04, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Nationalism

Just wondering why you restored that "collectivist" paragraph. It is true of some aspects of nationalism but again its not a universal. Otherwise nice to see the article getting sorted and hopefully there will not be the sort of problems that were present on the LIberalism article recently. --Snowded ^TALK 21:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Many forms of nationalism, especially German nationalism under Hitler and Italian nationalism under Mussolini, stress that the state is everything, the individual nothing. The paragraph mentions that some forms of nationalism favor individualism. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

That's true, but it doesn't make a connection between nationalism and collectivism. --Dekker451 (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Social liberalism

I do not think that your edit to the lede correctly reflects the source. While the wording may have sounded like libertarian jargon, it used the terminology that the new liberal writers had used. If you can find a better source than Richardson, then perhaps it could be used instead. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The lede could be re-written without the terms positive and negative with the terms explained later in the article. Social liberalisn does not seem to have a specific definition but is used to refer to liberal ideas developed in the late 19th century, Liberal Party policy implimented in the early 20th century and later writers and political groups influenced by them. In its original form, it did not include prevention of discrimination, protection the consumer, or prevention of pollution of the environment. The farther you get from the origins the wider and less clear the definition becomes. The people who implimented the welfare state did not necessarily believe in social liberal philosophy. In fact the policies had been implimented earlier in Germany as State Socialism.

I think it is important to state that social liberalism developed from 19th century (classical) liberalism, which had intended to bring about greater political and economic equality. Their advocacy of free education can be seen as a precursor to the welfare state. The new liberals had been classical liberals, and JS Mill can be seen as a link between classical and social liberalism. However free markets had created a new middle class that opposed any further extention of equality or government intervention.

If you do not like Richardson as a source you could look for others. Here is how Guido De Ruggiero described it:

The best formulation of the new English Liberalism of the twentieth century is in our opinion that of Hobhouse. Here we find the teaching of Mill and Green in a modernized form.

Freedom is based upon the idea of growth and development. The individual is what he makes himself; he makes himself by assimilating his environment, and assimilates in proportion as he affirms himself by reacting to it. Liberalism is the belief that Society can be constructed upon this self-directive power of personality; and that in virtue of this power there are no limits to the extension of this construction. Liberty thus becomes not so much an individual right as a social necessity. It rests not upon A's right to be left alone by B, but on B's duty to treat A as a rational being. It is not the right of crime and error to go unmolested; it is the duty of treating the criminal and the erring or ignorant man as beings capable of justice and truth, and raising them up instead of letting them lie. Based upon personality, it demands free scope for the personal development of every member of the community. It is not enough to proclaim in its name equal rights in the eyes of the law; it demands also equality of opportunity, the égalité de chance of the French democrats.

Coercion is the destruction of a growing personality; for personality is shaped not from without but from within, and the function of the external order is not to create it but to provide the best conditions for its development. Progress is not a mechanical process but the liberation of living spiritual energy.

This implies that the function of the Liberal State is not to oppose the freedom of personality, but to realize it in practice. The State does not supply its members with food or other material commodities; it supplies the normal man, healthy in mind and in body, with the opportunity to provide for himself by useful work. The right to work and the right to a living wage are as real as the right to person and property. The labouring man who is unemployed or underpaid owing to bad economic organization is a reproach not to the charity but to the justice of Society.

This, it may be said, is not Liberalism but Socialism. But Socialism is a word with many meanings; and there may be a liberal Socialism, as there certainly is an illiberal.

There is a mechanical form of Socialism, with which Liberalism can have nothing to do. It attributes the phenomena of social life to the sole operation of economic factors, and in politics declares a class warfare based upon a rigid distinction between classes which is wholly non-existent. Modern Society, far from emphasizing and simplifying distinctions, is bringing about an increasingly complex interaction of class interests; a modern revolutionary cannot attack property in the interest of labour without finding that labour has an interest, direct or indirect, in property.

Against any authoritarian tendency in Socialism, against any scheme of life imposed from without, the liberal mind rises in revolt in the interest at once of the individual and of Society. It is determined to do justice to the individual and social factors in production, against the abstract individualism and the abstract Socialism which accentuate this or that element to the exclusion of the other. It conceives the rights of the individual as harmonious with those of the community, and defines the former in terms of a common good and the latter in terms of the well-being of individuals. Thus the growing co-operation between Liberalism and Labour, which has lately replaced the antagonism of the nineties, is not an accident or an expression of political opportunism, but is deeply rooted in the necessities of the new democracy.

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I will try to develop a new lead using this source. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I have prepared a re-write of the lede. One of the advantages of using De Ruggiero is that his book was published in 1925, so is very close to social liberalism as it was first stated. It think it is important to restrict the description to the theory as it was then conceived. Regulation for example pre-dates social liberalism, while anti-pollution laws were developed long after. It is important that the new liberals justified their policies in terms of freedom rather than charity or equality, which were respectively conservative and socialist justifications for adopting these policies. And social liberals supported imperialism and were accepting of the "social conservatism" (for want of a better term) of their times.

Social liberalism is a school of thought that considers the right to work and the right to a living wage are as real as the right to person and property and considers unemployment and low wages as a reproach to the justice of society. It holds that the function of the liberal state is to supply individuals with the opportunity to provide for themselves by useful work. It conceives the rights of the individual as harmonious with those of the community, and defines the first in terms of a common good and the second in terms of the well-being of individuals. (De Ruggiero) Social liberal policies include government intervention in the economy to provide full employment, provision of social welfare and protection of human rights. These policies were widely adopted and implemented in much of the capitalist world, particularly following the Second World War. Social liberal ideas and parties tend to be considered centrist or centre-left.

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I tried another re-arrangement of the description from De Ruggiero:

Social liberalism holds that the function of the liberal state is to supply individuals with the opportunity to provide for themselves by useful work. The right to work and the right to a living wage are considered as real as the right to person and property, while unemployment and low wages are considered to be a reproach to the justice of society. It conceives the rights of the individual as harmonious with those of the community, and defines the first in terms of a common good and the second in terms of the well-being of individuals.

The Four Deuces (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

polynomial

There is now a section in the talk page of polynomial. Actually there is no rule preventing people to do edits without discussion in the talk page. But is you want to participate, there you have the discussion.  franklin  13:53, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Also, probably without noticing, you reverted some changes correcting multiple uses of weasel words.  franklin  13:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• I think the best is if you revert your edit, and then change only those specific parts that you don't like.  franklin  14:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Rick Norwood! 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 27 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

1. Philip Balsam - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
2. Jon Michael Smith - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
3. Romano Felmang - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
4. Bill Benulis - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 22:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Runawy Feedback

Hi - I was intrigued by your assertion that global warming could become runaway because of positive feedback, and that Stefan-Boltzmann does not help us. I looked at this paper [1] which says "Physically, the Stefan-Boltzmann feedback becomes more negative and the water vapor feedback becomes less positive as the temperature increases. Both effects drive the system towards greater stability." Who is correct? HistorianofScience (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi - thanks for the message. I have just modelled the whole thing on a spreadsheet and got it to match IPCC figures. First point to note is that estimates for forcing are just that - estimates. One paper estimates 2 W/m^2 per K positive feedback for water vapour. That approximately doubles the effect of CO2. The 'negative feedback' of the fourth power in the Stefan Bolzmann quickly kicks in. If however you assume 10 W/m^2 per K, then the positive feedback is enormous. However I am not sure I have modelled this correctly because I think the forcing itself changes with temperature (I have asked Connolley). But it's kind of intuitive anyway. Positive feedback is like balancing on a tightrope, one slip and you are off. The fact that the climate is remarkably stable within the 'noise' suggests there is no strong positive feedback. Best HistorianofScience (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Venus is an interesting one. Surface temperature is about 460 C, but solar irradiance 2,600 as compared to Earth's 1,380. This would cause the surface temperature to be only 35C higher than Earth. However Venus' atmosphere is almost all CO2, unlike Earth's. Although even that concentration does not explain the high temperature of Venus. HistorianofScience (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Your comment here

From WP:NPA "comment on content, not on the contributor". Linking editors to what the Sunday Times said yesterday was a service aimed at rapid update of articles and resolution of editing issues. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Modern liberalism in the United States

Hello, I've clarified some of the problems with this article on the talk page as you requested. However, I've also reverted your last edit under my radical Wikipedia philosophy that one should not delay in doing the right thing. That section is absolutely pathetic, and that's if I was complementing it.UberCryxic (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

so we don't have an edit war

I removed this from the lede:

The Right is hostile in varying degrees to the left-wing goal of egalitarianism, seeing the imposition of social equality in all, or in certain parts of society, as artificially leveling down normal levels of social stratification in society.

The section on Social stratification and social order basically says the same thing in the first sentence with the same source. I don't think we need it in the lede. Bobisbob2 (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Suspected sockpuppetry

I have filed a request for an investigation of "Can I touch it?" which I believe may be a sockpuppet account based on similar editing styles at Classical liberalism. Since you are familiar with the editing styles of the accounts named in the investigation, your comments there would be appreciated.[2] The Four Deuces (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know about Bobisbob2, but his first edits show that he was not a new editor.[3] He could be User:Bobisbob, but that account was never blocked and has not been used since Bobisbob2 began editing. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism

You misunderstood my edit. I said that he commended (as in, praised) the idea of freedom, not commented. I was looking for a shorter word/term that would get the same point across.UberCryxic (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha no problem.UberCryxic (talk) 16:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I also wanted to mention something else. You probably should be careful in saying something like "Marcus Aurelius was praising liberalism." Liberalism as a concrete ideology is an invention of the last few centuries, as are all other ideologies. One of the defining features of the modern world, in fact, is its ideological nature. Yes, there were many scholars and philosophers that praised liberty here and there, but none of them really believed in it like people do now (ie. ideologically). You can easily determine the veracity of that claim by analyzing the kind of world these people lived in: a world where slavery was viewed as a normal part of human life, a world where women were largely shunned from public and political participation, a world that forced the likes of Socrates to drink hemlock for denying the existence of state deities, and a world where the very same high-minded philosophers that praised liberty called non-Greeks contemptible barbarians -- relegating them to the kind of sub-human status associated with fascism! That's why I've always been skeptical about that second sentence of the article. It wasn't until modern times, really, that people actually incorporated the principle of liberty into the fabric of society. We make that clear by saying liberalism first became powerful in the Age of Enlightenment, but that implies that liberalism existed before that time, which definitely isn't true!UberCryxic (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Marcus Aurelius praised liberty.

I don't agree that the ancient world lacked idiologies: consider epicurianism, cynicism, and stoicism, to mention just three. But that's beside the point, of course. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Any and all traditions of the old world (pre-French Revolution) could be classified as archaic and conservative. In other words, none really pushed for a fundamental transformation of society. In fact, they often did just the opposite. All were more or less concerned with garbage like virtue or honor, principles that are laughable to modern ideologies (especially to liberalism, where liberty is essentially the only thing that matters). What you've proposed are better classified as a sensibility or a mentality, not an ideology, which is a coherent set of principles that says "the world should look like this, and hell needs to be raised until it does." This last mentality is a product of modernity, hence we call it an ideology, and finds no home in ancient times.UberCryxic (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Assumptions are important in this debate, I suppose, and I'm working under the assumption of historian H. Stuart Hughes: "conservatism is the negation of ideology." So any conservative mentality or sensibility -- cynicism, stoicism, etc -- is inherently anti-ideological in the sense it believes society needs no major or radical repairs. Everything is fine and dandy to the mentality of the old world.UberCryxic (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

But the definition you gave (preference for the status quo) is effectively the same thing as negating ideology, since only with ideology can you change the status quo for reasons other than circumstance. Not only are they the same thing, but the negation of ideology has been the dominant interpretation of conservatism among many famous conservative scholars themselves, especially Chateaubriand (who coined the term 'conservative' and defined it as the opposition to ideological change, like liberalism) and Kirk.UberCryxic (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh I'm with you on the part about the sources. But what greater sources can there be for conservative thought than Chateaubriand (coined the word and the modern idea) and Kirk? Burke is the only other comparable intellectual giant that comes to mind.UberCryxic (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! Kirk actually borrowed the terminology from Hughes, and that's how that phrase became popularized (in fact, Kirk succeeded in making it popular enough that people wrongly attribute the statement to him and not to Hughes, who was actually somewhat of a liberal). And the idea of conservatism as existing in opposition to ideological change came, of course, from Chateaubriand, who essentially codified and formalized the lingering mentality of a world that preceded the French Revolution.UberCryxic (talk) 22:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Hey Rick, I have an offer that you better not refuse! I want to make the article on liberalism a featured article and eventually place it on the Main Page. Liberalism is the major philosophy of modern times, and this article in particular receives a lot of popular attention given the fact that lots of links point to it (typing 'liberal' or 'liberalism' in Google will bring up this article first). The article more than deserves the honor of being featured. Having written and successfully promoted five already, I have an extensive history with featured articles. This time would be the first, however, that I would be working with someone else. I'm here on your talk page requesting that we form a collaboration, or an alliance, if you will, to improve this article and make it featured! The reason why I want to work with you is because you've been intimately involved with this article over a long period of time. Getting Liberalism to FA status will require major revisions and overhauls, and I don't want to undertake such a massive effort on my own if you're not on board (otherwise we'd have edit conflicts galore). Solo FA efforts usually work only on articles that don't have the same regular editors.

Before you agree to do this, I need to know a few things. This collaboration will be an absolute disaster if we can't trust one another. The last thing we need is perceptions of mutual suspicion or ulterior motives. To that end, I will tell you my philosophical background as it relates to this article. Once you know my biases, you'll be able to parry them better when we start editing. Once I know yours, I'll be able to do the same. I'm a social liberal in the tradition of Green, Keynes, Beveridge, FDR, etc. I'm also a radical feminist (although I'm male). I also think the article should do a better job of presenting a global perspective on liberalism (although it does a good job with that already). Hopefully you're not too far from that. If you're a conservative, let's say, then this collaboration won't work because we'll be endlessly fighting over what content to include and what to omit. But anyway, I need to know where your heart and your ideological orientation lies as it relates to this article. If you don't feel comfortable sharing this information, then it means we already have issues of trust and there's no point going further.

If you do agree to undertake this effort with me, let me know on my talk page. At that point I'll drop further details on the talk page of the article about how we move forward (ie. we'd need to decide on the article's structure, sources, etc). I don't know what prior experience you have in writing featured articles, but I've found they go by quickly if written in short and intensive bursts. In other words, don't worry about time, especially with two regular editors working on it. We should be able to finish within a month just writing on weekends!UberCryxic (talk) 16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Great! Thanks for getting on board. I've left a lengthy note in the talk page about how to move forward.UberCryxic (talk) 08:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Rick, I've explained in the talk page why it's best if we work on this together, but if you really want me to rewrite the article myself, I'm definitely up for the challenge. I just want you to be aware that the two versions will be separated by several light years. The current version is far too inferior to qualify for featured status, and that means it will require massive and fundamental changes outside the lead, which is actually pretty good already.UberCryxic (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I've left you a new message in the talk page explaining where we are.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Grrr I have to annoy the hell out of you with this now or else the reviewers will annoy the hell out of us during the FAC process. Remember to follow my referencing style. So the citation itself should NOT be Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Oxford University Press, 2008, ISBN 9780199540594. It should be just Aurelius pp. [page number]. The other information goes in References. I'm sure you know this and maybe you were planning on changing it later, but it goes much faster if you do everything right in real time.

End of rant. Go on with your work haha!UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:37, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I responded to your inquiries about referencing style in the talk page.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Responded in talk page.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha I'm sorry. I just want us to communicate quickly. You said you'll be going to a conference the second week of March. Do you think you'll have your parts done by then?UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by help (haha). If you give me clear instructions on what you want in the Philosophy section (ie. what philosophers to cover, what parts of liberal philosophy to emphasize, etc), then I can finish that entire section this weekend myself. You'll have to let me know soon if you want to follow that path. Look, I know you're much more busy than I am and I realize I just threw you a pretty big task, so I wouldn't feel bad if I had to take over. We'll have plenty of time to review this article before the nomination anyway.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok this is what I plan on doing: I'll work on Philosophy this weekend, integrating some of your material and your sources. It seems like you didn't have a chance to get much done today. I understand why, so don't worry. But like I said before, these FA pushes either culminate in an explosive flurry of activity or they die because of lethargy. I want to finish this article quickly. I know I said no hard deadlines, but I still want to move forward fast. Be sure to let me know exactly what content you want me to include in the Philosophy section. Thank you.UberCryxic ^(talk) 21:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't sweat it dude. I just finished the Philosophy section. Now we need to prepare for the nomination.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, can you do me a quick favor? Newly created articles have a tag that stays on them until someone besides the creator comes along and reviews them, at which point the tag can be removed. Can you please go review the Liberal Revolution of 1895 and determine if you can remove the tag? I created that article over a week ago, but no one has reviewed it yet. Thanks.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Rick, I will make some more changes per our conversation in the talk page. I am planning to nominate either today or tomorrow. You will be a co-nominee, so after I make my introductory remarks, I encourage you to come and say something too (just whatever you want...the article's history, how far it's come, etc). I'll let you know exactly when I nominate.UberCryxic ^(talk) 02:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok I made a few last-minute corrections (particularly the ibids). Give the article one last good look. Make whatever (hopefully minor by this point) changes you feel are necessary and signal the green light on my talk page. When you tell me to go, I'll nominate it.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Yay good news! Deuces has announced his support for the FA nomination. It's all up to you now. Bring it home Rick.UberCryxic ^(talk) 06:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at my last change and tell me what you think.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok well, review those minor changes when you have time (I just switched a few words). I plan to go ahead and nominate right now.UberCryxic ^(talk) 16:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated the article. I encourage you to leave some comments.UberCryxic ^(talk) 17:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Hang on. Let's give it a few more days. We can still address their concerns at FAC, which can often last weeks. You were totally right on the length of History, and I was completely wrong. I just wanted to mention that now. That's what most of the criticism is about, and I've significantly shortened that section as a result. The article is now 94 kb, down from the 113 with which it entered FAC.UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

There's no doubt that things don't look great now, but I've seen a lot worse at FAC (one of my nominations started out disastrously and I thought would certainly fail, but it passed in the end). Today the bubbling "excitement" actually settled down: one of the more experienced editors has agreed to review the article and provide some tips. Let's see how that goes. We can't give up now. We just started the process. Steady under fire. Also remember that you're a co-nominee, and I would definitely appreciate some backup haha!UberCryxic ^(talk) 19:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I have withdrawn the nomination. I will now reopen a peer review and start the GA process. Both will last for about two or three weeks, after which we will return to FAC (plan for early April). I have received assurances of assistance from several other editors, so this time the article will receive plenty of attention ahead of the next FA nomination. More details forthcoming.UberCryxic ^(talk) 23:45, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

The peer review is now live.UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism

I wonder if you could comment on this description of Burke's contribution to conservative thought. It was difficult to find contemporary writing about Burke and Conservatism that has not written from a conservative POV, so I used The conservative illusion[4] I still need something on how Burke has influenced modern conservatism.

Edmund Burke was the private secretary to the Marquis of Rockingham and official pamphlateer to the Rockingham branch of the Whig Party. (Edmund Burke: selected writings and speeches, p. 18[5]) Together with the Tories, they were the conservatives in the late 18th century United Kingdom. (The conservative illusion, p. 33) Although Burke accepted liberal ideals of private property and the economics of Adam Smith, he assumed that economics should be kept subordinate to the Conservative social ethic. He insisted on standards of honor derived from the medieval aristocratic tradition, and saw the aristocracy as the nation's natural leaders. (p.37) That meant limits on the powers of the Crown, since he found the institutions of Parliament to be better informed than commissions appointed by the executive. (p. 52) He thought that the government should support the established church although allowing for a degree of religious toleration. (pp. 53-54) Although Burke accepted the American colonists' arguments that they were entitled to the rights of Englishmen, he became an outspoken opponent of the French Revolution because he thought capitalism should be subordinate to the medieval social tradition and that the business class should be subordinate to aristocracy. (p. 40) Burke justified the social order on the basis of tradition. It represented the wisdom of the species and he valued community and social harmony. (p. 41).

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:12, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

On second thought how Burke influenced modern conservatism is probably best left to later in the article, when modern conservatism was developed. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism

Hey, not much is happening right now except for the GAN process. You can definitely help out there as various concerns and suggestions are publicized. Once that's complete and the article is (hopefully) passed, we'll gage the barometer one last time before starting the FAC nomination again.UBER ^(talk) 21:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Motion to delete 'Mass Killings'

Here ya go.... [6] BigK HeX (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

About this edt

Perhaps the politicians formerly known as conservatives? :) Soxwon (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

When the modern American Conservative movement was launched in the 1950s, they created historical narratives to show that they belonged in the American political tradition, just as the Left had done earlier, e.g., the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. (Of course these histories may be contradictory or contrary to mainstream history.) While we do not have to accept these histories, it is appropriate that when describing any US political group we report the historical narratives that they claim. TFD (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I was actually trying to inject a little humor. Soxwon (talk) 19:00, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice

Thanks for the advice, and for a great job cleaning up Modern liberalism in the United States. I am new to editing Wikipedia, so I am still getting into the swing of things & learning to properly interpret WP's policies. I am also a grad. student limited on time, and not familiar with popular revert methods - didn't have time to go through and manually correct that user's edits. It seems there are bots & tools to use for repairing vandalism, but I don't know how they work, and it seems that only the latest set of edits can be reverted? Maybe I'm wrong, but Wikipedia threw me an error message when I tried to revert the user's first edit to the article. Anyway, thanks for the clarification. I've been watching your efforts on WP & especially your participation in the Modern liberalism talk page debates ever since I joined Wikipedia a few months ago, and I think you do an excellent & appropriate job on the articles you work on. Cheers, John Shandy` • talk 05:58, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Patrick Allitt

The article Patrick Allitt has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 08:28, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism (2)

Dear Rick, about "belief" and liberalism: is liberalism then a religion? --JanDeFietser (talk) 19:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism refactor?

I tried to refactor the discussion at the Conservatism talk page. Do you think your comment would flow better if you refactored it into two statements -- one for "Judeo-Christian" and one for "Radicalism"? BigK HeX (talk) 17:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Help Request

Hi,

I'm new to Wikipedia, and I have written a few pages on Mathematical topics that I would like to put up. Before doing this though, I would love to have some criticism and feedback from people who have done this before. Would you be so kind as to help me with this? Please have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hh73wiki Choose an article from my personal sandbox that looks intriguing, and let me know what you think! Thanks! Hh73wiki (talk) 05:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The Radical Right

I have started a new article, The Radical Right and wonder if you would like to contribute to it. TFD (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The term was used to describe an American phenomenon, and no similar work was done on the Left. However, Laird Wilcox and John George drew a symmetry in Nazis, Communists, Klansmen, and Others on the Fringe, calling both groups "extremists". Radical left is a disambiguation page, mostly to parties that were historical radicals, and therefore free market liberals. I started an article called The American Left, which would be the left-wing equivalent of The Radical Right. TFD (talk) 15:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Good edit on History of Mathematics

Agreed that mathematics in India is an important topic, but that it is very difficult to establish correct dates for Indian chronology in reliable sources. Keep up the good work. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 12:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Rick Norwood. You have new messages at Point-set topologist's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Warning

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you continue with the behavior on Mass killings under Communist regimes, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. When you note that an edit war is in progress, please do not join in even if you are in the right. The slow slog of consensus is the only way that article will ever become a high quality stable encyclopedia article. The article is locked from editing for the next month; please discuss proposed changes on the talkpage in the meantime. As always, template:editprotected and requests for unprotection may be used when a firm consensus is reached. Thank you, - 2/0 (cont.) 23:37, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If this warning is not removed I intend to complain at ANI. TFD (talk) 02:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Patrick Allitt for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Patrick Allitt, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Allitt until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --Bejnar (talk) 17:48, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Philip Ball 2008 (and JIST 2010)

Here it is (p. 2). And if you want to read for free a peer-reviewed and featured article, published in 2010 in Journal of Imaging Science and Technology, it's here. Enjoy ! Thucyd (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Eigenstuff

I could not find the discussion about removing the "Featured Article" classification.

However, I am very surprised that this article has been a Featured Article. A few days ago, when I first edited it, there was no explanation about the method to compute eigenvectors. Only a short explanation about the method to obtain eigenvalues. I am curious to know what happened. Paolo.dL (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Title of "Mass killings under Communist regimes"

Rick, please don't let the tangent with TFD interfere with any response you may have wanted to give. I was serious about wanting to know what you think would be a better title for the article, if you had one in mind. AmateurEditor (talk) 03:43, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Global temperature averaging is thirty years not ten years

The standard for climate averaging is thirty years not ten years according the World Meteorological Organization.[7] A linear regression over the last ten years in two of the three major climate studies (including one of the instrumental temperature record) do have a negative trend (although they're not statically significant at α < 0.05). The third isn't negative because the temperature reconstruction doesn't fully extend to 2010. You can see an aggregation of the studies I'm talking about here (scroll down to "Trends"), I can provide the studies themselves if you want. I'm just saying this to let you know, because I believe you need to be more careful here. 174.52.224.148 (talk) 22:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the information. I'll follow up. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at the links you offered and at the article Global Warming shows that the first link mentions thirty year averages but also mentions yearly averages. The second link does something a little different from the average in each decade -- it plots the average in each year taken over the previous ten years. Thus, a cooler year following much warmer years will look low, even if the ten year average by decade looks high. The article itself gives some five year averages, some yearly averages together with linear regression, and some ten year averages.

There are two ways of looking at this data. One is to understand that it is a hard problem, and that reasonable conclusions require years of study, so that I, a mathematician, need to rely on the climatologists. The other is the way taken by people who make up their mind what the right answer is and then cherry pick the data that support their already formed conclusion.

It bothers me that many people, including many people who want to contribute to Wikipedia, seem to think that the second way of dealing with global warming is right, 100% right, with absolute certainty, and that anyone who listens to climatologists is wrong, and lying, and probably part of a conspiracy. Recent studies seem to show that about 55% of Americans fall into the second group. I hope other countries are different, but I haven't seen the data. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's keep it on your talk. Well, I can assure you that I am not one of those people. My previous post was referring to when you said "a decline in ten year average temperatures [...]".[8] A decline in ten year average temperature isn't the same as saying this is a hottest decade on record. Secondly, it's doesn't remove the the possibility that you are referring to averaging by regression techniques, which is what I assumed.

Thirty years is arbitrary, and I am well aware of what the article does. There isn't a clear border between weather and climate, and if there were, we'd be sitting on it. In averaging we have to consider that temperatures fluctuate. For example solar cycles are eleven years,[9] ENSO three to five,[10] and IPO fifteen to thirty.[11] So a regression over the last thirty years is in my opinion fairly reasonable.

Well, thank you for your reply. If you want to know, I wrote more than two-thirds of the Public opinion on climate change article in my day, and I am well aware what the public thinks. The reason why I am here is just to you know that "a decline in ten year average temperatures" is ambiguous, and that I would appreciate if you would clarify. That's all. 174.52.224.148 (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Notability of T-integration

I have raised some questions on Talk:T-integration about the notability of this article, which you created. What raised my suspicions was the apparent lack of any references to this algorithm other than in sources by the original author, J. M. Smith (who has also been active in the Wikipedia article). Comments welcome. — Steven G. Johnson (talk) 04:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of T-integration for deletion

The article T-integration is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T-integration 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 good 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.

— Steven G. Johnson (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Not clear who your reply was intended for

Hi, Rick. Could you search Talk:Right-wing politics for the comment you posted at 18:25, 7 February 2011 (UTC) and that begins with the following sentence?

"That does not seem to me to be a reasonable requirement."

I'm pretty sure you were addressing Collect, i.e. were objecting to his notion that we need a wp:rs to clarify what kind of liberalism the Oxford political dictionary quotation means when it says that liberalism can be an element of the right-wing. I'm not sure, though, because you aligned your comment flush left, i.e. all the way to the left margin. It thus seems plausible (although not likely, I think) that you were addressing me, with my suggestion that we give the dictionary definition not as "...in the European sense of the word...", but rather as "...[classical] [liberalism] ..." (sic). Parenthetically, my idea was that rendering it so would cause readers who want to understand the term liberalism would first see the eponymous article, with it's very helpful distinction, right in its lead, between classical and social liberalism. If we just linked directly to classical liberalism they'd miss that excellent aid to understanding what the Oxford source means.

Anyway, sorry to go on so long, but I'd like to resolve the ambiguity for subsequent readers. I can't just copy-edit/refactor per WP:INDENT, however, because I already indented below you, with your comment in situ - located at the left margin, I mean. If I were to now indent your comment (to conform to wp:indent) and thereby show that you were replying to Collect, that would throw off all the lower/subsequent replies that are now indented properly relative to mine ... I'm not saying this well, but if we indent your comment to show that it was meant as a reply to Collect and not to me, then we'd have to "ripple" all the subsequent comments that were properly indented, to the right, as well, in order to preserve the information about which comments they're responding to. ( And that would be a lot of comments to indent, with errors likely to be introduced in that copy-editing process. )

So what I'd like to do, if you meant to reply to Collect and not me, is to simply put a small-font annotation just before your post to indicate that it was intended as a reply to him. Otherwise your comment will appear ambiguous. Also ( and excuse me for asking this of so very experienced an editor, please ) would you please try to stick a little more closely to customary thread indentation patterns? I've been pulled up short over a few of your other edits, for this same reason. I'm probably more sensitive to this than most people, btw; I seem to be pretty ADD, and it really does make it too easy for me to lose track of the argument when I have to meta-shift up to the communication protocol level ( or down, depending on one's mental model ) because of unusual or no indentation.

If you're feeling especially charitable, I'd welcome any comment you might have on my reasoning and argument for replacing "in the European sense of the word" with "[classical] liberalism", although if that is to occur on the article talk page, as I'd hope, perhaps it would be best to wait until Manning ( our uninvolved admin Solomon, let's hope ) has completed his review of that page. I don't think there's any danger of the labor being lost. Even if Manning closes the RfC and says the Oxford definition shouldn't be in the lead, my guess is that we'll be nearly sure of seeing it into the body of the article.

I just saw your user page. I saw you're a student of logic. ( No sleight intended; I'd class Russell and Whitehead in just the same way, and myself, too, as students; none of us are masters of logic, imo. ) We could talk for hours, I'm sure. Or perhaps I should say, "I could ask you questions for hours." I've probably spent a 1000+ hours in serious study puzzling over questions arising from a very basic address to logic and set theory, and in trying to understand Russell's (pre-Principia) books, but I'm still very much an amateur. Such a garden of charming complexity! Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please remember to wp:indent

Hi, Rick. I know it's not required by policy, but would you please review wp:indent and try to remember to conform to it when you post to a thread? I noticed that you just posted at "flush-left" again, after I'd just pointed out, above, how that introduces ambiguity. It also makes it impossible for subsequent posters to use indents to make it clear that they might be replying to a post that was above and preceded yours. I'm sure it was just due to habit, but I'd be very grateful if you'd try hard to break that habit, since it interferes with understanding who is replying to whom in a thread. Btw, I saw your now-self-reverted ref to the OED at Talk:Right-wing politics, and hope you'll restore it once Manning completes his review, assuming the RfC remains open for its normal 30-day interval. It was an enlightening ref, and certainly from as authoritative and unimpeachable a source as one could wish. If you'd like to reply, you can do so below; I've watchlisted this page so as to be sure not to miss any reply you might make here. Thanks,  – OhioStandard (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I usually indent, but sometimes slip. Thanks for the heads up. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't know if you watchlist pages you've posted to, or whether you prefer talkbacks, but here's one. And another. Cheers,  – OhioStandard (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Research about virtual community

My name is Ms Juliana de Melo Bezerra. I am a phd student at ITA (www.ita.br). I am doing a research regarding members’ motivation in virtual communities, and my case study is Wikipedia. I would like your collaboration in my research. If you are interested, I will send you some questions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmbbmj (talk • contribs) 11:48, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I am willing to answer questions. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the interest! I would like to send the questions to your email, is it possible? You can send your contact to my email: go to my userpage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jmbbmj) and click on Toolbox > E-mail this user. Jmbbmj (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There are too many bad guys out there to make me confortable sharing my e-mail with strangers. If you ask questions here, I'll answer them. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

Hi, I wanted to thank you for your input on the media bias page. I had just gotten up the courage to start editing when a family member fell gravely ill, so I won't be able to dedicate the amount of time that I would like. I'll keep working as I can, but wanted to post somewhere less obvious than an article talk page as to why it may take a while for me to respond. ScamperCat ^(meow) 19:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Climatic interests

Hi Rick, looking at your user page I just wondered if your interests extended into '60s SF, and The Drought or perhaps The Drowned World? All seems rather topical these days :–/ . . dave souza, talk 14:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

talk vs. edit warring

If you're interested in improving the article, then by all means do take your concerns to talk. Blanket reverting constructive edits across multiple sections is nothing less than disruptive behavior. aprock (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You are free to discuss any edits that I've made on the talk page. Engaging in blanket reverting without reviewing any of the edits, based on nothing other than they constitute "major edits" in your mind is disruptive editing. aprock (talk) 22:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Your estimation of my edits as POV is incorrect and violates WP:AGF. looking back at my edit summaries, all of them have summaries which describe the issues being addressed. I'm certainly open to discussing different perspectives but removing copy edits, wiki linking, source improvements, section expansion and other constructive edits because two or three edits remove large blocks of undue material is anything but constructive. aprock (talk) 22:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

It might help if you could be a bit more specific in your criticism than "some are clearly not". Please do bring specific concerns and issues to the article talk page. aprock (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

notice: I've started an AN/I thread regarding your blanket reverts: [12] aprock (talk) 23:22, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

notice: You appear to reverting for a third time without discussing the issues on the talk page. Allow me to suggest you discuss first before reverting. aprock (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

1) I didn't revert, I rewrote. 2) I did discuss it first. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Stubs

I always thought a stub was a "few sentences" as defined by WP. I don't regard Comics Revue as a stub. But numerous comic strip articles are being tagged as stubs. See User talk:Fortdj33#Stubs discussion at bottom. Pepso2 (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Unbelievable talk

According to the current Talk:Fraction_(mathematics),  there is no message in the talk page from February 2009 to January 2011.  Below the title "Vulgar_fractions", the last message in 2009 was apparently signed by yourself.  Apparently Clifsportland alias Cliff replied in 2011:  “I am disturbed by the fact that…”.  Actually, Cliff has transfered to "Talk:Fraction_(mathematics)/Archive_1" some messages, because of a bad use of {{Archive box collapsible}}.  What do we have to do, in your opinion, in order to reestablish the reality of the talk page?
— Aughost (talk) 10:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You asked me:  “have you tried just asking Cliff to fix it?”  No, I have sent no message.  Why I contacted you?

• Today, the most recent contribution of Cliff is dated: October 31, 2011.
• You participated in the unbelievable talk.

You are concerned with the mistake in archiving.
— Aughost (talk) 01:27, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Just thanking you for your efforts on the History of Mathematics wiki-page. I ventured onto the discussion and saw you all over it, trying to keep things on the up and up. Great stuff! And essential... it's scary how often Wikipedia is becoming the source (credited or not) for other websites. Magnabonzo (talk) 17:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Starship

GoldStar

I'm one month away from turning thirteen but though my youth I find Wikipedia interesting compared to my ignorant peers.I had this boiling urge to contribute,so I did.I contributed for the page fractions,which I myself had problems on,under division.When my contribution was first taken out,I was heartbroken.I summed up that other users found my information confusing.So I undid the edit that removed my contribution.I then tweaked it up a bit.Then when you removed my tweaked contribution and said it was confusing,light finally dawned on me.When an athlete runs his first race,it's good he loses so he learns.The same applies in this case.For a reason I can't really explain, thank you. P.S.Sorry for my confusing message DaelStrom (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the supportive comment on Conservatism in the United States, and for encouraging me to edit further. However, for a range of practical reasons, this is a page where I am not likely to be much of a builder, more of someone who sands off an occasional rough edge. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:20, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Ratio and fraction once more

Hi, Rick. I noticed that you reverted the following wording

Thus the fraction 3/4 is also used to represent the ratio 3:1 (the ratio of 3 parts to 1 part of the whole which has 4 parts)

in favor of the wording

Thus the fraction 3/4 is also used to represent the ratio 3:4 (the ratio of the part to the whole)

saying that this was discussed extensively. You're probably right about it having been discussed extensively, although I can't find much about it on the talk page or in its archives (maybe I missed a lot of it in trying to skim through all of it). My memory is that the discussion was mostly about whether they are even conceptually the same thing, rather than about the specific way that a ratio gets expressed as a fraction.

I think the editor who put in the revised wording above has correctly expressed what happens at least some of the time. For example, if the odds ratio is 3:1 against, then there are 3 chances of something not happening for every chance that it will happen; so the probability of its not happening is 3/4.

Is there a way to incorporate that without re-opening a can of worms? Duoduoduo (talk) 22:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Bogus "Research" does not a "Common Mistake" make

Further information: Circular reasoning

Further information: Recursion

This is a bogus reason to revert something unless it is true...

(rv Research shows that when articles mention that something is a common mistake, many people think the article has said this is something they should do.) (See this link)

What in the world is that all about? Are you saying that it is a common mistake to misunderstand the meaning of "a common mistake"? This is either an irony of ironies, or you have invented some kind of odd reason that Wikipedia articles not mention things which happen in the undocumented, mundane, every day life of "many people," up to and including errors or mistakes in logic! In either case show me proof that your comment or your reversion has merit. Not to mention that reversions should be relatively rare when the content in question adds significantly to the understanding of the article.

I think that if 100 people read the words "a common mistake" and that 5 of those people reading continue to make the common mistake after reading it, and then 2 of those 5 people excuse themselves for their continued error by pointing to the section which describes a "common mistake" and mistakenly (lying like a dog) saying that the Wikipedia gave them the idea for making the common mistake, then such "research" would be suspect. And I doubt any researcher could erect a "many people" argument to stop listing what a "Common Mistake" is.

In my humble opinion, very few people will continue to make a common mistake if there is sufficient comprehension of the topic by a person reading it. If I read that it is a common mistake to inflate tires to 32 psi while warm, and I correctly understood that, then I would be foolish to do so again. If I did it again, I would be another kind of fool to claim that either the advice or the adviser was the cause of my error. We might as well stop telling people they are wrong and give everyone perfect grades for doing things wrong. If we don't, then the student can blame the teacher for improperly lecturing a student to "STOP BEING STUPID and add fractions the way you're supposed to" by explaining the wrong way and the right way to add fraction. Showing the wrong way to approach a problem has merit if the right way is presented along with it. I like to saw logs! (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi Rick Norwood, just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled right to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing!

P.S. I didn't grant rollback, but if you think you could use it, feel free to let me know. Swarm ^X 18:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Conservatism

I reverted the change you made to Conservatism, following the undiscussed removal of the POV tag I had placed there. I object to the changes you made based on weight issues. The main article is substantially different in tone and weight, and associating conservatism with " ... the plantation system and slavery ... " and " ... skeptics toward reason and science ... " lacks any semblance of neutrality in such a small section. Additionally, you made the change to the section with the comment, "Replace a statement that says almost exactly the opposite of what the cited source says with quotations from the cited source". Can you please provide specific page numbers from the source? Barry Clark is a supporter of the "occupy" movement and has strong feelings about the US economy, but such an inflammatory statement still needs specific cites. TreacherousWays (talk) 19:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Bold, Revert, Discuss

Please do not replace the contested text at Conservatism until the discussion is complete. TreacherousWays (talk) 15:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Blanket reverts at Conservatism

rv vague assertions that are not focused enough for an encyclopedia article.

Your edit summary does not address the three separate edits you reverted. Please get in the habit of using the talk page; see also WP:LEAD and WP:REDIR, and the result of the proposed move at Talk:Biology_and_political_orientation#Proposed_move. I've also opened a new thread at Talk:Conservatism#Lead_section_and_redirects. Please contribute to that discussion. Viriditas (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

ERIDU-DREAMING is being investigated for poor behaviour, you may too if you get into further nasty confrontations with Falconclaw

I am giving you a warning about your editing at Right-wing politics. You have gotten into confrontations with Falconclaw that became uncivil. ERIDU-DREAMING is currently being investigated for Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, failure to adhere to Wikipedia:Consensus, etc. There has been too many confrontations and sophistry at the right-wing politics talk page, I am advising you to desist from confrontational behaviour with Falconclaw, or you will be investigated for distruptive editing.--R-41 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I warned you about wasting time with disruptive sophistry

This is sophistry "That is because well-informed people can see that the right-wing media are a bunch of nut jobs". It was in response to the user Falconclaw5000 who clearly seems to be right-of-centre, such a response does nothing but escalate tensions and demonstrate that you have a very strong and aggressive POV that will likely disrupt constructive discussions. This is pushing the limits and on the verge of breaking Wikipedia:Civility and violating Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:NPOV. If you and Falconclaw continue with this aggressive and disruptive sophistry, I will report both of you for violation of Wikipedia:Consensus and deliberate disregard for Wikipedia:NPOV.--R-41 (talk) 22:45, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The sentence on right-wing libertarianism describes why the libertarian right opposes egalitarian social levelling

The sentence about right-wing libertarians is very pertinent to the issue of right-wing politics because not all right-wing people are reactionary absolutists as the intro seems to indicate without the statement on right-wing libertarians. If the statement on right-wing libertarians is not included, it is just going to give legitimacy to the apparently right-wing libertarian user Falconclaw5000's claim that the intro is biased - and he does have a point - the libertarian right is important to recognize. So including the material on the position of right-wing libertarianism involving the issue of equality, directly addresses this and does not allow Falconclaw to claim "oh this intro is biased it ignores the libertarian right".--R-41 (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 12

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 24

Hi. When you recently edited Mike Roy (comics), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages The Saint, Crime Does Not Pay and Native Americans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

OR noticeboard question

I was wondering if you made those comments about the Melton quote (of which he only quoted half, and completely ignored Melton's second quote) after reading the 30 other sources (18 different, multiple points for some) I provided, which I linked to on the OR board page? I could be wrong, but I think you may see that the dispute we're having has nothing to do with what Momento is asking (and in fact, no one has claimed the thing that he's saying the Melton quote is being used to support). He is only seeking a "yes" answer for use in the upcoming ArbCom. -- Maelefique^(talk) 14:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Duotrope

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Duotrope requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

• I looked for sources and was unable to find any reliable ones that would show notability for this. I did see one or two mentions, but nothing that talked about the website in depth.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 04:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Mass Deletion of my additions on Conservatism in the United States

Listen I don't mind you disagreeing with me but before you massively delete all my contributions you should at least discuss it with me I think many of my "large number of questionable additions to the list" belong on the list and are serouis omissions if you have a problem with a certain addition say so don't delete all of my other additions while viewing the talkpage thinking you might have left something about your recent edit I saw the dicussion on Lincoln I think Lincoln belongs on the list but I'll concede it is a divise issue so I will not add Lincoln so we do not have to go through that again. Also my additon of Thomas Jefferson is unquestionable since he fits in the paleoconservative definition exactly also he is very often quoted by conservatives "the goverment that governs best governs least" adding Jefferson is a no-brainer as I viewed many of my other additons. As for my new section celebrities active in conservative politics I thought it belonged most of the celebrities such as John Wayne were incredibly active in conservative politics Wayne was even asked by the Texas Republican party to run for president, Jimmy Stewart who spoke at republican national conventions was asked by his friend president Reagan to run for governor of california, Shirley Temple ran for the U.S. house as a republican and served as ambassador to Ghana under ford and was incredibally active in the California republican party. If you disagree with any of my edits feel free to take the person out again I am bias towards these people because I do like them but many belongin there and my point is still valid I will be reverting your edit but will take lincoln out since you voiced such strong objections to it on the talkpage Cotton Rogers (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Duotrope

Hi again! I looked up the page and found that Duotrope was deleted by User:Mike 7. I don't know if he'd restore the page, but at the very least he could probably put a copy of the page's history into your userspace so you can work on it until you find more sources. You can always go through Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion as well, which is probably where he'd direct you. Again, I can't guarantee that they'd re-add the page into the mainspace, but many times they're willing to either re-add it to the mainspace or to a person's userspace if you show that you're willing to work on the article, which you are. Userspace might be better, though, as it'd keep it from getting deleted again before you're finished looking for sources. It takes a lot to get something deleted from a userspace since that's an area of peoples' accounts that is typically used to store articles that aren't ready for the mainspace for various reasons (not written well enough, not enough sources, etc- I've got a ton of these myself). I'll leave a message on Mike7's page saying that I have absolutely no problem with you working on a copy of this on your userspace, if that helps any.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• I posted on his page, although I did ask that it be put in your userspace. The reason behind this is like I said earlier, it's harder to get things deleted from a userspace because that's an area that's pretty much meant for the user to work on articles at their own pace without worrying that someone will go and delete something before they have a chance to finish looking for sources or work on the page. Sometimes you'll have stuff that gets speedied for various reasons, but generally userspace areas are left alone so if it was in your userspace you wouldn't have to worry about it getting deleted before you have a chance to fully flesh it out.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:59, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey! Just so you both know, I responded on my talk page and have put up the page at User:Rick Norwood/Duotrope. Best of luck in editing! Michael (talk) 06:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

User:Rick Norwood/Duotrope

Hey Rick, just letting you know that Mike put a copy of the article in your userspace for you to work on! You can find it at User:Rick Norwood/Duotrope. Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:37, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The order of operations

"The idea that there is a prefernce for left to right is often taught in grade school, but is incorrect." Have you got any proof on you thesis? Can I see it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.183.238 (talk) 06:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

OK Sir, i'm going to sent a letter with this answer to some professors of the mathematics in UK. If all of them have the same opinion as me, we should change this entry... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.183.238 (talk) 00:44, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

OK, so what is the score from 7-4+3*0+1 because for me is 4 and only 4. But when I ask random people on the Internet the results are 2, 6, 1. And it is because they do not understand that addition is not superior to subtraction it's equal...Could you please clarify in this particular example because I'm going to mad.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.26.183.238 (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Rick, I undeleted your most recent contribution to Talk:Time.

I hope that's okay. Of course, you own your comments and if you want them off the talk page, it's your decision and if you re-delete them, I'll leave it alone. I just don't want people to think that this "compromise" is as such. It's really unacceptable to me to have Wikipedia editors insist on their own definitions that run differently than the dictionary definitions, especially when there is contention over the lede. Bestest, 70.109.178.39 (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

I commented them out, but you probably already know that. Apologies. 70.109.178.39 (talk) 01:44, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Questia

You might want to apply for Questia, which provides access to many books and articles useful for articles. Here is a link to the application. TFD (talk) 06:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

page numbers in cites

Please use them - I was bored reading through the two dull ones you re-added <g>. Also see WP:Citation overkill for a useful essay on the topic. Cheers - Actually the "religon" section was cleaner than I feared. Collect (talk) 12:58, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

October 2012

Hello, I'm MeUser42. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Talk:Classical_liberalism that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it’s one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Please avoid making degrading statements as you did on Talk:Classical liberalism ("He appeals mainly to dogmatic Libertarians"). This causes the debate to hit up, get personal, and not reach consensus. This is very disruptive. MeUser42 (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

School of Salamanca

While I appreciate that we should obtain compromise, the sources presented by some editors are far outside mainsteam thought. For example, in the chapter where David Boaz explains that the Spanish were "liberal" in the way they treated aborignals, he ends by saying, "Lastly, those are not at all to be tolerated who deny the being of God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist."[13] Even though Locke believed that, it is not a modern liberal view. Some of these writers also claim that there was separation of church and state in the middle ages because the Catholic Church and European monarchies were separate. We need to be cautious about the extent to which these and other fringe views distort articles about liberalism. TFD (talk) 07:37, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

TeX superscripts

Hello, I was noting recent tweaks you made to superscripts at ring (mathematics). I am a little baffled... why do you consider the TeX superscript carat as "lexing errors"? I could not find any such preference in the MATH:MOS, so I wonder if it was elsewhere... Rschwieb (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Rick Norwood. You have new messages at Rschwieb's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For reference, see help:displaying a formula if not already. Thanks, Maschen (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Decade

If the main meaning of "consevative" in the 60s was pro-segregation, what was its main meaning in the 1980s? Pass a Method talk 08:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 3

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sunday comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terry and the Pirates (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Buzz Sawyer

You do realize that if you want to the importance rating of an article to be changed, you can just go ahead and change it, right? You don't need to ask anyone for permission. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:50, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Two things:

1. I think you're putting too much importance on the importance scale. The importance scale has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to Wikipedia as a whole—it's strictly a back-of-the-house, within-the-WikiProject thing, a tool to give the WikiProject focus.
2. Check out WP:COI. Being in a potential conflict of interest situation is not in and of itself a bad thing, as long as you're upfront and clear about it. Throw a simple disclaimer up on your user page, and you're in the clear. If people have a problem with it, you can discuss it on the talk page. If you're actions seem motivated by self-interest, people may call you out on it. If you appear to be editing in good faith, then they won't. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rick Norwood. You have new messages at Talk:Proposition.
Message added 22:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As the creator the the "statement (logic)" article, I thought you may wish to add to the discussion.

 Jason Quinn (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Laissez Faire

Rick, you have improperly undone my reversion of the Keynes text on Laissez Faire. Please review WP policy WP:BRD. I cited the reasons for my removal of the improperly sourced material and solicited discussion on the talk page so that valid discussion of Keynes may be decided upon for inclusion. The content you re-inserted is not properly sourced or relevant as stated. Please undo your re-insertion, per WP policy, and present your views on the article talk page. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Modern liberalism in the United States, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Progressive (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Small government, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tea Party (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:18, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Liberalism in the United States (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Equality

Social liberalism (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Freedom

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free! :)

To talk to me if you're brave enough. =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.162.14 (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Do a chat room where we could chat?

I would love to. =P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.162.224 (talk) 21:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Or..

Just chat on the talk pages if you want to.174.19.162.224 (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you there?

? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.21.226 (talk) 03:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Lets talk

Ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.21.226 (talk) 03:35, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

You haven't said anything yet. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I have

=).

???Rick Norwood (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we go to the Wikipedia chat?

Do you know where it is — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.21.226 (talk) 00:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not know where it is. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you want to play skyrim? =)

I would like to. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.35.28.116 (talk) 01:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I've heard good things about Skyrim. I'm playing Skyward Sword now, and I've got Oblivion next on my list, mainly because it is Trey Parker and Matt Stone's favorite game. But, as a gamer, I like solving puzzles more than combat. My favorite game is Portal II. But I'm willing to give Skyrim a try. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok

Talk to me on my page or in the wiki chat room and we will play the game =). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.19.163.84 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I sense a disturbance in the force......

There is strange noises on the front page, and some hashtag is this a glitch?