User talk:Lionelt/Archive 4

Liverpool Gay Quarter

Now you're just taking the piss!! Instead of deleting my entrants to the Liverpool Gay Quarter article which have been in tact for the last three years, why not add to them? Exactly what is your role on wikipedia? Is it to delete other people's works or to contribute? I can ASSURE you every person named on the Notable LGBT people from Liverpool & Merseyside is FROM MERSEYSIDE AND IS LGBT. Do you want a source to prove they'e from Merseyside and a source to prove they're LGBT? For peet sake, go to their page where their place of birth is clearly written. Why didn't you just add a source yourself? And was it you that says the article reads like an advert?

File:LAJS1926.jpg

I left a question for you at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lionelt regarding File:LAJS1926.jpg.   Will Beback  talk  07:35, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a problem onto Commons... I'm going to try a different browser. Lionel (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

We can discuss it here. The file page says you created the 1926 image. Since it's professionally done, it's unlikely that anyone under the age of 10 could have made it, meaning you would have to be over 90 years old. I don't mean to pry into your actual age, but I assume there's a mistake.   Will Beback  talk  02:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Is there something that needs to be fixed or are you really the creator of that 1926 image?   Will Beback  talk  23:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't create it. I vaguely remember (it was a few years ago) pulling it off of a LA Times article. I'll check the Times archive. Lionel (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's a a "fair use" picture then it should be hosted on Wikipedia rather then Wikicommons, and there will need to be different "paperwork". If you're still having trouble logging into the Commons I could start the ball rolling at that end, and you can upload the photo here.   Will Beback  talk  22:28, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If I don't hear back from you I'll assume you want me to initiate deleting the file from the Commons.   Will Beback  talk  21:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I fixed it. Lionel (talk) 04:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that you now say it was published without copyright. Where and when was it published, initially? How do you know that there was no copyright?   Will Beback  talk  04:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I emailed the LA library for permission/licensing, and in their reply they stated they cannot grant permission/licensing since according to their legal department the image is not under copyright.Lionel (talk) 04:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you please forward that email to the permissions department? "permissions-commons AT wikimedia DOT org". Then someone can properly update the copyright info.   Will Beback  talk  04:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

BTW, it looks like the OTRS volunteers haven't yet registered receipt of the copyright waiver for his file. Please double-check that you've sent it.   Will Beback  talk  09:42, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you're busy with other tasks, but don't forget to send the letter to OTRS so the file is properly registered.   Will Beback  talk  11:41, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Catholics for Choice

Hi! I'm afraid your recent edit at Catholics for Choice is inconsistent both with Wikipedia's general tendency to follow self-identification and with the existing status quo on categorizing Catholic organizations specifically. For example, the Society of St. Pius X has been condemned by a much higher authority than the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, but it is still categorized as a Catholic organization, because it identifies itself as a Catholic organization. Now that you're aware of your error, I hope you'll revert yourself. Have a nice day! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

CPCs

I'm hoping this was an accident, but your recent edit removed content from Crisis pregnancy center. You removed the text "by choosing a name similar to the Fargo Women's Health Organization and," in spite of the fact that the clinic's name was part of the false advertising problem (rather than somehow unrelated). Refer to the text of the preliminary injunction, which the court upheld:

"... [T]hat the defendants do not falsely lull people that come to them for counseling into thinking that they are, in fact, the Women's Health Organization or the Fargo Women's Health organization, Inc. and that the defendants take no action or inaction which would lull people into believing that they are dealing with the Fargo Women's Health Organization, Inc. when they are in fact dealing with defendants or F-M Women's Help and Caring Connection..."

If you think there is a specific problem with the wording, would you like to discuss potential changes? Otherwise, please re-add the text you removed. Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:40, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The court's ruling clearly prohibited a "confusing" name: to describe as anything else is WP:OR. Lionel (talk) 02:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

What wording would you suggest that includes the name of the real clinic, per the text I quoted above? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. Women's Health Org should go back in, but in reference to the court ruling that Help's name was confusing.Lionel (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

How about "...from using a confusing name that might 'falsely lull people...into thinking that they are, in fact, the Women's Health Organization or the Fargo Women's Health organization, Inc.', and from advertising that they provided abortions"? (You'd have to add it in yourself, as it would be a revert if I did.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, in case you didn't see on the article talkpage, I brought the USCCB thing to RS Noticeboard. Although I hope you'll read my comment above about why this step should be unnecessary. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I made the edit as I proposed above, except I also switched the clauses (thought it sounded better) and added "a lawsuit by the Fargo Women's Health organization, a medical clinic that performed abortions" at the beginning of the paragraph so the similar name didn't come out of nowhere. ("medical clinic that performed abortions" was per the source.) Let me know what you think. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

FNC

My only concern is that people unfamiliar with what wikiprojects are will take it as a sign that Wikipedia is "admitting" that it thinks that Fox News is a Republican rag. Soxwon (talk) 06:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think it's an issue, we could put a disclaimer in the FAQ. Lionel (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

South Carolina/CPC

Your citation doesn't support the text you added. It says only that the law mandates that a 24-hour waiting period. The actual law also requires that the patient certify to the doctor that she has read certain materials prescribed by the state of South Carolina. While these materials include (among many other things) the addresses of locations that provide free ultrasounds, that's a rather tenuous link, and is certainly not consistent with the text you inserted. Please revert yourself. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

The South Dakota one is good, but could you possibly find a real source? KSFY has covered the bill. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

CPC

Hi Lionelt. I understand you can be outraged about what you perceive as a POV overtone of the article, but I'd advise you not to go out of control with your wrath. As I've told Rosy, one can get into some rather messy bureaucratic business in WP by being overly confrontational. This is regardless of how wrong and POV your opponents are. Bobthefish2 (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There was an extensive discussion on whether or not to use an image of an ultrasound. Please gain consensus for the use of an ultrasound image before inserting one. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate that you replaced the disputed image. All collaborations should be so productive! (Though I still wish we could get a picture of an actual CPC. Are you near one perchance? We have a picture of a sign for a CPC but it isn't very useful or informative.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:36, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The information you've inserted about CPCs moving away from the provision of false information is flat-out untrue, per the very source you cited. Please remove it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you may have misinterpreted. The quote certainly doesn't say that CPCs no longer provide false information - and how could it, since the same article details the false information they provide? ("But facts are a problem when it comes to some of the medical information disseminated by pregnancy center volunteers. Many centers are still handing out flyers that link abortion and breast cancer--a link that's been discredited by national scientific panels." among other things.) The statement is still untrue. Please remove it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:03, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The sense appears to be that they are moving to a new "medical model" for conducting business, but in the past many have utilized deceptive advertising, and some still do. Lionel (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

The impression I get is that they try to put up the facade of being medical centers. The article says "new forms of persuasion that rely on the dispassionate language and technology of modern medicine. More centers are buying ultrasound machines, hiring medically trained staff, providing counseling on sexually transmitted diseases and taking other steps toward what one national leader calls a 'medical model' of service." It doesn't say they have rejected the provision of actual medical misinformation - far from it, it specifies the type of medical misinformation provided! I can see a way in which the content could be used, and it's interesting to see how methods have changed - however, you would have to write things that actually reflect the source, not something that's totally the opposite so you can make CPCs sound better. Personally, I think saying "CPCs try to appear as medical centers, while giving clients false information about the health risks of abortion and hiding from them the risks of childbirth" (which is what this source says) actually makes CPCs sound worse. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

This may be illustrative:

For years, people have argued about the work of crisis pregnancy centers, which have been around since before Roe v. Wade. In the late 1980s and early 1990s, complaints about graphic videos, religious harangues, false medical information and misleading advertising led to investigations and, in some states, lawsuits against centers and their staff. Now, a growing number of pregnancy support centers--many of which are affiliated with conservative Christian networks--are rejecting old-style scare tactics...

Got it? Lionel (talk) 02:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

I "get" that you're inserting your own personal spin on an article that not only doesn't say what you're claiming it does, but that actually says the opposite. Unfortunately, that violates a number of Wikipedia policies. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Serial killer#African American serial killers

Hello, Lionelt. Will you weigh in on this on the talk page, since it is your contribution? I ask that you do not revert until these issues are worked out. Flyer22 (talk) 00:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for ProtectMarriage.com

Thanks for your contribution Victuallers (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Your edits to Crisis pregnancy center

I can't really fathom what you're referring to with "stable version." There never has been consensus for "affiliated," not at any point in the article's history; perhaps you're mistakenly taking a version as "stable" because it stuck around for half a day due to 1RR? "Typically" was removed for grammar reasons (we already sad "with few exceptions" so adding "typically" as well is infelicitous). I've opened discussions in talk of "services" vs. "activities" and no one has objected to "activities," so if you're going to advocate it, kindly join and state your reasons rather than just reverting. Likewise the North Carolina quote. And why do you insist on including the Care Net quote twice, once in a section where, not being about legal action, it does not belong? It's already in the "Advertising methods" section, so it's not a question of whether or not to include it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:31, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That was a joke, right? But it's only March 17! Could you revert yourself and save it for April Fools' Day, when it might be more appropriate? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:41, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

List of ex-gay people

I have just removed several entries from the above article. In some cases, this was because the wikilinks you had created led to articles about completely different people. Even though this article is not a BLP, it still concerns living people so I thought it best to remove any source of contention. For the same reason, I removed all those entries lacking references. The "ex-gay" topic is contentious and I think this is one of those cases where we should be especially careful with verifiability and proper sourcing. I removed other entries on the grounds of notability. That someone chooses to be straight is not, I think, a sufficient reason for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Happy editing. LordVetinari (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks. I didn't even know that the project you mention existed. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:24, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, List of ex-gay people

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.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, List of ex-gay people. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Ex-gay#People associated with the ex-gay movement. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Ex-gay#People associated with the ex-gay movement - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Bbb23 (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Too much templating: American Social Conservativism

I saw your template added at the bottom of pro-life and I removed it because the article is not solely about American concerns. I looked at your editing history to see if you were adding the template to other inappropriate articles, and it appears that you are. I have reverted your additions to nuclear family and Anti-pornography movement in the United States because those articles do not have any established connection to conservatism. Those topics are claimed by liberals, too, so the template doesn't fit. It's like a flag stuck in the sand claiming territory, but the territory does not belong to American Social Conservatives. Binksternet (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Please avoid 1RR violations on Abortion-related articles, per the community-imposed general sanctions. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Woa. I was editing a zillion artices & cats, working more or less in a vacuum, and thought I was adding the template for the first time! Didn't even realize it had been reverted. Lionel (talk) 22:08, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:American Social Conservatism

Template:American Social Conservatism has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Expansion

Not sure of the backstory here, but expension by 5x applies whatever the size beforehand as long as after the erxpansion it is > 1500. Victuallers (talk) 22:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Yes you can, 2,3,4 or more editors can share credit, why do you worry about this? "Credit" is not in short supply Victuallers (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC) Its up to the nominator really - I can see that the credit may not be "fair" but life is short. I'd encourage you to move on and concentrate on making sure you feel good about all the credit you have received unless you feel someone is clearly and repeatedly breaking the rules. Victuallers (talk) 23:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC) The person who puts the proposed hook in the DYK queue is called "the nominator" and that person decides who the author or authors are Victuallers (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pro-life movement

Template:Pro-life movement has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Binksternet (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Now moved to User:Lionelt/Pro-life movement. Feel free to move it (or I can move it) to WikiProject space if you feel as though having it in your own userspace does not encourage collaborative editing. However, by my reading of the discussion, the consensus is that this should not be used in article space until concerns about the "global nature" and placement of the template are resolved to some level of consensus. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:25, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Lionel (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Couple of things

1. I reverted your addition of the new template to Live action; that's an article about live-action films/TV, you meant Live Action (organization).
2. ??

Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a stub. It can use all the help it can get. Besides, the nav box looked pretty there. Lionel (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

PhGustaf has no sense of humor. No Filet for him. Lionel (talk) 23:23, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I mean I actually have no idea what you're talking about in that diff, even with the edit summary. It seems like a total non-sequitur. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You know... Ah ha! There is POV in the article afterall! As it turns out placing the POV tag is justified. Etc etc etc. Lionel (talk) 23:28, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I disagree that it's a POV problem in that sentence - I just think it's not very aesthetically pleasing because it repeats the same words. But like I said, I just didn't want to remove anyone else's text; what do you think of the shorter and less redundant/obvious wording I proposed? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Exodus International

Read through the section you deleted again and could see no reason for it to be deleted and so i have restored it because of this. Please give a reason next time. Thanks Jenova20 09:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Friends

You have one! Maybe benji? - Haymaker (talk) 14:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... I don't think his comment was directed at me. I hope he's a friend: I need all the friends I can get. Maybe he'll check out TFD. Lionel (talk) 21:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the invitation

I'm not entirely sure that I'm the sort of person you want for Wikiproject:Conservatism. My political beliefs are all over the place. And the amount of time I'd have to devote to the project would be sporadic at best. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Your warning of Jenova

Hi Lionelt. I'm Jenova20's adopter. I noticed your revert of his edit, and leaving of a level 1 disruption template. I'm a little unsure about how the comment was disruptive, as it not only matched the source, but it was clear that the names were not real. I understand the need to revert, but am not sure that the notice was inappropriate. I'm wondering if I'm missing something terribly disruptive? Also, given the length of Jenova's talk page and 3 months service, is a template which is aimed at brand new users really appropriate? "Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines." seems a little inappropriate to me. Worm^TT · (talk) 22:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello Worm. Even though they been here 3 mos, they have demonstrated they know their way around. Online petitions are notoriously unreliable. And this is a primary source. And it's obvious that this source does not have editorial oversight. Jenova knew this. How? Because I tagged it as such. A tag which she removed. They justified the addition in their edit summary with this "Added a bit of fun to the article." They knew this was going to cause trouble. As a matter of fact, I believe I AGF and showed restraint, had this been an IP I would've left a vandalism template. Lionel (talk) 22:17, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't see he'd removed a tag about the source, like I say, I agree with the revert. I'll have a word. Cheers. Worm^TT · (talk) 07:33, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Lionel WP:AGF

Please do not refer to me as a she as it is not only unconstructive, but also offensive.

I did clearly add "Added a bit of fun to the article." to make it clear that i thought the edit would be in good humor as it offends no one.

I posted on the talk page twice before changing that section and you gave no input udespite reverting the section, at which time i posted on your talk page with no response and explaining my actions, again with no response.

You have gone completely overboard here as i have explained my actions from the start and you have ignored them completely until posting the notice on my talk page.

Jenova20 08:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have a female friend named Jenova: my mistake. Lionel (talk) 23:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User Talk:Jenova20's talk page. Worm^TT · (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, it's sorted now.

Just try not to be so heavy handed in future cos i can forgive and forget.

Jenova20 19:46, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A helpful note

I'm not sure it's a good idea to include opposition to pornography as a subcategory of the new "conservatism by issue" cat. Certainly it would deserve a mention in an article or perhaps a navbox, but you may notice that the category Category:Anti-pornography activists contains people like Andrea Dworkin and Sheila Jeffreys, who are not conservative by any stretch of the imagination. Put simply, this opposition cuts across traditional political lines: some people oppose it because they don't like sex and some people oppose it because they believe it degrades women, and while both those groups could fairly be categorized as "anti-pornography activists," they certainly can't all be categorized as conservatives. May I suggest removing it and focusing on other issues that are more definitely conservative (immigration, financial deregulation) and in the meantime perhaps asking at a WikiProject or two for help on dealing with this issue? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The Dworkin and Jeffreys pages are not categorized in the conservatism by issue cat. They are not in any conservatism cats. The New Right [1] as well as the Christian Right are involved in anti-porn. That is why the cat anti-porn was placed in conservatism by issue. This isn't about conservative people per se: anti-porn is a conservative issue, just as it is a feminist issue. It is any less a conservative issue because it is shared with feminists? No. The solution is to also place the anti-porn cat in feminism by issue. Lionel (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

As I explained, the Dworkin and Jeffreys articles are in the conservatism by issue cat, because they're in a subcat of it. Hmm...the same problem would exist if an "opposition to pornography" cat were put in between "conservatism by issue" and "anti-pornography activists," but at least it would be at one remove (and be better in terms of an organized categorization tree). (Splitting it into "Conservative opposition to/opponents of pornography" and "Feminist opposition to/opponents of pornography," or whatever wording, could be another option - though irregular, it may be a means of dealing with the way in which this messes up traditional alignments.) What do you think? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

They are in the conservatism-by-issue tree, not the cat. And, it's perfectly appropriate to be in the tree because they have adopted a socially conservative issue. Being in the tree in no way means that you are conservative politically. Another example of lefties who have adopted a socially conservative issue, but remained lefties nonetheless, is Dems For Life. The distinction between conservative people & orgs and socially conservative issues is an important one. Perhaps the cat would be better as "Social conservatism by issue," but I had hoped to add fiscal conservatism issues as well. Btw there is also a disctinction between conservatism and "conservative", but then that's another thread.Lionel (talk) 01:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Dems for Life example, added to the feminist anti-pornography activists, serves to suggest that a "Conservatism by issue" cat tree might be a problem. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:39, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Los Angeles County Young Democrats

An article that you have been involved in editing, Los Angeles County Young Democrats , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:00, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Misleading, disruptive

Your edit at SBA List changed more than your edit summary of "tense". You ignored a discussion going on at Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List#Scholars and changed the first phrase to the second:

• ...pro-choice activists "concerned that their heroine is being appropriated," and scholars of nineteenth-century feminism pointing out that Anthony did not work against abortion and that the quotes SBA List cites are misattributed or taken out of context.
• ...pro-choice activists "concerned that their heroine is being appropriated," and a scholar of nineteenth-century feminism pointing out that Anthony did not work against abortion and that the quotes SBA List cites are misattributed or taken out of context. (emphasis added)

This is a problem of singular vs. plural, not verb tense. The larger problem is that you have not taken part in the discussion; you have not given your opinion about the issue of there being multiple scholars raising their voices on the issue, ones that NYyankees51 took out of the article. Your change to singular "a scholar" is against WP:NPOV in that it tries to lessen the impact of wider criticism by making it look small. Please revert your change. Binksternet (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Article for deletion debate

The article Young Conservatives of Texas has been nominated for deletion at AfD. Your input as to whether or not this article meets Notability standards is invited. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 16:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What does it feel like?

To know, with absolute certainty, that society will evolve past you and leave you by the wayside? 98.246.154.135 (talk) 11:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Friends, Pedians, countrymen, lend me your eyes

To the 30+ colleagues, and wikistalkers, who watch my talkpage with baited breath, who rush here every morning to see what's new with Lionelt, today is a momentous day for me. I was beginning to wonder if it would ever happen. I had almost given up hope. My thoughts occastionally drifted to the Proverb, "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but a longing fulfilled is a tree of life." Well, my longing has been fulfilled. My talkpage has been vandalized in the section immediately above. Not a particularly witty or erudite piece of vandalism, I must say, but I'll take it nonetheless. Maybe we can encourage 98.246.154.135 to come back and make a better showing of himself. Do not let my cavalier attitude deceive you: I am wounded, to the core. I may not recover from this. The blow, I fear, may be mortal. Anyway, many of you have probably already realized that this wanton, unprovoked and despicable act of vandalism presents a new problem for me: where is the "This talk page has been vandalized 1 time" userbox when you need it. Lionel (talk) 23:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

There's a variety of 'em listed here. Cheers, --joe decker^{talk to me} 02:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Burkie Barnstar

		The Burkie Barnstar
		Thanks to Lionelt for the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism and this barnstar, and for your improvements to these articles.   Will Beback  talk  11:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Really cool. Looks nice if I do say so myself. Lionel (talk) 00:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Cottrell1.jpeg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Cottrell1.jpeg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. --Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Cottrell Trio photo

Hello. An image you uploaded has been listed for deletion discussion; see Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cottrell Trio.jpeg. Thank you. Infrogmation (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Spadework

Hi there again, please let me know how I can help out in the collaborative effort you mentioned last week. I'm actually pretty inexperienced when it comes to getting articles up to GA standard but might be able to help out in terms of spadework, copy editing, etc. Cheers Jprw (talk) 08:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Mark Steyn

Regarding this edit, if you look, I had restored the "self described" consensus twice before. But Medeis reverted me, in the same manner the anon ips inserted the same material. I'm not saying they are the same person, but it does seem strange. In any case, I believe you know the editor in question, since he seemed to be asking for some reinforcement for removing the "self described" caveat. But, as you stated, the consensus was there for it. All of this background is for me asking why your edit states "Undid revision 425109720 by DD2K (talk)....", when you did not "undo" my edit? Sorry if this is nit-picking, but it is guidelines for edit summaries to be descriptive of the edit, and your edit most certainly was not an "undo". Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

You're right! It wasn't an undo. Lionel (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, and good luck with your current endeavors. Dave Dial (talk) 16:40, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Ummm

Please explain this. BelloWello (talk) 02:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

April 2011

As a "not new user" it is important to understand the importance of being civil. While you may have read WP:CIVIL, you might not have had a template on your talk page. The template contains important information about avoiding incivility, and how to handle yourself when you are tempted to do so. The template is important to help you understand Wikipedia policies. I have remedied the situation. And by the way, Hope you enjoy the template, I hope you enjoy it. BelloWello (talk) 02:42, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Harry Hay

I feel insulted by the idea that I have refused to engage in discussion. I have made numerous attempts to engage in discussion, as you can see in the Discussion history. Yet, I have ignored. I have not ignored you. Someone continued to insist on referring to Hay as a "teacher" because of his involvement in the Communist Party. I have added citations that are removed; I repaired the vandalism and have accused of engaging in an "edit war." The original lead rambled on about Harry Hay, lacked citations, included trivia and few relevant facts, and vague generalities. I have once again updated the lead in order to give a concise opening lead that provides a clear overview of Hay's life24.23.171.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:38, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

Going to sleep

will respond tomorrow. BelloWello (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

David Lane BLP concerns

I'm not seeing whatever it is you are seeing at this reversion of the David Lane article taking out cited text. Can you explain on the article's talk page? It all seems so straightforward to me, like there is not any BLP problem. Binksternet (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

I placed a template and my concern on the Talk page on 4/27. Lionel (talk) 02:31, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Southern Adventist University

Yes, that does indeed make it easier. I was not aware that they were back at it on that page as well as the one reported. Thanks for the head's up. Kuru (talk) 01:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Your comment at Talk:Is the School House the Proper Place to Teach Raw Sex?

That's extremely inappropriate. Please redact it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:16, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Not a helpful edit summary, but thank you nonetheless. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Report Editor

Is there a way to report an editor who is cussing me out on a talk page? You have more experience at this than I do. Thanks. Fountainviewkid 20:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

See WP:DR. Good luck. Lionel (talk) 02:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe I'll just ignore like I have everything else. Oh and he accused me of being a sock puppet again. There's an investigation now into both of us. Thankfully mine's turning up nothing while his is mixed. Maybe at some point this will end. Fountainviewkid 3:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

user:BelloWello

The user did not edit Southern Adventist University under the previous account name which I know about. He did not have any active bans or blocks. However there were problems on unrelated topics. I think he is trying to make a clean start, but I have warned him that his behavior also needs to change to avoid having the same problems again.   Will Beback  talk  06:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

His former account received lots of blocks in a short period. He has now been indefinitely blocked with the master account by a checkuser. Mathsci (talk) 22:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

It looks like Bello's sock/meat puppet "Tatababy" is back at our favorite article (if not the human Bello himself?). Your help would be appreciated. Fountainviewkid 20:03, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

We have a new old problem at our favorite article. The "progressive" issue has returned again. Your comments and suggestions would be appreciated. Fountainviewkid 00:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Just an update (warning) that Bello's been unblocked. Fountainviewkid 04:20, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Daily Mail

Hi Lionelt, if you have missed the discussions around, please be aware that the Daily Mail has basically lost its reputation as a WP:RS for any controversial claims, such as the one you have used it for to replace part of your sex ring comment on the BLP noticeboard. I won't remove it again. I understand you have strong feeling about this but please take it easy with your accusations about living people on the BLP noticeboard. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 07:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Incivility from User:Bryonmorrigan, he may be referring to you. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:10, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:WQA

Hello, Lionelt. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:02, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI-Southern Adventist University

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Fountainviewkid 24:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

ANI-Southern Adventist University

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.Simbagraphix (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

This is grand! 2 months ago Bello is central to 1RR getting slapped on all abortion articles. And as soon as Bello comes off a indefinite-block 1 week block he is in the middle of an edit war that gets 1RR on Southern and Cottell. I wish he would start editing arthropods! Lionel (talk) 12:19, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Lionel I'm in full agreement with you. It's too bad you weren't at ANI to inform the other editor of BW's history. He managed to get it all erased so they were never able to see the problems he has caused. Since I don't delete my history the way he does, some editors were actually saying he was the "rational" one defending against the biased POV editors (i.e. the 3 of us). Well hopefully the community will one day see the light. Fountainviewkid 12:38, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

As another editor has stated, "it's only a matter of time...." [2] Lionel (talk) 12:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I DON'T THINK SO!

Lionel, if I could figure it out, anyone could figure it out. I think you're playing with me, aren't you? Mathsci made the link explicitly on the ANI page about Southern Adventist U, but Beeblebrox came along later and "redacted" it with no explanation. I don't mind wm1 editing under a new name so long as admins have access to his block log, etc. Kenatipo ^speak! 13:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Didn't read the item preceding this one before posting here. You do know the link. I went to wm1's userpage and it says he's retired. My response on his talk page was I DON'T THINK SO! which is where that's coming from. Kubigula, his mentor, deleted it. --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Me? Play around? Never.Lionel (talk) 22:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Did you see where I was accused of being a sockpuppet of wm1 ? I've never been more insulted in my life, lol. --Kenatipo ^speak! 14:28, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

It's horrible. We should edit WP:NPA to explicitly state that being falsely accused of being a sock of WMO or any of his multiple personalities is a personal attack and subject to indef banning. I have a lot of respect for Jasper, but if it was anyone else, I would've proposed de-sysoping!!! Lionel (talk) 23:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Lionel, tell me the truth. How long have you known BelloMello was wMo? Kenatipo ^speak! 01:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea to go into this on a public talk page. Lionel (talk) 02:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Jasper's OK. I think when I said "This user ... " he thought I was referring to myself. --Kenatipo ^speak! 01:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

[3] Kenatipo ^speak! 15:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... What am I looking at? And, I'm not being deliberately dense. Lionel (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

An admin is using a bot to replace an older username with a newer username. Kenatipo ^speak! 22:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Translation?

I've seen a lot of discussion on the retired account and various usernames that some admins are trying to keep private. I'm confused as to what exactly is going on. Care to explain? I assume this may have something to do with our Mr. disruption at the Southern article? Fountainviewkid 15:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

We may never know what is going on. And I don't think I'll express my suspicions in public. The proceedings in the smoke-filled back room of ArbCom are privileged. I will say this however: if you are an unmitigated POV edit warrior make sure your mentor has a big mop and even better if they sit on ArbCom. Lionel (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

What is going on with he who must not been named? The kid racks up more blocks than I can count, gets all abortion-related articles put on 1RR, gets a community sanction on abortion articles, comes back under a new name and escapes an indef for sockpuppetry and is still editing abortion articles. Is he a blood relative of Jimbo? Does anyone have any idea as to what is going on here and why can't we talk about it? - Haymaker (talk) 13:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

All I know is the admins have "it who must not be named's" back making it impossible to do anything. To revert this individual is to get oneself blocked. Is there any mechanism we have to deal with this? Fountainviewkid 15:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC

All I know is the admins have "it who must not be named's" back making it impossible to do anything. To revert this individual is to get oneself blocked. Is there any mechanism we have to deal with this? Fountainviewkid 15:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC

It's frustrating to say the least. To my knowledge the mechanism is WP:DR. If When there is another issue disruption with him I would expect hope that the prior disruption would be taken into account (WP:ILLEGIT, WP:SCRUTINY), and he would be dealt with as the POV warrior he is. Lionel (talk) 21:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

NAMBLA

Please join in the discussion page for the article on NAMBLA concerning the deletion that you recently made. Thanks. Pjefts (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

FYI

I mentioned you here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Admin closure needed. Mathsci (talk) 05:18, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Now superseded by other not unrelated events. Mathsci (talk) 05:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Lionel (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts...

Hiya! I'm wondering if perhaps we should keep in mind that there are numerous new and semi-new editors who simply haven't gotten a full grasp of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines and rules? On top of that, many people simply do not work in a collaborative fashion "in real life" - much less when writing. If you suspect that BelloWello may be such a person, perhaps we can turn their enthusiasm in the correct direction. We were all new editors once... and while I'm decent at copy-editing (and co-earned a couple GAs with my adoptees), and halfway decent at understanding the policies, that's because I chose to spend most of my time here fighting vandalism, where I actually need a decent understanding of them. I doubt BW fits that criteria - nor has your experience in the large amount of article work you've contributed to. So, I'm not sure if I'm AGF'ing to the point of silliness on my part, but I am willing to help out if you all need a hand in collaborating, and will do my best to keep things going in the right direction. Best, Rob ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:07, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Ummm, yeah... I just found the previous ANI's... :-/ ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 06:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just A Question

What happened to the Traditional Marriage Movement page? On what grounds did liberal editors oppose it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dantai Amakiir (talk • contribs) 00:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

[4] I was on wikibreak when this happened. Obviously should've been No consensus. Anyway, I've been contemplating writing a AfD-proof version. I suspect user:Haymaker has a version off-wiki. Lionel (talk) 00:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

One-sided WP:CON invites

I recommend that when you encounter two editors disputing in an article about a conservative topic, you invite both editors to WikiProject Conservatism. Obviously both are interested in the conservative topic, and inviting only the editor with the conservative viewpoint is increasing the likelihood that the project will get deleted as a stealth resurrection of the Conservative Noticeboard rather than as a genuine WikiProject. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Ros, however both you and Bink have participated at WT:Right, and Bink is even a member. There are many members who might describe themselves as left-leaning, not that that matters, and even Bello of all people is participating in the historic first-ever Collaboration. The main purpose of WP:Right, the only one that matters anyway, is completely in alignment with WP policies: to create Featured Articles. Lionel (talk) 02:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

This reply of yours does not address the point, that inviting only neo-cons to the group will skew it, stacking it in favor of a political viewpoint. There is no remit at Wikipedia to create political parties under the guise of a WikiProject. Binksternet (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Lionelt: I was referring to TyrS and Kaldari - you're quite correct that both Bink and I are already aware of the project's existence. :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Update!

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Wookiebookie = More Benji! How much free time does this guy have? - Haymaker (talk) 13:13, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Welcome

Lionelt, I want to say hello and welcome,

I dont know if you are SDA but I hope to see your work as I check some of the Adventist pages and working with us on Southern Adventist University and maybe even help us with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Seventh-day Adventist Church.Simbagraphix (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the very kind and gracious note. I know many of my wikistalkers, based on my editing, will find this incredibly hard to believe, but I am Roman Catholic. Yes, it's true! I know my wikistalkers are in shock and awe right about now. That said, I have never let my faith in the one and only true God affect my editing. I have endeavored to edit with a NPOV. And for the most part I think I have been successful: anyone who has worked with me will tell you that I am the most fair and balanced editor they know. Well I've done it. I'm out of the closet. Feels good. Lionel (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

On this sage occasion I find I must share a religious joke that may get a grin from the Catholics:

A Jewish couple has a son who was a holy terror. He was kicked out of every school they put him in. Desperate, the father went to the rabbi who said to put him in a Catholic school. Shocked but without alternatives, the father enrolled him at St. Gertrude's and left him with the nuns.
After a full day at school the son comes home and says "Good afternoon Papa, good afternoon Mama," goes to the kitchen table and starts on his homework. The father is amazed and asks why he stayed in school all day, and why he is behaving so well. His son looks up and says "Papa, after you left, the Mother Superior told me that they did not allow rowdy boys, then she showed me the chapel, the lunchroom, and my classroom. Papa they mean business! They've got a Jew nailed on a cross in every room!"

Consider yourself joked. Binksternet (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Funny!!! Lionel (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Talk:Eurabia.
Message added 19:12, 5 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

22:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realize you left me messages before

Sorry, I didn't realize you left me messages before. How then would you suggest is the most appropriate way to explain and denote the very valid and factual addition to The Zach Stark controversy, which is that he's finally speaking out in this documentary. This controversy, over Zach has been immensely important. Now that he's officially speaking out in this documentary I was trying to find the best way to note this. Sorry if I did it wrong, it was just frustrating that you kept deleting it, and that the only other reference to Zach and this documentary (which addresses the very section/title on that page) has been deleted off this page several times. Seems suspicious like trying to hide facts. Thats all. I appreciate any fair help you can give me to post the facts and continue the history that's already stated and being left on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billylessene (talk • contribs) 01:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	For your never tiring work at project Conservatism. I stumble upon your work where ever I go and it is of a very high quality. (This is coming from a liberal) Cheers Guerillero | My Talk 18:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Pipim

Hi Lionel,

The Samuel Koranteng-Pipim article is getting some source and speculation problems. Several people should help guard the article from speculators and rumormongers, IMO. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:02, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not gonna template you

However, I did revert your edit to Talk:The Political Cesspool, since it made no sense and you did not explain it in your edit summary. --19:49, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Ddiaz841

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at MC10's talk page.
Message added 21:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—mc10 (t/c) 21:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Veriss1's talk page.
Message added 00:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Veriss (talk) 00:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Talk:Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Message added 04:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I posted my rebuttal Veriss (talk) 04:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Talk:Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
Message added 09:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I know you are busy with all of your violation reports that you have filed so perhaps you have forgotten about this one. I posted my rebuttal and stated why I feel your report is frivolous and that you failed to perform due diligence but you have failed to respond after two days. Please find time in your busy schedule to reply to the rebuttal and your peer's comments. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Veriss (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Featured portal candidacy

Hi, I've left comments at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Conservatism. You can just reply there, rather than here or at my talk page, as I have the nomination watchlisted. Bencherlite^Talk 17:54, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Conservatism at Catholic Church talk page

But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed
-Luke 14:13

Hi, Lionel. When Sarek removed the Project Conservatism template (put there by bot) from the Catholic Church talk page, he quoted the Gospel passage about "When you give a banquet, don't invite people who would invite you to a banquet". [5]. I asked Sarek what he meant but he decided to be inscrutable, so, I responded scrutably. [6]. Do you have any idea what he was getting at? (I'd still like to know) and, Does that template belong on the page? I appreciate your time and your thoughts. --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, few of the people who identify as conservative observe the principles taught in that biblical quote. Therefore, it didn't seem appropriate that that article would fall under the project's scope.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Your answer is so astounding that I hardly know where to start! My advice would be to get more experience by considerably broadening your circle of associates. I don't know what else to say. --Kenatipo ^speak! 02:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

(Historical footnote: the previous version was much more entertaining. Lionel, you did the right thing though. Always give an alien the benefit of the doubt; his thought patterns aren't quite the same as ours.) --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Sarek, I assume all your lodge brothers are good fellows. Is not a single one of them conservative? --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

And, of the conservatives you know, do they regularly share with you the details of their charitable contributions so you know with certainty how much they're doing to "feed the hungry, clothe the naked, shelter the homeless ..."? or, like most people, do they keep that information pretty much to themselves? --Kenatipo ^speak! 20:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Mediation around Abortion articles location

After the latest move request has landed up with about equal numbers for both sides I've started a mediation request. Please indicate there if you wish to participate. Thanks. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Abortion mediation

Hello. I am asking if you would consider reviewing my comments that I have listed on the mediation page, and giving your feedback on them. While I realise that the current discussion has only been open for a week, it has been one that has been the subject of multiple discussions in the past, with the same things, on both sides, being said over and over again, and I feel a clean break from both suggested article names would be the best way to resolve this dispute. Are you willing to work with me on this one? I want this dispute to be closed once and for all, and feel my proposal is reasonable, but need a willingness to compromise on this. Discussions are, from my assessment, more or less split down the middle, and it appears unlikely to me that one of the existing names will be agreed upon by the majority of users. That's why I've suggested an alternative. There's no point continuing a discussion if it's clear that there's no consensus for either of the options listed, so I feel mediation could bring a final resolution to this matter. As you've said on the article talk page, "There is no consensus for option 1, nor for option 2.", so I'm proposing a third option, which seems to have support. Please consider that option, I'd appreciate your input on the matter. Thanks. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 06:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot requests.
Message added 16:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Lionelt. Just letting you know that I responded to your request. Tim1357 ^talk 16:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Abortion lede

Please take a look at the abortion lede. 71.3.237.145 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC).

talkback

Hello. You have a new message at LordVetinari's talk page. LordVetinari 03:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Ng Yi-Sheng

Just letting you know I have challenged your CSD A7 on Ng Yi-Sheng. In my opinion, both winning awards, and having your works published in multiple compilation books are indications of importance sufficient to survive CSD A7. I have no objection if you want to pursue an alternative deletion process. Monty₈₄₅ 00:24, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RE: WikiAd

Sure! Any particular design, style, etc. you guys are looking for? m.o.p 13:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Pipim

What is going on at the Pipim article? Why is one admin single-handedly removing all kinds of good paragraphs without giving us time to add sources? This is becoming problematic. Thoughts?--Fountainviewkid (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Due to WP:BURDEN I presume. Read the policy. Then find sources for the content you want to keep. Add a section to the talk page, add {{editprotected}}, and add the sources. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:50, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thankfully Hope has been great. We've both been finding a ton of quality sources. The nice thing is Pipim has been out there so much that it's easy to find material on him. And I have some of his books or books he's helped with for more good sources. Bello's two favorite websites Spectrum and Adventist Today even have a lot on him. Thanks for your help.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Samuel Koranteng-Pipim

I have removed your comments on the talk page. Please keep discussion on Wikipedia professional and never claim people will be blocked for something. Brandon (talk) 03:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand could 50.72.159.224 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) be BelloWello editing logged off while on holiday? Looks a bit like it to me in view of his knowledge of the blog in question and his more recent editing patterns. Mathsci (talk) 04:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of which, I think something went wrong with your last edit. Please self-revert. Mathsci (talk) 04:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Somebody else did. :) Mathsci (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Fountain is the fastest kid in the wiki. Btw IP also shares WMOs fixation with Generation of Youth for Christ. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a fixation with conservative vs progressive + the obsessive editing. On the hand why did you write that WMO is banned on the AfD? That doesn't seem to be true. Mathsci (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I forgot. – Lionel ^(talk) 05:02, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

There seem to have been contradictory actions from Brandon (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), who is a checkuser, and SarekofVulcan. SoV declined to semiprotect Generation of Youth for Christ, but Brandon did so later on the grounds of excessive sockpuppetry. The main IP involved was 50.72.159.224, so perhaps he thinks he is a sock. Brandon also rejected as spamming the multiple requests on the Pipim talk page. Interestingly he also blocked Letsgocrazytogether (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sock. He has edited an article which you will see is very close to BW's interests: his blog is again used as a source. Time will tell what is going on here, but it is reassuring that a checkuser is involved and matters have calmed down since earlier. Mathsci (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism is really good idea. Milan M. (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. – Lionel ^(talk) 09:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I saw what you did there.

Heh. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

You're a Mathsci sockpuppet, aren't you? Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That also is a personal attack. I have a lot on my place right about now, I hope you don't mind but, can you wait a day or so for me to template you? Or do you have to have it right now?– Lionel ^(talk) 09:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I warned. DMacks (talk) 09:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And eventually wound up indef'ing with talkpage disabled too. DMacks (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Daniel murphy high school logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Daniel murphy high school logo.jpg. 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).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry things are going the way they are.

Deleting the warning I gave you, and/or ignoring the advice, is certainly your prerogative. Hopefully, when heads are cooler, you can step back and see what I was trying to tell you. Best, LHM 06:31, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I make dozens of edits a day. Once in a while I don't really notice what I've done until after I "Save page." In this case I didn't notice that this was a signed post. After I saved I realized it was signed. That's when I self-reverted. You should've just AGF. This really isn't a big deal. Coincidentally I won't be editing SDA articles with any regularity--but not because of your advice, but due to a certain disruptive editor being dispatched. I am confident that the remaining editors will do what's best for SDA. From the quick glance I took at your contribs I think you doing a great job and look forward to working with you in the future. – Lionel ^(talk) 06:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

IP not banned

What do you think about the result of the banning of Bello? If you notice it didn't include the IP or a couple of other user page socks. Do you have any suggestions if action should be taken? --Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty broken up about the whole thing. I'm going to miss Bello. I just think he was misunderstood. I kinda thought we were on the verge of a breakthrough in our relationship. I take full responsibility for things not working out. It was my fault--not his--but mine--all mine. You know deep deep deep deep inside Bello was just a lonely editor looking for attention. It's not his fault his need for attention drove him to try to destroy Wikipedia. He was just a crazy, mixed up, far far far far far left-wing, paranoid, obsessive compulsive kid. Hey--noone's perfect. In his own way, he was kinda cute. Yea, I know he called me a "cunt," but he didn't mean it. Whereever you are Bello I forgive you!!! We can only hope and pray that somehow he comes back. If only he could've used his talent for good instead of badness (sic). – Lionel ^(talk) 23:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I can see that. And you went so far as to accusing him of being an "ass". Such "degenerative" behavior should make you ashamed. You should back away from any position where you are in opposition to the "elite" position....or else.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• This kind of gloating and battleground mentality is way out of line. Bello (with all of his various socks) was justly blocked from editing. Why the need to proverbially "dance on his grave"? LHM 00:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

No dancing on the grave here. Just engaging in a bit of mock sympathy, a very human action considering all of the horrors inflicted upon us by the now deceased. Why need you come over here and create a WP:BATTLEGROUND? Let Lionel enjoy his talk page if he so chooses.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 00:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

If any POV pushers, edit warriors, sockmasters, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, lefties or Asinuses were or ever are offended by my irreverent commentary above then I offer my most sincere, genuine and heartfelt apology. And to make appropriate amends I permit exactly 1 act of vandalism by any of the aforementioned not-protected classes of POV pushers, edit warriors, sockmasters, sockpuppets, meatpuppets, lefties or Asinuses to my userspace without fear of warning nor reprisal. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• By all means, then, carry on with the gloating. LHM 00:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

O Bello, Bello! wherefore art thou Bello? Deny thy edit warring and refuse thy name. Tis the question, Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer from thy pain.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 01:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Would you two get off the grave for a minute, please? I have with me one oaken stake, six silver bullets and a crucifix, and when I dig the sucker up, I'm going to give him a different version of the Last Rites. Seriously, though, does anyone doubt that he'll be back, sooner or later, in one form or other? --Kenatipo ^speak! 05:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I almost split my gut on that one K. Funniest thing I've seen on Wiki since NYYankees let WikiManOne have it at an abortion article. I'm gonna see if I can dig it up.
I'm betting that gently-used sonogram machine I advertised at pro-life that Bello has already returned.– Lionel ^(talk) 05:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

NYYankees was very kind and found the link for me. Bello's 2nd identity was WikiManOne--an insufferable POV edit warrior who menaced abortion articles. NYY & WMO had a hilarious exchange in Feb. Here's the link: [7]. It's a bit of a read but it's worth it. WMO gets his lights knocked out at 03:15 UTC toward the end of the section. – Lionel ^(talk) 20:08, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

You're a tough act to follow, Lionel. I read your bW eulogy out loud to my wife and she got a good laugh out of it, too. Thanks for the link to NYY vs WMO. It's funny, but so pitiful all you can do is shake your head. You think he has already returned? Give me a hint where. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh NO! Now K's wife is dancing on Bello's grave. Better call the PC police and have them arrest her. Oh wait, we don't know who she is. Thanks God for wiki anonymity. --Fountainviewkid (talk) 21:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but wait. We do know who she is. She's Mrs. Kenatipo!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 22:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

According to Google "Mrs. Kenatipo" doesn't exist.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could tell her the good news, but, paradoxically, she's a little paranoid when it comes to the Internet. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a serious question: is there a written policy about "not taking a victory lap"? --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:13, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I hate to rain on your parade folks. I worked with BW and had some very effective collaboration. Remember some words from way back, "Love your enemies." "Pray for them," I think it says. I was surprised and distressed when I became aware of some of BW's behavior. We haven't talked since these last days of distress. Wish we could have. Remember, some day our words come back to visit us. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

@Donald - for a brief moment it looked like Bello was trying to rehabilitate himself with the GA articles. But alas the dark side had too strong a hold on him.

@Kenatipo - yes there is

Re: his resurrection - at least one admin favored clemency for Bello. Bello might finagle a cleanstart. He has always had an inexplicable power of persuation over certain admins. Failing cleanstart... At GYC we saw his ability to enlist a cabal of IP meats (or socks). We saw it again with Lovetinkle. (Ironic since at one time he has a userbox proclaiming "There is no cabal".) When he gets into trouble in a topic area, he moves on to something new. Abortion -> SDA -> Democrats. I predict he'll come back and try to wreak havok in... homosexual articles. I believe it's the only topic dear to him where he hasn't yet wreaked havoc. – Lionel ^(talk) 22:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Lionel, I've re-written that part of the policy. Now it says (in its entirety): Wikipedia's hope for banned editors is that they will leave Wikipedia. --Kenatipo ^speak! 21:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll support that in RfC anyday! – Lionel ^(talk) 22:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Donald, your middle initial isn't R, it's AGF. How you do it, I will never understand. You have such sang-froid that you could have an effective collaboration with an inquisition torturer while he was applying red-hot irons to your private parts. We do pray for Salegi. We pray that he grows up. But, there's no requirement that we allow our "enemies" to bedevil us for months on end. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• Kenatipo, I appreciate your teasing. I have had what could be called a red-hot iron applied to such parts of my soul and I have not done so well in responding. Maybe that is why I have some caution now. I share your prayers for Salegi (BW). I also agree in what some call "tough love." Some of our fellow editors here have pointed out that the banning BW was necessary, very necessary but also sad. One of those editors, even today, went through all of BW's work and reverted it all. (Apparently, he came on using just an IP address, today. I think we need to protect all articles from unregistered IP editors deleting the work of registered editors.) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Lionel, if the existence of the "santorum" article is any indication, Salegi may not have any editing to do on the other articles in that area. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

• This got lost in a editing mix up: here it is again: An ancient author asked if a leopard could change its spots. It is hard for people to change. In Canada we have the Youth Criminal Justice Act. It intends to balance mercy and justice in dealing with young people who commit criminal offenses. Before that Act, they had the Young Offenders Act. I sat on a community board that ran a Young Offenders Program. I was impressed with some of the alternative solutions that were created for offending youth. I'm not sure how old Bello Wello is, but I seem to have read where he mentioned being in high school. If this is true, we especially need to seek for ways to help him mature than to despise him. Perhaps I am too soft. But how would you want your own kids treated? I don't think that BW has earned any sympathy by his behavior. I still think that what good I saw in his responses can win the day. In my opinion, God still works. Perhaps the Apostle Paul is a good example of how a person can change. Sorry about the preaching. It comes naturally, I suppose. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

A Young Offenders Program sounds ideal for Salegi BelloWello. How do we sign him up? As fate would have it, I believe he's in Vancouver right now! --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:44, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

GYC Rescue

Hi Lionel, I have been vacillating between the two options, merge or try to maintain a separate article. I have put considerable history information in the 21st Century section on the SDA history article. But, this has made it unbalanced because little has been written about the 21st Century. Much can be written but so far there is little. Hrfan has shown these weaknesses quite effectively. He has also inadvertantly taught me a refreshing WP policy called Ignore all the rules. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." I believe the GYC story and its development helps add to, or improve, Wikipedia. Your kindly counsel has been, and is, appreciated. Also, a few other editors have expressed an interest in a GYC article rescue. "An article should not be deleted just because it is ill-formed. Some writer worked hard on that article. Some reader can use that article. Those writers and readers, if reached out to, can help us preserve this worthwhile content." I plan to include this analysis on the talk pages related to this article, as a courtesy to all interested parties. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 04:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

First let's get it out of AfD. Fountain has established that Aventist Today is independent enough. The other SDA-related sources should follow suit as independent enough. With this new development and the relatively large number of Keep votes I'd be surprised if it isn't closed "No consensus." Although an admin won't say so, the nom's status as an infamous & notorious trouble-maker will also count against Delete. Then, without the pressure of deletion hanging over your heads, you SDAers can figure out what to do with it. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

• I think you might be very surprised how the discussion is closed. Sources funded by the SDA are not "independent enough", period. And quantity of keeps has no bearing on the final result, since AFD is not a vote. The keep recommendations are basically per WP:ILIKEIT. LHM 05:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Hi Lithistman, I have been rereading stuff. You refer to "sources funded by the SDA." I don't think that Adventist Today (AT) is funded by the Church. I could be wrong, but AT is strongly independent and often critical of the organized church. I don't think that the SDA Church gives funds to their critics. The issue of third party sources is complex. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• The discussion is not over yet. The "independent enough" assertion remains to be tested by the veteran editors here at Wikipedia. There are hundreds of Adventist-related articles affected by this assertion. Of course, Spectrum and Adventist Today are fiercely independent of the church. The Adventist Review and various regional church papers provide reliable, third party information. Keep in mind that independent ministries are just that "independent". Historically, church journals are essential for doing properly informed articles on a vast assortment of facts and historical events. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Lionel, if you have time, look over recent changes to the Generation of Youth for Christ article. Any help is appreciated. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hfran definitely made this one interesting, but Donald, your hard work, along with a great assist from Fountain carried the day.– Lionel ^(talk) 11:45, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Wish I could see the look on Bello's face. (Wishing in vain? By now I'm sure rigor mortis has already set in.) – Lionel ^(talk) 11:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That was a close one! Of course, it was my last eloquent plea that turned the tide, (LOL)! Donald is just unflappable in reasoning with deletionists like Hrafn. Kudos to Donald, Fountain and Lionel for the rescue, and for their work in improving the article. Jclemens argues for a different way to measure notability [8] on his talk page, right at the end of the section. --Kenatipo ^speak! 16:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

CSD A7 on Fight OUT Loud

I wanted to let you know I have challenged your WP:CSD A7 on Fight OUT Loud. In my opinion "Fight OUT Loud also led an activist campaign against former Fort Lauderdale mayor Jim Naugle after Naugle made a number of anti-gay statements. The protests and campaign led to Mayor Naugle's removal from Broward County's Tourism Board." is a sufficient claim of importance to protect the article from CSD criteria A7. Monty₈₄₅ 15:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at NYyankees51's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

17:20, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Guess who might be resurrected?

See Southern Adventist University, Ouachita Hills College, and La Sierra University. He may already be back.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

And then you go and archive my beautiful record with Bello on Pipim's article? That's rather uncalled for. I demand an apology or I might have to take it to higher levels. You are abusing your privileges as an editor and should be ashamed. All my hard work is now disappeared. Woe is me, woe is thee, woe is bello most of all.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

He's returned I believe here [9].--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I posted a notice that I reported him to SPI, but not before I plastered my custom WPConservatism Welcome to Wikipedia banner on his talk page!!! – Lionel ^(talk) 20:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Good for u. Thanks. We'll see how much editing he gets done before a new IP pops up.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 22:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Project

Thanks for your invitation to join the WikiProject. Although I'm very interested in improving conservatism related pages, I want to keep an arms length to 'inside baseball' type things in Wikipedia administration. So I have to decline. ItCanHappen (talk) 04:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject

I accepted the invite - never joined a WP before, but I'll be glad to help. Toa Nidhiki05 18:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not biting

In consideration of WP:DONTBITE, no, I will not be moving my comments from his talk page to the article page; I think it's better for him to be given a gentle explanation on the (relative) privacy of his talk page rather than to toss it out on the Talk page where a lot of people may feel the need to weigh in, perhaps without proper consideration of his newbyness. In this case, he seemed to be looking for more direct contact with those he was dealing with anyway. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:33, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. – Lionel ^(talk) 21:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Ideas for WikiProject Conservativism Collaboration

Hey there, I saw your request for suggestions for WikiProject Conservativism's next collaboration over on the WikiProject Council. I'm definitely not conservative but I'd like to see ya'll collaborate to bring Libertarian Republican or Libertarian_conservatism to GA status. You guys could bring good sourcing to those and make a difference.

Also, bravo to WikiProject Conservativism! I wish WikiProject History still had a collaboration going. --NickDupree (talk) 04:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Abortion lede consensus

Editor is flat out making up that there is more support for his prefered version of the lede, that has had hardly any support, and is a major change. Same editor has been repeatedly told an RFC is needed first. I have reverted back to the consensus version but I won't be dragged into an edit war on this.[[10]],[[11]] Could you run an RFC? DMSBel (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Please give a read over this. You are not in any position to make remarks about other users' conduct as you did here. If you've got any questions, let me know. m.o.p 06:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Post was intended to be humorous (see Wikipedia:Humor#Humor_outside_of_articles). The entire thing was absurd, couldn't you tell? I actually think Anupam was flattered. If he doesn't object do you mind if I restore it?

My mistake, sarcasm doesn't carry well across the Internet - hopefully you understand why I was concerned. But, if you're both in on the joke, I suppose it's okay, though that sort of stuff is probably best done on user talk pages, not in view of other editors (lest someone make my mistake).

Apologies again, though. If I tell a fart joke, will you forgive me? m.o.p 04:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'll even forgive you if you really fart!! (Flatulence also doesn't carry well over the Internet, yuk yuk) – Lionel ^(talk) 04:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Joke all you want, cable-transmitted smells are a real danger! m.o.p 04:53, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

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

  — Jess· Δ♥ 05:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Raymond Burr

The "balance" tag you added to Raymond Burr results in a message that says that one viewpoint is being overemphasized. Is that what you think the problem is? Do you have a problem with the view that RB was gay?

From the comment you left on the talk page and what you wrote in the edit field, your objection seems to be that the 'amount of coverage is the problem, not the point of view. In that case I think the tag you want is "cleanup-weighted" and perhaps in the right location "expand section" or "missing information". Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

If you click on the link in the tag it takes you to WP:UNDUE. There is undue weight being placed on his sexuality, and his career is being neglected. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

The discussion there is about giving undue weight to differing viewpoints'. It's about not giving more weight to minority views than is appropriate. That's not what you object to. You have identified no opposing viewpoint, minority or otherwise.

Your object is to the depth of coverage of different aspects of his life. The "cleanup-weighted" tag produces a message that is exactly in line with what you are saying:

I'll copy this to the RB Talk page, too. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Interested in helping Gihan Sami Soliman article survive?

Hi Lionel,

I have been notified that the Gihan Sami Soliman article needs some help. It was a random notification, I know nothing about the article or her, not much anyway. From what I have read so far, she is a young Egyptian trying to improve her country and has a significant vision, but her efforts have only begun. She is the principal of a school and has started an educators' association. But, the notability of the article is under scrutiny. I think the article began today? Another problem, the news sources sited are in Arabic and the news agency is being questioned whether it is a reliable source. I would appreciate your help, if you are at all interested. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gihan_Sami_Soliman

"according to Catholic News Service it is 'editorially independent and a financially self-sustaining'"

This isn't related in any way to the reasons I provided for removing any of that text, so would you care to provide an actual rationale for restoring self-published nonsense and sentences not supported by cited sources? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:26, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Inviting new project members

I deleted an invitation you offered to an editor who wrote non-neutral material in a biography of a living person. You restored the invitation. We are both members of the project, so who gets to say whether a person is invited if there is disagreement about it? I consider it the prerogative of any project member to veto an invitation; that is, all invitations are good until challenged by another project member, and such challenged ones are always withdrawn. Otherwise the question must be answered: which project member can overrule others? Binksternet (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of anyone being able to veto anyone else's extension of an invitation; the problem, as I've said before, is the attempt at a stealth resurrection of the Conservative Noticeboard through the issuing of invitations to editors based on personal POV. Basically, my view on the situation is that Bink was wrong to remove the invitation, but Lionelt was also wrong to place it. If this artificial stacking of the project doesn't stop, it will probably end up at a larger and more unpleasant venue than personal talkpages. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:50, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

"Which member can overrule others?" Well, if it's a talkpage: noone. From WP:TPO:

Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page. Striking text constitutes a change in meaning, and should only be done by the user or someone acting at their explicit request.
Editing – or even removing – others' comments is sometimes allowed. But you should exercise caution in doing so, and normally stop if there is any objection.

I'm officially registering my objection to your editing my comment about the project on the user talkpage and request that you revert yourself. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:14, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Beware the WP:Boomerang effect of that action. Your history will be examined; the practice of inviting only editors who share your extreme right-wing social conservative views. Binksternet (talk) 02:18, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

DO NOT REFACTOR MY POSTS– Lionel ^(talk) 02:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Right. Got it. How do you explain this? Binksternet (talk) 18:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

I exercised caution. He didn't object. To the contrary he was appreciative. All within policy. – Lionel ^(talk) 23:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

I should have posted a neutral call for help to begin with. Thanks. Mamalujo (talk) 22:41, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

NPA

Calling editors you disagree with anti-Catholic constitutes a personal attack and will not make your position look any better. Cut it out, please. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

FYI

There appears to be a non-member of "Project Conservatism" on a run to downgrade project importance ratings for various articles. I'm not sure how all that works, but I thought I'd drop a dime on it. Rgds JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Yep, he's on a crusade. I reverted most of his changes, but you should address it. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by December 21, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 05:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

What's the big deal?

Since when is one single rv an "edit war"? You should know better than to template me on that. Please stop. Thanks.Devilishlyhandsome (talk) 22:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: July 2011

Hello. You have a new message at Knowzilla's talk page.

Canvass

No, it's not a violation. Here is the relevant policy:

Appropriate notification

An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion might place a message at one of the following:

• The talk page of one or more WikiProjects (or other Wikipedia collaborations) directly related to the topic under discussion.
• A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions.
• On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion (particularly if the discussion concerns complaints about user behaviour).
• On the talk pages of concerned editors. Examples include editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics), who are known for expertise in the field, or who have asked to be kept informed. The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it. Do not send notices to too many users, and do not send messages to users who have asked not to receive them.

Ideally, such notices should be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title, clear in presentation, and brief—the user can always find out more by clicking on the link to the discussion.

Inappropriate notification

The following behaviours are regarded as characteristic of inappropriate notification (and may be seen as disruptive):

• Spamming: Posting an excessive number of messages to individual users, or to users with no significant connection to the topic at hand.[1]
• Campaigning: Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner.
• Vote-stacking: Posting messages to users selected based on their known opinions (which may be made known by a userbox, user category, or prior statement).[2] Vote-banking involves recruiting editors perceived as having a common viewpoint for a group, similar to a political party, in the expectation that notifying the group of any discussion related to that viewpoint will result in a numerical advantage, much as a form of prearranged vote stacking.
• Stealth canvassing: Contacting users off-wiki (by e-mail, for example) to persuade them to join in discussions (unless there is a specific reason not to use talk pages)
• Soliciting support other than by posting direct messages, such as using a custom signature with a message promoting a specific position on any issue being discussed.

The editor is NOT obligated to inform EVERYBODY. The notification was posted in an appropriate location using appropriate neutral language, as specifically allowed in the policy cited above. If you think editors on other articles should be notified, no one is stopping you, as long as you follow the policy to the tee as Knowzilla did. Feel free to copy and paste his notification word for word. Just make sure the pages you post to are truly directly related to the topic under discussion, and that you use non-manipulative language. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Groupthink

I appreciate your input. Could you please add a note stating which source (or sources) you feel most strongly supports inclusion on the talk page? Thanks. aprock (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by December 21, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion RFAR

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:27, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Doma Affidavit and Ex-gay movement article

Hi! Just wanted to let you know I have put in the new link for the document that was deadlinked. I did it as a revert (probably should have chosen "undo" though), simply because rvt/undo and swapping the link was easier than me recreating an entire ref. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Young Out Here

Hello Lionelt. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Young Out Here, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not unambiguous advertising (can be cleaned without a fundamental rewrite). Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 06:15, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"gotta keep beating the living sh*t out of them"

It doesn't matter how jokingly you meant it. Saying this about other Wikipedia editors is so far beyond the bounds of acceptable discourse. Don't do it again, please. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok.– Lionel ^(talk) 00:13, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't mention it. – Lionel ^(talk) 00:17, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

I just now saw this, thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

If people act like a clueless newbie then DON'T expect me not to template them

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

@Hrafn--FYI I'm not a fan of trout--too many bones. Anyway, I'm going to freeze this and have it for Lent. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

DonaldRichardSands has been acting like a clueless newbie on Leonard R. Brand, committing just about every content non-no under the sun: WP:WEASELing, WP:EDITORIALising, unsourced claims, unreliable sources, WP:Original research, WP:Synthesis -- you name it, he's done it. Additionally, he has been very poor in responding to issues on article talk. so darn tootin' I'll tag him -- and keep tagging him until he starts behaving like a "regular" should (which should generally obviate any need for such tags). Please don't post warnings on my user talk that have no basis in policy or common sense. See WP:Do template the regulars for a alternate look at things. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 05:09, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hi Lionel and Hrafn. Thanks for caring enough to comment. Hrafn, I like the fish. In a recent encounter I told Hrafn to put as many tags on my edits as he wanted to. Just don't take away hard-won paragraphs and their citations. Hrafn is a member of my imaginary WP: Dutch Uncle club. He is also teaching me what a weasel word is. I don't quite understand the concept; need to do more reading. I do behave like a Newbie. Hrafn has also said he is tired of my Clueless Outraged Virgin routine. I have googled that term and it seems that Hrafn may have made it up. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Am I Clueless, yes and no. Obviously too Clueless for Hrafn. But, I look at it this way, Hrafn is a battle hardened warrior here at Wikipidia. Like an evangelist I once met, a member of the Brethren denomination. He specialized in tent evangelism in obscure rural settings. As I visited with him and learned his story, I respected him far more. That kind of evangelism makes a man of stature out of a person. Hrafn is a Wikipedia evangelist. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Am I 'Outraged'? Only after I came on line and found my hard won efforts deleted including the citation. In fact, I got so outraged that I considered seeking Conflict Resolution. But, alas, the policy says we must try to talk it out first. So, I finally made use of the article talk page. We hashed it out and still disagree. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Am I a Wikipedia virgin? No. But when a person gets married, that whole first year is called the honeymoon. So, not a virgin; I've been married to Wikipedia for seven months. Hrafn has for four strong-minded years. Imagine how much an aggressive confrontational person can learn in four years. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• I think I have become a WP: addict. For the Brand article I stayed at it night and day; hardly sleeping. After Hrafn and I had our encounter, I decided that I needed to let go of the attempt to save it and let the admin decide its fate. I did a few last tweaks of the article and then have let it all alone. It feels wonderful. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 20:42, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

• I have modified my plan: I am still addicted to discovery. I find it intellectully rewarding to study Brand's story. I am continuing to study him, but I don't plan to be involved in the day by day skirmishes. For the record, I may do a few additions but only after I have worked offline for most of the time. Hrafn, I plan to try to resolve the issues mentioned in the tags. I have noted how you have removed some already. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Civility

Lionelt, where do we complain about lack of civility? Take a look at Talk:A_Catholic_Statement_on_Pluralism_and_Abortion#Article_too_big. Roscelese is pretty much impossible to deal with. This is after she hurled "supid", "n00b", "LOL your sources", "What the hell do you think you're doing", "don't waste our time". She can't disagree with us without making personal attacks. She can't accept diversity of opinions. Editing an article in which she is present is a pain. -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikiquette alert about User:Roscelese

Hello, Lionelt. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Notability within a notable organization.

Hi Lionel, have you (or anyone reading this) ever seen a discussion about an organization and an individual being notable because they are a leader in it. Remember the work to save GYC. How did that happen? Regarding Brand: In 1978, he convinced the SDA church to approve the programs he had set up for Loma Linda in paleontology and geology. This forward thinking has caused a whole generation of graduates to be more informed. That seems notable. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: GYC-- it was sourced to Spectrum & AToday. Several Keep votes. I think it helped that it was nominated by a sock. However IMO 2 sources aren't enough. Honestly, I think we got lucky.

Re: Brand--notability only matters if it is independently sourced, even if it is notable within an org. – Lionel ^(talk) 02:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

On my talk page I have added this, mentioned here just to alert you to it. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

• • "What about this mention? Any thoughts? https://cgi.marquiswhoswho.com/OnDemand/Default.aspx?last_name=Brand&first_name=Leonard""
• Summary list and comment section up and running

Hi Lionel, You have already stated your opinion on Brand. I have summarized my views at HERE. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

RFAR on Abortion

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Burkie Barnstar
		I felt moved to give you this in celebration of the tagging of the 3000th article for WikiProject Conservatism! Seriously, thanks for the great work. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

THANK YOU!!!!!!– Lionel ^(talk) 00:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Conversion Therapy

Hi Lionelt, I'm re-instating (in a different fashion) the line you removed from the conversion therapy article. Just so you know, that document is not bound by copyrights. Regardless, a quote may be better suited due to the controversial nature of the article in question. Best, ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 21:38, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at DTinAZ's talk page.

Nomination of List of ex-gay people for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of ex-gay people is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ex-gay people 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. Bbb23 (talk) 01:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

---

Hello. You have a new message at Knowzilla's talk page.

ANI again

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Bishonen | talk 18:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC).

Update on Brand Article

Hi Lionel, I have noticed your edits on the Leonard R. Brand article. Your experience and courtesy is appreciated. We are really making progress thanks to all involved. Please, if you can, keep an eye on how your edits are received. You can best defend your own edits. Mind you, I like what you have done. And will say so. :) DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, the intensity of editing this article has increased my sense of confidence. Also, I feel like those of us working on the article are now associates. Earlier, you mentioned the idea of co-nominating an article. Do you still want me to do so? Either way is fine. Cheers. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Note on Sands' user subpage

Hi Lionel, Hrafn suggested I do a sandbox approach so I can have the freedom to work without his critical edits. I have created such an article. Right now, I have edits on both the User Page and the Talk Page. You can access it HERE. As always, thoughts are invited. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

• Cesium is the most active on our editing team currently, with Hrafn, our team's critical editor helping. My work on the subpages intend to reflect a consensus developing on the main page of the article, not to advocate change, per se. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
• This pattern of subpages mirroring the article's developing consensus can become a model for working together on those GA and FA articles you talk about. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 01:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

To my fans and admirers

To those lucky 53 who are watching, and you know who you are, I have incredible news. I have nominated Southern Adventist University for Good Article!!! It will be my first GA. I'm very excited. You're probably asking yourself how did I, of all people, get involved with those crazy Adventists? I dated an Adventist in college, but they don't fornicate, so that was kind of a deal-breaker. Anyway it's a very interesting story. The dearly departed BelloWello was trying to push his POV that SAU was "conservative." So he tagged the article for WP:RIGHT (isn't that a clever shortcut?)--as if that means anything. Then he started an edit war. As many of you know WP:RIGHT has an innovative and extremely useful scrollbox which displays Recent Changes of all tagged articles. Well, I noticed the edit war and went and checked it out. The rest is wiki-history. My co-nominator is user:DonaldRichardSands, an excellent editor who did ALL of the heavy lifting at the article.

I'm also relieved to finally move on from the P:RIGHT (isn't that a clever shortcut?) setback. As many of you know it failed to make Featured Portal. I was ROBBEDfrustrated. It was a TRAVESTYdisappointment. P:RIGHT is a beautiful portal, well-designed, innovative, great color scheme and very informative... Btw SAU isn't the only article I have my eye on for promotion. I think with a little work List of ex-gay people could be FL material. Just a couple "procedural" things I need to work out...– Lionel ^(talk) 01:03, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Illegitimate removal of a tag on Leonard R. Brand

Every source in the section 'Relationship to the Seventh-day Adventist Church' was primary/affiliated. The only individual source that I so tagged was Arthur Patrick -- as he was particularly egregious: being cited for a review of a book whose acknowledgements page he was on. As you removed this tag on the false claim that "the content in question already has an inline tag", I have gone ahead and individually tagged them all. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 06:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it was a planned, intentional and deliberate "BAD FAITH removal?"– Lionel ^(talk) 06:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

{{Whisperback|Lionelt}} I know you don't like talkback. I'm kinda interested in seeing those "coercive" methods... Btw thanks for ignoring the message on my talk where I request talkback.– Lionel ^(talk) 07:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
Garbage returned to sender. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Making an edit with a fallacious edit summary, and thus a false explicit purpose, is not acting in good faith. Oh, and I'm under no obligation to respond to you at all, let alone at a time of your choosing. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:25, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining why you thought it was bad faith.

However, the direct question I asked was: How do you "know" it was a planned, intentional and deliberate...? – Lionel ^(talk) 07:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

However, I don't generally answer questions whose premise I reject. Reckless disregard for the truth is just as much bad faith as "deliberate" falsehood. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh, and if you talkback me again, I will most probably choose to express my displeasure by being very ... very ... very 'leisurely' in timing any further response. :) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"Reckless?" The sad part is you're earnest. I think you should refresh yourself with WP:NPA, you seem to have forgotten the salient points since your block for personal attacks:

Accusations of bad faith serve no purpose. They also can be inflammatory and hence can aggravate a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack...

We both know WQA is a joke. Otherwise we would be there now where you would have to answer for your boorish and unacceptable behavior. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Funny that you mention AGF and NPA. Perhaps you would like to explain how these recent edits [[12]] [[13]] of yours conform to those policies? Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 08:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

I have diffs backing it all up. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:51, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Lionel, your genial support has its place. Editing is a social experience. I once worked making trusses in a prefab home company. Two of us worked on a truss together. We were good and we were fast and we had fun. The foreman saw us having fun and he came over to us yelling. Perhaps he motivated some people with such manners, I don't know. I do better with some kindly constructive criticism. That being the case, we should kindly learn from all. Anyway, thanks to all. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 09:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Charmaine Yoest redirect issue

I left a few lines in the talk page for Charmaine Yoest for what I think are examples of notability. The first is a Christian Science Monitor cover story that is a profile of Dr. Yoest.

The CSM piece is great. But you need a couple more--the others don't really count toward notability. The CSM could be used to expand her treatment in AUL. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:35, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Those weren't the only things I was using for notability, I thought it was a given that other biographical data and positions were in consideration for that as well, do I need to bring those up again?ProLifeDC (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Comment regarding Brand AfD close

I'm sure you meant it as a joke, but I don't view this comment to DonaldRichardSands as at all helpful. Obviously it's not an accurate characterization of why the AfD closed the way it did, but you should not be giving Donald, even in a tongue-in-cheek fashion, a slap on the back for his editing behavior in the AfD. Said behavior was quite problematic and should not be repeated.

As I said I assume you were joking, but coming out of that discussion it seemed to me an inappropriate remark. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, I thought it was funny

even if nobody else did. Thou shalt not crack wise on Wikipedia, Lionel, my son. --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:29, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

GA and FA

Lionel: You advise me to focus on GA and FA articles. Lead the way. The Brand debates help me. Put a note on my talk page. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The Ronald Numbers article has just begun. I told Hrafn that we could work on it together. :)

Is it the SAU article you want to work on?

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Con portal

Hello. You have a new message at Soonersfan168's talk page.

COIN

I moved your comment down and removed the "resolved" tag. I've explained my reasoning at Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#"Resolved" tags.   Will Beback  talk  08:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

New Discussion on Brand talk page

Hi Lionel, thought I would alert you that I must leave the discussion for a while. My day begins here. It may be five or more hours before I get back. I like the team concept. Also, I continue to sense my own development as an editor, thanks to all. Your input has been really helpful. Thanks.

DonaldRichardSands (talk) 10:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

• Have you read Andrew A. Snelling; Steven A. Austin (December, 1992), Startling Evidence for Noah's Flood: Those footprints {{citation}}: Check date values in: |year= (help)CS1 maint: year (link)

Leonard R. Brand

Scroll down to the section 'Those footprints'. Snelling and Austin report on Brand's work. The section is over 700 words and is made up of seven paragraphs. This is one of the more substantial secondary sources we have found. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 02:38, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Nancy Heche

The article Nancy Heche has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No evidence of notability - fails WP:BIO

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. andy (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Southern Adventist University

There is a discussion about sourcing occurring and your opinion would be appreciated.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Graysville Academy, 1895.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Graysville Academy, 1895.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't notice, but you seem to have sorted it anyway, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Bello's victory

Looks like BW (whichever you prefer) will be victorious. If that holds true I'm out...permanently. Thanks for being a friend in the midst of wiki wolves. I'll be careful about praising anyone else or they will probably be hammered by the Bello fan club.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

What's Big Bad Bello up to now? NYyankees51 (talk) 03:29, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

See all the "new" IP's on Southern Adventist University talk page and Samuel Koranteng-Pipim talk page.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 03:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

While I'm not saying the IPs are Bello, I will say if they are Bello it must be killing him to have to post all those edit requests. (The article is semi-protected.) He can't do shit over there and it's hilarious. If they are him then the mighty Bello has been reduced to begging for edits. Hahahaha!!!– Lionel ^(talk) 03:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Did I say that?

Hi, Lionel. Did you miss my question? Bishonen | talk 09:15, 29 August 2011 (UTC).

See here. – Lionel ^(talk) 03:41, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Lionelt/List of ex-gay people

User:Lionelt/List of ex-gay people, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lionelt/List of ex-gay people and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Lionelt/List of ex-gay people during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:23, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

FYI

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello. Mathsci (talk) 10:39, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Pink Swastika

I've copied your message and replied on the article talk page. Talk:The Pink Swastika.   Will Beback  talk  02:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)