User talk:Lionelt/Archive 7
DYK for First Motion Picture Unit
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Yngvadottir (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
C'mon
2,538 measly hits AND I had a video on the homepage--someone call a bureaucrat--I have been robbed!!!
The Content Creativity Barnstar | ||
Great job with First Motion Picture Unit! Daniel Case (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC) |
Not asuming good faith
From your past few edits i get the impression you're not assuming good faith. If you see an unsourced edit of mine, the least you could do is ask me to source it instead of plainly reverting me. I think your editing style is hostile and unconstructive. I have come accross this behavior of your at least twice in the past, but decided to ignore it. This is the third time. Your edits beome particularly unhelpful when they make mass reverts often in a short space of time. The fact you can make revert or delete in such a short space of time indicates you have not attempted to do research on an edit yourself and whether a passage is notable/plausible etc. My problems wih your edits can be roughly covered by
- Furthermore, in this edit you indicate you do not value the lives of gay people as much as you value black people. This shows your partiality and probably explains some of the above concerns. Additionally i have noticed some hypocrisy in your editing, for example saying "unsourced" but ignoring unsourced text fits your worldview; Or cherry-picking quotes as at talk 16:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)]
- What silliness. Stating that what gays are going through now is nothing compared to what blacks went through is not stating that the lives of black people are more valuable than gay people. It's a statement of fact, that even many gay people acknowledge. Gay people actually get to have a life, even if not getting to marry in every part of the world, and are not going through anything close to the horrors that black people had to endure. And marriage isn't even important to all gay people. Freedom, on the other hand, which black people didn't have, is important to everyone. And it's funny that you admit you will be stalking an editors edits, after having warned another editor not to stalk you because it's WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Unbelievable. 116.247.86.34 (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC)]
- Firstly, why dont you reply using your user account, and why do you ignore all the other points? Secondly, in a way, gays are going through worse than blacks, because whereas a black can find condolence in his family, or among peers or among his church/mosque/etc., gays often come from conservative/traditionalist families, or are not acccepted by their religious clergy, and many social groups exclude gays. For example you can probably go to any inner city in most countries and tell youths you are into cannabis and it would be socially accetable. But imagine telling people you're gay instead, it could be social suicide. In fact various polls confirm this such as a recennt gallup poll stating 96% would vote for a black president but only 68% for a gay and only 54% for an atheist. [1] talk 18:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)]
- Firstly, I never stated that I am Lionelt. There are people who watch others' talk pages, or don't you know that? And whether or not I have an account is none of your business. I'm certainly not obligated to respond to your drivel under an account. And your stating that "in a way, gays are going through worse than blacks" is quite possibly the most absurd thing I have ever read...if you mean "what blacks went through back in the slavery days." If you do mean that, I highly suggest you read up on exactly what slavery was like for black people. And don't tell me that you have, because I won't believe it. Gay people are free, and most of society is not out hanging them, skining them alive, burning them, telling them that they can't sit [here or there], etc. etc, etc... Not being able to find condolence from family, or among peers or among church/mosque/etc. is nothing compared to the horrors that black people went through during the slavery days. If you mean what both groups are going through now in the modern era, then I can understand your point. But otherwise, no. And the cannabis example is a bad one. What, are people suppposed to be condemned for being into cannabis? 116.247.86.34 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- People are still legally hanged today for being gay. There is no country where you can leglly be hanged for being black today. Im not sure why you're drifting into 19th century history - my discussion is not about history but modern issues. If you stopped daydreaming and used your neurological receptors you would have realized i was speaking in a present tense (are, can etc.). I failt to see how you could translate my present tense sentence into "the slavery days". This says a lot about your grammatical skills. Also, i still think you're Lionelt, since you haven't denied it. talk 18:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)]
- People are still legally hanged today for being gay. There is no country where you can leglly be hanged for being black today. Im not sure why you're drifting into 19th century history - my discussion is not about history but modern issues. If you stopped daydreaming and used your neurological receptors you would have realized i was speaking in a present tense (are, can etc.). I failt to see how you could translate my present tense sentence into "the slavery days". This says a lot about your grammatical skills. Also, i still think you're Lionelt, since you haven't denied it.
- Firstly, I never stated that I am Lionelt. There are people who watch others' talk pages, or don't you know that? And whether or not I have an account is none of your business. I'm certainly not obligated to respond to your drivel under an account. And your stating that "in a way, gays are going through worse than blacks" is quite possibly the most absurd thing I have ever read...if you mean "what blacks went through back in the slavery days." If you do mean that, I highly suggest you read up on exactly what slavery was like for black people. And don't tell me that you have, because I won't believe it. Gay people are free, and most of society is not out hanging them, skining them alive, burning them, telling them that they can't sit [here or there], etc. etc, etc... Not being able to find condolence from family, or among peers or among church/mosque/etc. is nothing compared to the horrors that black people went through during the slavery days. If you mean what both groups are going through now in the modern era, then I can understand your point. But otherwise, no. And the cannabis example is a bad one. What, are people suppposed to be condemned for being into cannabis? 116.247.86.34 (talk) 18:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Firstly, why dont you reply using your user account, and why do you ignore all the other points? Secondly, in a way, gays are going through worse than blacks, because whereas a black can find condolence in his family, or among peers or among his church/mosque/etc., gays often come from conservative/traditionalist families, or are not acccepted by their religious clergy, and many social groups exclude gays. For example you can probably go to any inner city in most countries and tell youths you are into cannabis and it would be socially accetable. But imagine telling people you're gay instead, it could be social suicide. In fact various polls confirm this such as a recennt gallup poll stating 96% would vote for a black president but only 68% for a gay and only 54% for an atheist. [1]
- What silliness. Stating that what gays are going through now is nothing compared to what blacks went through is not stating that the lives of black people are more valuable than gay people. It's a statement of fact, that even many gay people acknowledge. Gay people actually get to have a life, even if not getting to marry in every part of the world, and are not going through anything close to the horrors that black people had to endure. And marriage isn't even important to all gay people. Freedom, on the other hand, which black people didn't have, is important to everyone. And it's funny that you admit you will be stalking an editors edits, after having warned another editor not to stalk you because it's
- People being legally hanged for being gay in the modern era is still nowhere close to all of what black people endured during the slavery days. It doesn't even happen in as many places as black slavery did. Everyone who knows the history of both plights knows this. It seems that you don't. And let's not forget that, unless a very effeminate gay man who is not thinking about "acting straight" (which many gay men have talked about), people can conceal the fact that they are gay. People cannot conceal the fact that they are black unless they have a good amount of European blood in them and actually look white, which is to their benefit if facing a person who is racist against blacks. And I stated that "If you mean what both groups are going through now in the modern era, then I can understand your point. But otherwise, no." And I stated that because it was not clear that you were talking about the modern era for both groups. Lionelt and others were talking about what blacks went through during slavery compared to what gays are going through now. So it's only natural that a person would assume that you are speaking of the same. It only looks like you're backtracking to me. Not to mention, resorting to insults when you can't hold your own during a debate makes you look... Well, you get the point. But just to touch on one of your insults, you shouldn't be talking about anyone's grammatical skills, given your constant typos. And what you actually meant is "comprehension skills" anyway.
- And by the way, I don't care if you think that I'm Lionelt. As if it makes sense that he would respond to you as an IP on his talk page. And now, since you are trying to control my actions -- trying to get me to state that I am or am not Lionelt, despite the fact that anyone could state that I was clear that I am not -- I'm not going to bother explicitly stating that I am not. Whoop. 116.247.86.34 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I always edit under Lionelt. (And once in a while my pseudo-bot.) Mainly because I want the credit for my editcount. I'm
knocking on the door ofover 20,000, you know. That said, I think 116.247.86.34 makes excellent points. Btw, have you gentlemen/women visited First Motion Picture Unit? I need to get 5000 pageviews and I could use your help. – Lionel (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)- I have noticed that wikipedians are quite obsessed with edit counts. I fail to see the logic. I know many great editors with low edit counts and many awful editors with high edit counts. talk 23:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)]
- Obsessed? Just because I have my "Edit count" page on my browser toolbar and check it every other hour, make zillions of tiny minor edits instead of big ones, don't do any offwiki writing and use AWB to add wikiproject banners by the thousand doesn't make me obsessed. [preceding was humor] Regarding your other comment, well now you know a great editor with a high edit count.[preceding was slightly facetious but completely true] (Note to WP server: add 1 to my edit count. Thank you.) – Lionel (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Pass a Method: I want to ask you something. I want you to take your time and consider your answer very carefully. I want you to be honest and not shovel BS. How you respond may affect the very foundation of Wikipedia for the foreseeable future: did you visit First Motion Picture Unit? – Lionel (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC) [In case anyone is counting--and I know I am--that was my 20,381st edit]
- Obsessed? Just because I have my "Edit count" page on my browser toolbar and check it every other hour, make zillions of tiny minor edits instead of big ones, don't do any offwiki writing and use AWB to add wikiproject banners by the thousand doesn't make me obsessed. [preceding was humor] Regarding your other comment, well now you know a great editor with a high edit count.[preceding was slightly facetious but completely true] (Note to WP server: add 1 to my edit count. Thank you.) – Lionel (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- I have noticed that wikipedians are quite obsessed with edit counts. I fail to see the logic. I know many great editors with low edit counts and many awful editors with high edit counts.
- I always edit under Lionelt. (And once in a while my pseudo-bot.) Mainly because I want the credit for my editcount. I'm
- And by the way, I don't care if you think that I'm Lionelt. As if it makes sense that he would respond to you as an IP on his talk page. And now, since you are trying to control my actions -- trying to get me to state that I am or am not Lionelt, despite the fact that anyone could state that I was clear that I am not -- I'm not going to bother explicitly stating that I am not. Whoop. 116.247.86.34 (talk) 19:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Icons
Hi, just noticed that the DYK icons at the top of your page don't actually point anywhere, and simply say "user got listed on the main page". :-) --Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 16:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
WikiGrail
You might want to judge/close the
]- It's going to take a while to determine the winner. Looks close and I don't want to make a mistake. Gimme a day... :-) – Lionel (talk) 23:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually there are 5 min left according to UTC. And as Viriditas is quick to tell you even if you don't ask, we always do things according to UTC. We don't want anyone accusing me of violating the rules. ;-) – Lionel (talk) 4:55 pm, Today (UTC−7)
- Haha, we don't want that at all. Toa Nidhiki05 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ping.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
- Haha, we don't want that at all. Toa Nidhiki05 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
- Actually there are 5 min left according to UTC. And as Viriditas is quick to tell you even if you don't ask, we always do things according to UTC. We don't want anyone accusing me of violating the rules. ;-) – Lionel (talk) 4:55 pm, Today (UTC−7)
Re
I want to redirect
Edit Conflict?
Hello! Your edit here also removed my (now irrelevant) comment. This was almost certainly an accident, but I just wanted to check and see if there was another reason. Thanks! --
First Coloured Senators and Representatives
- Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/First Colored Senator and Representatives.png -- for stalkers who wanna know WTF this is all about – Lionel (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
I apologise for Raeky's behaviour. I was trying to help out, but he or she seems determined to go off on some sort of odd crusade against... god knows what. I hope you like the restoration I did, anyway. If you missed the download button, here's a link to the full-sized version. http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/189/d/d/first_colored_u_s__senator_reps__restoration_by_adamcuerden-d56h6gm.png - You'll probably need to convert to JPEG to get it to upload; email me through the email service at User:Adam Cuerden if you need any more help - I'm pretty much retired, but will always jump on things related to civil rights movements. =) 86.139.213.143 (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hilarious: controversy follows me whereever I go!!!!! Hahahahaha!!! No apology necessary, and the restoration looks nice, great job. But to be honest all I want is a bronze star. I've already uploaded a png (which I converted from tiff myself) and the tiff in addition to the original jpg and being honest again I don't care if the image is yellow, white or turquise. Now... what do you think about voting Support??? – Lionel (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)]
Courtesy notice
The Committee is shocked and disappointed that you failed to appear at this year's Chap Olympiad. Neither did you send your butler as your representative (permitted under the rules in extreme circumstances such as terminal gout, moustache mange or gusset-rot). Poor show, old chap. You risk being blackballed by the Committee for your snub, which I'm sure will be of concern to a fellow of your proclaimed testicular dimensions, hence this notification. Writegeist (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please be a good fellow and forward my sincere regrets to the Committee. You see a gentlemen of my phallic attribution is in great demand to perform one service or the other as the case may be and as need arises. And as chivalry demands, I am always one to oblige, and never one to disappoint. Love the link; my compliments sir, and my felicitations to Mrs. Writegeist, who I am certain appreciated your comforting and "maintenance" during the recent long and cold winter. – Lionel (talk) 23:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
Censorship and incorrect usage of BLP policy as an exuse
Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to
Knights of Columbus GA review
I am doing the review for the article you nominated. The review page is here--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
- There are suggestions at the review page on what should be improved in the article before I believe it can pass.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Justice
Opinions on what I wrote on ItsZippy's page? I believe it is unfair for one user to get blocked for edit warring and not the other, and the mod was in the wrong for choosing sides. Lsufalcon (talk) 20:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
Take a look-see for me, please?
You are a much more experienced editor than I, so would you mind having a look at something for me? I think it's possible we are seeing some sockpuppetry. Check out this | user sandbox, and pay particular attention to the "possible signatures". I know you will recognize at least one of the handles. Belchfire (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
- Nothing afoot here. He just likes Jenova's signature and is testing different versions. What is worrisome however is that noone at WT:LGBT has deleted that inflammatory canvass by Jenova. Jenova is using the wikiproject to further a battleground, and the members are eerily silent. Even approving? A wikiproject will be shutdown if the community views it as a vote-stacking machine. And while many would have no issue in WP:LGBT being shutdown, the repurcussions could affect a great many projects.]
Don't think for one second that you or I could post something like that and get away with it. For you or I it would mean a one way trip to WP:ANI and a certain topic ban. Double standard? Naaawwwwww. Getting back to the article, don't be surprised if 635 editors "magically" show up at the article, lol. Don't worry... I have plenty of policy-based arguments up my sleeve, hahahahaha. – Lionel (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--Omer123hussain (talk) 09:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Feedback requested for article on Daily Mail: Quotation from Lord Rothermere's "Youth Triumphant"
Hi LioneIt,
I would like to discuss the reason for excluding the quotation from Lord Rothermere's Youth Triumphant editorial and have outlined my justification here. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
My discussion is intended to be in good faith and with no malice.
Thanks,
— Posted by Luke Goodsell, 08:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Krista Branch GA review
- Started talk) 18:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC)]
Issues raised
Hi Lionel. A few weeks ago, issues were raised at my talk page regarding your behaviour. I've spent the past few days looking through your history and I've found a couple of disturbing trends. The biggest problem is with your misrepresentation of sources.
- Exodus International - You suggested that the company sees homosexual behavior as sinful, whereas the source stated that the company maintained that "sexual activity prior to heterosexual marriage" was sinful. You've attributed more to the comment than was said, and missed off other parts.
- Straight pride. You suggested that Steve Nelson of Huffington Post categorised Straight Pride as a First Amendment issue. In fact, though he mentioned First Amendment, he did not categorise it such, he was commenting on First Amendment claims of high school students.
- Confidence Men - Daily Mail reporting on Washington Post excerpt of a book based on interviews. The original subject denies it in the same source. You did the same at Anita Dunn and went on to add it in places such as War on Women.
- Cristiada (film) - You attributed parallels which were not mentioned in source.
- Donald Harvey - You state he killed his lover, but the just states that he poisoned his lover, specifically suggesting he did not kill him.
When confronted with these issues, you appear to categorically deny that there was a problem, yet you do change the text to find compromise. I'm very much of the opinion that editors shouldn't be expected to apologise for mistakes (grovelling isn't a requirement), and finding a middle ground is an excellent way forward. However, because there are quite so many incidents and all from the past few months, I thought it worth coming here to ask you to please be more careful in future with how you represent sources, as repeating actions like that in the future is likely to lead to removal of your editing priveleges.
I don't want to be wholly negative - I've seen you do some excellent work on the encyclopedia. Not only with respect to your non-political articles, but also your hard work co-ordinating wikiprojects. Whether or not there is a left-wing bias on Wikipedia, it is a legitimate concern, and I thank you for adding some balance to the encyclopedia. WormTT(talk) 13:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
- I want to thank you, Worm, for bringing these concerns to my attention. The process of improving oneself is a never ending journey, and constructive criticism is crucial in this respect. Digging through contributions is a laborious process, and I assure you that your effort is not in vain, and has drawn my attention. With regard to the specific items enumerated, I assure you that in no instance was there ever intentional misrepresentation of sources. What we have here, in fact, is a misinterpretation of sources. After long consideration, I also speculate that my understanding of some of our policies may be erroneous. Originally I had intended to end my response here. However the recent vexacious behavior of Viriditas with regards to Romney makes it obvious that a detailed justification of every single one of my edits is required: which will be forthcoming. – Lionel (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Thomas Sowell". Thank you. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "War on Women". Thank you. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
A cheeseburger for you!
Thank you for the kitten Montalban (talk) 05:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC) |
Cheezburger cheezburger!– Lionel (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Boswell
Thanks for your comments re:
Afd
hey, I saw your recent comment with an aggressive stand so I thought of talking about it.
Please disclose whether you are the article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor, or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article ;
WP:DISCUSSAFD
Now can you please explain what has made you so angry about it ? please tone down your comment on AfD thanks--DBigXray 21:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- Being the "article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor" is referred to as "involved." COI is when you are closely affiliated to the topic of the article. In this instance for COI to exist all of the 3 editors in question would have had to have actually originated the term, worked for a government body to promote the term, authored a treatise on the term, etc. "Involved" and COI are completely different. COI is an violation which usually requires voluntary restrictions. If you edit an article that only makes you "involved"--that's not a COI. – Lionel (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I only quoted what was mentioned on WP:DISCUSSAFD and I see no good reason for you getting hyper on this. Thats all I would say. <sigh> --DBigXray 21:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC)]
- It appears you may have equated "involved" with "conflict of interest" and then linked to WP:COI thinking it is the same. It is not. You have to realize that for all intents and purposes WP:COI editors are prohibited from editing the article at issue. When you accused those 3 of WP:COI an implication was made that they should not be editing P. Z. Just say "involved" and everything will be fine.– Lionel (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- ↑What he said. I came here to state that but Lionelt made the comment first. There is a big difference between accusing someone of having a conflict of interest and accusing them of being involved. In any case, I have rarely seen editors declare their interest in an article at an AFD. It just doesn't happen. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
- I only quoted what was mentioned on
Talkback
ww2censor (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Romney mistake.
In http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney&diff=503240455&oldid=503232493, you said (source does not say that his policy is "confusing"). Well, actually, our article quotes the source as saying it's "unclear and confusing", and the source (http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/16/top_senators_can_t_explain_romney_s_afghanistan_policy) says:
- "Republican candidate Mitt Romney's policy on the future of U.S.-led war in Afghanistan war is unclear and confusing, complicating attempts to either support or criticize it during the campaign, according to leading senators from both parties."
I think it's very clear that you made an innocent mistake. Please revert it. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. 24.45.42.125 (talk) 07:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
FYI
I've requested that you be immediately blocked for continuing to misrepresent sources on purpose after being repeatedly warned. You may participate in the discussion here. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Stating that I intentionally misrepresent sources is libelous.– Lionel (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Christian Action Research and Education
While you're making changes would you mind rewording it so it sounds less like an advertisement for them? Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'll make it so you don't even recognize it! – Lionel (talk) 09:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
- Ok, just tag fairly. I see there's a citation needed tag appeared on their stance on homosexuality. If i see that only things like this are going to be tagged in an article about an organization that is anti-gay then we'll have a problem with bias and censorship again. Thanks and good luck ツ Jenova20 (email) 09:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the McMuffin, haven't had one in years. Have a nice day/evening ツ Jenova20 (email) 10:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
saints
I'm happy with your edit Montalban (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
July 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Zindabad are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Comment like "all I have to say is Pakistan Zindabad!!!" doesn't contribute much to the discussion and just makes it off-topic. Please take care of that next time. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- And you think using this boilerplate warning did any good at all? Ryan Vesey Review me! 07:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- He can remove it once he has noted it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- C'mon Vaibhav, wasn't that a great templating an editor with over 20,000 edits. What's your favorite flavor: chocolate, vanilla or strawberry? – Lionel (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)]
- Thanks for the offer. :) See, I believe that regulars should be templated if they have done some mistake, although most probably it would had been unintentional. You must have noticed how heated this topic is, and the arbcom is already watching over it. Such comments can make the discussion off-topic. Feel free to remove the warning if you feel like, and sorry if you felt bad with that notice, it wasn't my intention to make you feel so. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 08:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- C'mon Vaibhav, wasn't that a great
- He can remove it once he has noted it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ Talk Email 07:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Dan Oates
I finally got a chance to see Chief Oates on tv. He is a great man. I'm hoping more biographical information will appear online as the stories develop from breaking news to background information. I'd love to get the article to GA status. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Too expand on this, if we can get this too 2010 characters within the next 5 days, it will qualify for DYK. I'm going to leave a note to see if it will qualify as a formerly unsourced BLP (since the copyvio was unsourced and the reverted version had two broken external links which wouldn't count as sources. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Count me in. Btw I along the lines of WP:DCM I sent them an "official" media request from an "official" Wikipedia editor--I know they must be inundated, but maybe we'll get lucky. It worked with that cutie Lila Rose.
Copyvio
Thought you were good at noticing this kind of thing Lionelt? Stange that. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 20:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Can you two just stop your bickering? Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not looking to bicker, i just found it odd he didn't notice it as he's good at noticing these copyright violations from what i've seen and he's gone through this tiny article recently ツ Jenova20 (email) 20:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Jenova for the compliment--but I do not consider myself a (c) expert. In fact, I am always asking for help at WP:CQ. I'd like to take this opportunity to clear up a common misunderstanding. While it is a fact that I exhibit excellent grammar, an extensive vocabulary, impressive spelling, and in depth knowledge of classical literature, I am not a trained copy editor, nor is my vocation that of a professional journalist. In the real world I was trained in information technology, and my experience in formal writing for the most part is limited to the occasional research paper I wrote in college. – Lionel (talk) 00:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I'm not looking to bicker, i just found it odd he didn't notice it as he's good at noticing these copyright violations from what i've seen and he's gone through this tiny article recently ツ Jenova20 (email) 20:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
Black men and little white girls
For all the stalkers, this image that I nominated did not get promoted to Featured Picture. As a Black person I wanna know why? Guess what: in case you haven't noticed, everyone in this pic is Black. Yes, as in African American. Previously known as colored. A picture of Black males. Need I say more?
On the other hand, this video I nominated, featuring a little white girl, is cruising to being promoted. It got enough votes after 3 days!
Or could the reason be political? The Black guys are Republicans, the video is Democratic.
Well? What's goin'on here? Do I need to call Jesse? – Lionel (talk) 01:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- According to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/First Colored Senator and Representatives.png there were outstanding issues that were not addressed in time for it to pass or receive additional support votes. I'm not seeing anything racist in the discussion or in the outcome. There may, however, be a bit of "recentism", in that the video of the girl is far more "notable" in terms of popular culture. Viriditas (talk) 03:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- That whole copyright thing was just a canard. There is definitely a cabal right here at Wikipedia of young, white, Democrat women who are actively and deliberately discriminating against older Black males who happen to be Republicans. I will not rest until I have rooted them out and put an end to their nefarious operations. – Lionel (talk) 03:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- It's a shame that the image wasn't promoted. It's a wonderful image of historical significance. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- First i've heard of being able to promote a video to featured picture status...i learned something today ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
2012 Aurora shooting
What do you think the odds are that a profile of
- Born and raised in San Diego, California. Attended school in an area known for voting Republican (Torrey Highlands, CA)
- USA Today (via the Los Angeles Times) reports that the suspect was "deeply involved with his family in their local Presbyterian church".
- Coincidentally, the July 20 attack on the movie theater occurred just days after conspiracy theorist Rush Limbaugh, on July 18, attacked the new Batman film for subliminally criticizing Mitt Romney. According to Wikipedia, "Limbaugh claimed that the 'Bane' character was a liberal conspiracy designed to attack candidate Mitt Romney's work with venture capital firm Bain Capital. Limbaugh stated that while 'Bain' and “Bane” are spelled differently it was a liberal media conspiracy to associate candidate Romney and the company he was president of with a fictional movie villain."
- Even though there is no relationship between Bain Capital and the villain Bane, it is likely that the subsequent attack by Holmes has scared people away from seeing the film. Most interestingly, people who do attend the film will no longer be thinking about the villain Bane, but the villain Holmes.
- The attack occurred around the anniversary of the 2011 Norway attacks committed by right-wing Christian extremist Anders Behring Breivik, with some commentators finding direct parallels (and influences) between the two attacks. Several articles (it is unclear if they are unsubstantiated rumors or not) have said that Holmes followed Breivik's plans for the attack, right down to specific details regarding preparation and armaments.
Any thoughts? Viriditas (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- As a note, point 3 is clearly irrelevant since he appears to have been planning this for a long time. What is the significance of Holmes' status on the political spectrum anyways? Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that point 3 is weak, but one could plan something for a very long time and simply wait for a "trigger", i.e. an opportune time to commit the act. Was Limbaugh's rage against liberals and Batman this trigger? How incredibly convenient that Holmes committed this heinous act during the opening of the film. If Limbaugh's conspiracy theory was true (it's not of course), then people will no longer associate the Bane villain with Romney, but with Holmes. The significance of Holmes's politics is that we know nothing about his motives nor any specifics about his background. Lionel and other members of WikiProject Conservatism often argue that liberalism is responsible for the decline of civilization, yet we see that religious conservatives like Breivik pop up all the time with no comment. See User:Viriditas/Right-wing politics and violence for some examples. Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the political views of any of these crazies, conservative or liberal, is irrelevant. They aren't accurate representations of their own political or religious ideology. Even extremists like Glenn Beck or one of the news anchors on MSNBC (I turn fox on and then turn it off, I refuse to turn MSNBC on so I can't name an anchor) are poor representations of their respective ideologies because they take it to an extreme. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- Let's take the examples of Anders Behring Breivik and Ted Kaczynski. Isn't understanding their political views an inseparable part of understanding their motives? In fact, it was Kacynski's political views that got him caught. His brother recognized his distinctive POV and turned him in. In Breivik's case, his right wing extremist politics motivated him to commit terrorism. Understanding political views of the suspects is not just an essential part of capturing them, but also necessary when finding ways to prevent the same crimes from happening over and over again. There are always going to be patterns, and one can recognize those patterns emerge, for example, in the discourse of right-wing populism which has superseded left-wing extremism in the last two decades. However, as a counterargument, based on the sources that are coming out right now, I think we might eventually discover that Holmes's family has a history of mental illness. Interestingly, while genetics can determine mental illness in some cases, it has also been shown to exert influence on political orientation. Viriditas (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- In my opinion, the political views of any of these crazies, conservative or liberal, is irrelevant. They aren't accurate representations of their own political or religious ideology. Even extremists like Glenn Beck or one of the news anchors on MSNBC (I turn fox on and then turn it off, I refuse to turn MSNBC on so I can't name an anchor) are poor representations of their respective ideologies because they take it to an extreme. Ryan Vesey Review me! 04:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
- I agree that point 3 is weak, but one could plan something for a very long time and simply wait for a "trigger", i.e. an opportune time to commit the act. Was Limbaugh's rage against liberals and Batman this trigger? How incredibly convenient that Holmes committed this heinous act during the opening of the film. If Limbaugh's conspiracy theory was true (it's not of course), then people will no longer associate the Bane villain with Romney, but with Holmes. The significance of Holmes's politics is that we know nothing about his motives nor any specifics about his background. Lionel and other members of WikiProject Conservatism often argue that liberalism is responsible for the decline of civilization, yet we see that religious conservatives like Breivik pop up all the time with no comment. See User:Viriditas/Right-wing politics and violence for some examples. Viriditas (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
If we have reliable sources to confirm that Holmes is a religious conservative, I'd say it belongs in the article because it goes towards his motivations. But let's get the sources first.
- Who cares about civilization? Civilization ended when Pope Paul replaced the Tridentine Mass. The real trajedy is how liberalism is causing the decline of Wikipedia!!! – Lionel (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Alan Chambers
I noted that you deleted the LGBT category for Alan Chambers under the reason it fails to meet the WP guidelines, however, I have added some new information and recategorized Alan Chambers as LGBT. The fact that Chambers accepts that he has same sex attraction should be sufficient for him to be identified as gay, because the definition of 'homosexual' provided by Wiki doesn't say persons who explicitly [accept] themselves to be gay. So Alan doesn't have to accept that he is gay for him to be gay - The fact that he admitted to have the basic criterion of homosexuality i.e. to be attracted to someone of the same sex is binding.
I also see where he is categorized as an ex-gay even though the information provided states that he rejects the term 'ex-gay'. I also see where Frank Ocean is categorized as LGBT yet he has not used the terms 'gay' or 'bisexual' to describe his experience nor did he say he is presently active as a gay person - He spoke to his past experience. I consider this to be hypocritical - An encyclopedia is to give facts and so if a man has to say I am gay actively participating in gay sex for him to be classed as LGBT then the definition given by Wiki needs to be changed, and the many notable men and women who are categorized as LGBT but never 'explicitly' used the term, either because the term never yet coined, or for some other reasons, need to be recategorized.
Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemorej (talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
Now you need to talk about it.
You added an "undue weight" tag to the lead of
DYK for Oates
I have nominated it, see Template:Did you know nominations/Dan Oates. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- DYK was accepted, now to make sure it gets posted before the olympics. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Dan Oates. Ryan Vesey Review me! 15:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
Favouring removal of content under "BLP violations"
Lionelt you could source the stuff you remove as fast as you remove it. Do i have to trawl through every article on the LGBT watchlist you have edited to see what you have removed as a BLP violation or can you just be more careful? This is an encyclopedia after all, not just a war to remove as much as possible. Thanks ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please familiarize yourself with our policies. WP:BLPREMOVE is unambiguous on this issue. It enjoins editors to "Remove immediately" offending material. – Lionel (talk) 08:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
A Guinness for you
Thank You.
Thank you, Mannanan. I moved it here because I do all my drinking on my talk page. Perhaps you've noticed the kind of stuff people post here. I think you would be driven to drink, too!!! Hahahaah!!!!!
Barnstar
- Hi, Lionelt Though there are unjust rules or behaviours, but there is justice too.
An appreciation Barnstar | |
An appreciation barnstar in recognition of your all past and for future work on Wikipedia. Justice007 (talk) 15:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC) |
Boswell
If you read the talk on Sts Sergius and Bacchus you may see that Cuchulan argues multiple argument at once. Montalban (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Cuchulan has just written the following on my page: Your recent editing history at Saints Sergius and Bacchus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection
Apparently I'm in an editing war, not him! Montalban (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
He's now given me an 'editing war' violation on an admin page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Montalban_reported_by_User:Cuchullain_.28Result:_.29 Montalban (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Clare Boothe Luce
I don't know if you are the go to person on his, but the biography on Clare Boothe Luce is an important one for the conservative and Catholic WikiProjects. Currently, it is missing a great deal of information about her personal relationship with the Catholic church and I'm wondering if you could help do the research and expand it. There's a big story here, but all it says is that she joined when her child died in a car accident. Viriditas (talk) 06:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, because of my position as Grand Poobah of WPConservatism, and member extradinary and plenipotentiary of WPCatholic, I am the preeminent "go to person." What is there not to like about CBL? Beautiful. Intelligent. Artistic. Catholic. Conservative. Republican. A woman of the world, a woman for all seasons. Improving her article, specifically with your suggestions, would be an exciting project. However, I have a few open items I need to take care of first. The FMPU is ready for Good Article nom, my speechography will make a fantastic DYK, and my filmograpy Featured List nom is also wrapping up. Oh and a Featured pic. – Lionel (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC)]
Thanks for the invitation
Thanks for the invitation I really appreciated learning about such a great organization you founded Which I definately will join as soon as I change my username. Feel free not to answer this but my curiosity compels me to ask why are you a registered democrat and how would describe your politics Algonquin7 (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Jolly good show with the Chick-fil-A sandwich your definately the most easy-going and fun-loving editor I've come across on wikipedia. You may be a hard man to figure out but I like that so never change by the way I changed my username to John D. Rockerduck the name I used to join project conservatism since it sounded decidely more conservative to me Algonquin7 (talk) 10:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Commercial-LBJ1964ElectionAdDaisyGirl.ogv, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
|
For my Stalkers | |
Please join me in celebrating the newest Featured Picture. – Lionel (talk) 02:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC) |
Tab question
So, what a coincidence... I decided to pretty-up my personal space with tabs today, and it turns out that my newest "fan" happens to be a Subject Matter Expert.
I have a question for you, if you don't mind. I'd like to increase the white space between my tabs. Do I need to switch over to the PageTabsTop template in order to do this, or is it doable with the regular "page tabs" implementation? These are separate templates, correct? (I'm still learning this stuff, so please be patient with me if this is a silly question). Can you give me a hint? Here is what I'm working with. Thanks. Belchfire 01:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Hmmm...
- What about the tabs here: ]
- Oh. Wow. I love how it looks, but I'm completely befuddled by the mark-up. No worries, I'll do some more digging. (And obviously, there is absolutely nothing urgent about this.) Thanks. Belchfire 01:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- See also {{Start tab}}. – Lionel (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I can make sense out of that one. BTW, I stumbled on to sort of a gimmicky way to customize my tabs... I made them tall by inserting a carriage return after the text content. I haven't decided if I really like it, though. Belchfire 06:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- See also {{Start tab}}. – Lionel (talk) 06:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
- Oh. Wow. I love how it looks, but I'm completely befuddled by the mark-up. No worries, I'll do some more digging. (And obviously, there is absolutely nothing urgent about this.) Thanks. Belchfire 01:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Dan Oates
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 16:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
Democrat?
You're a Democrat? I just read it on your user page. I never would have thought that to be true. It is truly amazing that a liberal editor has done more to reduce Wikipedia's liberal bias than many other editors. Ryan Vesey Review me! 05:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- If you don't mind my comment here from the peanut galleries, I'm not sure you should be equating Democratic with liberal. talk) 10:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)]
- Oh, don't be so credulous, Ryan. Like so many other conservatives, Lionel's public claim to be a Democrat is just a disingenuous ploy for enhancing the perceived credibility of his conservative agenda. It's his way of asserting, "And I must be the objective one!" (I think that's yet another claim if you read his self-profile far enough). All over the rest of the place Lionel lauds social conservatism & the virtues of being Republican (see CBL comments above, and his equation of smart, beautiful, REPUBLICAN!). If that means he's a Democrat, it begs what "being" Democrat - or Libertarian, or socialist, or X - even MEANS beyond rhetorical flourish to him. He also claims to be "polite" and "civil" in the same breath he trumpets never having been blocked as if it confers summa cum lauds status instead of the barest minimum standard for continuing to edit. I rarely edit Wiki, but as a psychologist interested in ideological & personality trait valence enjoys reading the Talk pages of politically contentious articles. While that sounds like a pretty narrow niche, that Wiki now constitutes a primary info source for tens of millions renders it pretty consequential. Lionel is an...interesting case study within the stable of regular editors here, one whose self-concept - conveniently published for comparison on his home page - is completely inconsistent with my & I suspect many others' impression. I'm not sure I'd believe ANYTHING that Lionel himself claims about his own biography, which is a pretty carefully crafted barrel of self-aggrandizement conceits. Which is what makes him interesting next to editors whose profiles are cross-comparably consistent with their edits, are consistent with their rationale, writing style, etc. Probably the only thing more precious to Lionel than the conservative social agenda is his own public image, into which he has little insight, if his self-penned profile is any indication. 100.36.154.131 (talk) 09:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
Still-24-45-42-125
You're not going to get cooperation out of Still-24-45-42-125 unless you edit something that he agrees with to his viewpoint which becomes a POV issue. He's constantly made calls on his own whim, throw around accusations such as claiming "edit-wars", made up policies, used inactive ones or even claimed certain guides were policies, he's reverted NPOV changes to POV or even inserted POV changes in NPOV material, and also he's admitted pushing certain agenda such as the Focus on the Family in the talk thread. It's becoming more of a problem and constant headache for genuine editors. ViriiK (talk) 07:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
- Just out of curiosity, would you consider WP:AGFto be a legitimate policy? In case you're not familiar with it, it comes with this summary:
- Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
- If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.
- I think you can see how it might even apply to your own post. talk) 10:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)]
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Focus on the Family#Recreational drugs. Thank you. 72Dino (talk) 15:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
FAC
Hey, thanks for commenting on my FLC for MercyMe discography - could you have a look at my FAC for Revelation? I need to get the wheels turning on that nomination, and it has been nearly a week since I nominated it. BTW, good work on that Daisy Girl ad video - it's certainly one of the most shocking and impactful political ads of the 1900s and it is great it is featured now. Toa Nidhiki05 18:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
AN3 ANI
Hi I was about to post this comment on the ANI thread when i was stuck in the series of (edit conflict) and consequent closing of thread. but on second thoughts i decided to post it here. cheers --DBigXray 08:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
I had redacted the comment that is the subject On ANI. I also admit, I wasn't aware that
- Yes, I know this isn't what you wanted to get out of the AN/I discussion but that's pretty much what it is. While logical fallacies are out of line here and probably not the best way to retort to edit warring concerns, it wasn't a personal attack. Best just let tempers die down. Regards, — Moe ε 08:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
Edit war on "War on Women"
Please do not edit-war on
Some wafels for you!
Nice attempt but did you really think there would be a 2032 Olympics American infidel? Mighty Imperialist China will have long since risen up with sidekick Iran and powerful North Korea to crush the puny capitalist West, while giant Russia invades Europe...Have a nice day ツ Jenova20 (email) 08:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC) |
You crack me up.– Lionel (talk) 09:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
War on Women: "redefining rape"
Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, Lionelt. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
This is a courtesy heads-up for you. I'm adding everybody who worked on the article since I have. Belchfire-TALK 02:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Re:
Hello. You have a new message at Toa Nidhiki05's talk page. Toa Nidhiki05 19:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Your answer
Here[2] is your answer. 176.67.167.252 (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
L@L
The humor is unintention, honest. But I had to chuckle when I realized that my deletion nom puts the pro-gay POV warriors in a difficult spot. They'd love to see the spin-off - it provides much more space for cruft. But the article title is abhorrent, which creates a strong urge to vote 'delete'. Belchfire-TALK 05:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: Your GA nomination of Becoming Jane
Hi Lionelt. I don't have a secret recipe to having my articles reviewed more quickly, if that's what you're asking. The reviewer,
New ANI
FYI Belchfire-TALK 22:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
- Shouldn't "nazichristian" be capitalized? The only thing worse than a personal attack is a misspelled personal attack. Ah, indeffed. Good. Poor spelling like that just makes more work for the rest of us.– Lionel (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Your comments about an RfA
I saw your response to my suggestion on Ryan's talk page. I'm not really familiar with you as an editor, so I'm not going to nominate you myself, but if you think you'd be a good admin, why don't you nominate yourself? I'm not saying that I would or would not support you, but be bold and throw your hat in the ring.
- Lionel, you've been around for a long time and have a long track record. I'm sure plenty of people would chime in with their opinions were you to self-nominate. In fact, I encourage it. talk) 00:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC)]
- Ah, so you (Lionelt) weren't being serious. I didn't realize that. Of course, you could try for an RfA anyway. You never know. AutomaticStrikeout 00:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC)]
- Ah, so you (Lionelt) weren't being serious. I didn't realize that. Of course, you could try for an RfA anyway. You never know.
There are certain editors who need to be blocked on a regular basis and AN3 and ANI are just too unpredictable.
- Dude, that ain't gonna get you the tools. :) Viriditas (talk) 05:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- V, you didn't think I was referring to you, did ya? ;-) – Lionel (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, actually, I did not. The problem is that your potential RfA supporters aren't likely to recognize your sense of humor and will take you literally when you say you want the tools to block other users. Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and it'll be all their fault for lacking a sense of humor. I bet they'd be equally humorous to find that Lionelt filed two false talk) 17:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)]
- I think we have to give Lionel credit for having a sense of humor. It is my experience that most of this community does not have one. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- You've said a mouthful. All those false reports against me are the highest form of practical joke. The only thing that's not funny is that the admins didn't realize he was joking when he falsely accused me of 4RR so they blocked me. Somehow, I don't find that funny, either. Guess I need to work on my sense of humor. talk) 05:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC)]
- I've been falsely blocked far more than you, Still-24-45-42-125. The key to survival here is to remain flexible, adapt, and overcome. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Point taken. talk) 05:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC)]
- This reminds me of the scene in the movie Phantom of the Paradise where the prison warden asks a group of convicts how many of them are innocent and every last one raises his hand. Culture warriors should expect a few battle scars, and be proud of them. --Kenatipo speak! 20:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Kenatipo, did you know you were paraphrasing G. Gordon Liddy? Viriditas (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
- This reminds me of the scene in the movie Phantom of the Paradise where the prison warden asks a group of convicts how many of them are innocent and every last one raises his hand. Culture warriors should expect a few battle scars, and be proud of them. --Kenatipo speak! 20:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Point taken.
- I've been falsely blocked far more than you, Still-24-45-42-125. The key to survival here is to remain flexible, adapt, and overcome. Viriditas (talk) 05:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- You've said a mouthful. All those false reports against me are the highest form of practical joke. The only thing that's not funny is that the admins didn't realize he was joking when he falsely accused me of 4RR so they blocked me. Somehow, I don't find that funny, either. Guess I need to work on my sense of humor.
- I think we have to give Lionel credit for having a sense of humor. It is my experience that most of this community does not have one. Viriditas (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, and it'll be all their fault for lacking a sense of humor. I bet they'd be equally humorous to find that Lionelt filed two false
- No, actually, I did not. The problem is that your potential RfA supporters aren't likely to recognize your sense of humor and will take you literally when you say you want the tools to block other users. Viriditas (talk) 11:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
- V, you didn't think I was referring to you, did ya? ;-) – Lionel (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Notice of Wikiquette Assistance discussion
Hello, Lionelt. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at
My latest honour
I proud to announce that I have been accorded the title of "Evil Genius" and all priviledges and duties that the rank entails. I will say now that I do not deserve such an honour, there are certainly others far more deserving. I give my word that I will be a good, and a fair Evil Genius. Per heraldic protocol, please address me as "Sir Lionel", or just simply "Sir." Per the protocol I am entitled to affix "EG" to my name.
– Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 03:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Is it that obvious who it is? Unless someone else used that term? ViriiK (talk) 03:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah hem. That should be "Sir Lionel, is it that obvious..." hahahaha!!!! – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 03:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ooooo, I wanna be Igor! Belchfire-TALK 04:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- That would imply that he's "Master" but afraid not! You can be the jester of the Royal Cabal! ViriiK (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- I think you should go the whole hog and become Sir ]
- Want to hear something funny? I was all prepared to look at the edit histories of everyone involved and to issue polite warnings / notifications as needed, and to escalate the issue to an appropriate noticeboard if needed. If Still-24's claims are true, that would have taken care of the situation. However, when I saw Still-24 claiming that I, another dispute resolution volunteer and four administrators are all puppets mindlessly following the marching orders of
Our Lord and Master, AKA He Who Must Be ObeyedLionelt, I didn't even bother to look. The odds of finding that his accusations are based upon reality are too small for me to waste my time, and I do not wish to reward that sort of behavior. So, by his own behavior he prevented a neutral third-party look at his claims. That and the Lionelt Evil Genius Mind Control Rays.... - Of course this will be cut and pasted as "evidence" that I am conspiring against him, but those accusations are going to come no matter what I do. BTW, does anyone know what Machine Elf 1735's deal is? The behavior I am seeing is rather unusual. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, so you were prepared to do your job as a DRN volunteer and now you've taken personal insult, so you're here asking them for advice on how to harm me. If you're trying to deny claims of influence, this wouldn't be the way to do it. talk) 17:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC)]
- Oh, so you were prepared to do your job as a DRN volunteer and now you've taken personal insult, so you're here asking them for advice on how to harm me. If you're trying to deny claims of influence, this wouldn't be the way to do it.
- Want to hear something funny? I was all prepared to look at the edit histories of everyone involved and to issue polite warnings / notifications as needed, and to escalate the issue to an appropriate noticeboard if needed. If Still-24's claims are true, that would have taken care of the situation. However, when I saw Still-24 claiming that I, another dispute resolution volunteer and four administrators are all puppets mindlessly following the marching orders of
- I think you should go the whole hog and become Sir ]
- That would imply that he's "Master" but afraid not! You can be the jester of the Royal Cabal! ViriiK (talk) 04:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ooooo, I wanna be Igor! Belchfire-TALK 04:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ah hem. That should be "Sir Lionel, is it that obvious..." hahahaha!!!! – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 03:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Congratulations on this great honor, Sir Lionel. No evil genius is more deserving of this title as you - your founding of the evil cabal known as WikiProject Conservatism is a model for all evil geniuses to follow. Toa Nidhiki05 18:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Dealing with conflicts involving user behavior
Gentlemen, if I may be so bold, I am going to do what I am being accused of, and advise you how to deal with ("deal with" is not the same as "harm") a certain class of individuals on Wikipedia.
Your first strategy should be to try to cooperate and settle your differences. Often the conflict is a misunderstanding or someone who was a bit over the line but knows better. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors are reasonable people who want to cooperate.
Eventually it may become clear that this is not just a misunderstanding, but instead that a user is disruptive, shows battleground behavior, edit wars, is uncivil, etc. At this point your strategy should be to calmly but firmly inform the user of Wikipedia's standards of behavior. Here is a great resource for doing that:
Templates have been carefully designed to be effective, and if you use a template nobody can argue that your wording was incorrect.
You also need to take a close look at your own behavior. It needs to be squeaky clean. If this ends up at a noticeboard later, your behavior will be a factor; see
At some point it may become obvious that the user is not going to change his behavior based upon warnings. At this point, go to an all-template, no response strategy. If the other user accuses you of something, don't respond. If they ask leading questions, don't respond. If they are uncivil, put a template on their user page but otherwise don't respond. If they edit war, at 2RR and 3RR, use
Finally, I am always open to giving anyone advice. Just ask on my talk page.
I am going to send one last message to Still-24-45-42-125, who is monitoring this page, and then I will go into ignore mode regarding that particular user. Everything I wrote above is behavior you can adopt. You can stay calm and cool. You can show exemplary behavior. You can try to cooperate and settle your differences. If both sides do this, problem solved. If you do this and the other fellows don't, then they are the ones who will be facing possible blocks. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for these handy directions on how to harm other users. talk) 21:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)]
- The "plot" thickens! (pun intended) hahaha!! But seriously, this is merely an exposition of my prediction I shared with Viriik. Thanks Guy for the sage advice. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
- Hint: It's not a prediction if you're actively trying to make it come true. talk) 01:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)]
- Hint: It's not a prediction if you're actively trying to make it come true.
- The "plot" thickens! (pun intended) hahaha!! But seriously, this is merely an exposition of my prediction I shared with Viriik. Thanks Guy for the sage advice. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 05:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Wide tables
I don't think the FL criteria specifically address table width, although I'm sure the community knows methods to reduce table width if necessary. To be honest, I'm not much of an expert on the finer points of table formatting; you might want to ask about it at
FS
Dear Sir Lionel,
Thanks for your message; honestly I'd be happy to help out in my own limited way in any sort of FS, but I think in the first instance a new Featured Sounds section should establish clearly what the criteria for a FS should be - this was one of the problems that the community had in the last few months of operation. There was disagreement about what exactly editors should be looking for with featured content, plus some fairly unpleasant arguing.
Although off-wiki life leaves me far less time that I would like to get involved on WP I would like to help in any way I can.
Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Reply
@Pine: Pine✉ 22:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Assist me.
- Hi, Lionelt, please assist me in this regard, I have added template IP multiple users, question is that it is enough or somewhere have to report this too?, if yes, then where?.Your barnstar is accepted. Thanks.Justice007 (talk) 23:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
10 poorest US states are Republican
Does Wikipedia need an article about Conservatism and poverty? Thoughts? Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd be interested as to why the impoverished are not voting liberal due to better welfare and the like. It is probably that they aren't voting at all. I'm not 100% sure on a Conservatism and poverty article. What about a Poverty and politics article? A split can come later if it grows. Ryan Vesey 03:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Might want to start with a History of Poverty and Politics :) Arkon (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd politely suggest starting with sources that let us avoid synthesis. I suspect we can find some for conservatism and poverty. I'm not sure what poverty and politics would really mean. talk) 03:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)]
- I'd politely suggest starting with sources that let us avoid synthesis. I suspect we can find some for conservatism and poverty. I'm not sure what poverty and politics would really mean.
- Might want to start with a History of Poverty and Politics :) Arkon (talk) 03:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- You would need to find sources. There is a direct correlation between wealth and conservatism, lack of education and conservatism, and wealth and education. The relation between poverty and conservatism is indirect. TFD (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, absolutely. This sort of article desperately depends on having good sources. talk) 04:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)]
- It's a shell game. Conservatism only thrives when poverty is at its highest. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- A lot of it is semantic confusion. Roosevelt called his opponents "conservatives", which they vigorously resisted. Then in the 1950s they started calling themselves conservatives, which led to such anomolies as calling the American revolution a right-wing conservative revolt against a left-wing liberal empire. TFD (talk) 05:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- It's a shell game. Conservatism only thrives when poverty is at its highest. Viriditas (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, absolutely. This sort of article desperately depends on having good sources.
- Here's a source. [3] Golly gee, it turns out that 5 of the 10 poorest states have Democrat governors. Whodathunkit? Belchfire-TALK 06:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's like saying Obama is responsible for the economic recession caused by eight years of the Bush administration. Could you turn Faux News off for just a moment and think about what you are saying? Conservatism is a reactionary movement. Based on the historical record, it appears to produce and generate poverty in order to perpetuate itself. Viriditas (talk) 06:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Here's a source. [3] Golly gee, it turns out that 5 of the 10 poorest states have Democrat governors. Whodathunkit? Belchfire-TALK 06:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Standard liberal pablum. Based on the historical record, most of those 10 poorest states got that way during the 150 years they were run by Democrats. Generating poverty? From scratch? You mean like in Detroit? LOL! Please.
- And why the ad hominem horseshit? Have you run out of ammo that fast? Belchfire-TALK 07:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- 150 years of conservative policies. Tell me, how can a reactionary party promote economic reform when the problem was caused by their very policies? Sweeping it under the rug and pretending it isn't there might be your preferred way of doing things, but it makes for poor governance. Conservatism can't offer change of any kind going forward in the 21st century because it is bound by an ideology that denies change. In today's world, you need to change your policies based on the changing data. And that data shows that conservatism has led to more poverty. That's the entire reason they have a platform. If there wasn't economic hardships, there would not be a conservative party. It is in their interest to continue to promote poverty. The world, in fact, is less conservative today than it was a century ago. And that trend is unlikely to turn around. Viriditas (talk) 07:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- And why the ad hominem horseshit? Have you run out of ammo that fast? Belchfire-TALK 07:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
You know, when you start putting fictional labels on things, there's no end to the mind tricks you can play on yourself. Belchfire-TALK 07:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Accusing anyone who criticizes conservatives as liberals says a lot about you. You do realize, of course, that it is quite possible to criticize conservative ideology and practice without being a liberal? Start with Ayn Rand, who proved that the conservative economic arguments in favor of capitalism were based on fallacies. Viriditas (talk) 08:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
I was honestly kidding with my comment above, it's a ridiculous concept to be honest. There are probably enough sources to make an article(s), but it's gonna be a hodgepodge of speculation. This didn't start 5, or even 10 years ago. Arkon (talk) 08:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Wrong. The political science literature covers this in spades. For example, Nathan J. Kelly of the University of Tennessee and Peter K. Enns of Cornell University show how poverty contributes to conservatism, which proves my point that conservatives have an interest in preserving income inequality. According to Kelly & Enns (2010):
in an analysis of public opinion by income group...both the rich and the poor respond to rising inequality by shifting in a conservative direction. Together, these findings offer an important insight into the seemingly conflicting findings of the unequal and dynamic democracy perspectives. Previous research shows that liberal public opinion produces more egalitarian distributional outcomes (through the effects of opinion on election outcomes and public policy), and that the effect of public opinion is larger than other important explanations of income inequality such as deindustrialization, single-female households, and female labor force participation (Kelly 2009). Thus, our finding that public opinion—of all income groups—becomes more conservative in response to an increase in inequality helps to explain how economic inequality can reinforce itself through feedback on the political system (a conclusion of the unequal democracy perspective) at the same time that government responds to the reported preferences of citizens (a finding of the dynamic democracy literature).[4]
- Kelly & Enns show that increases in inequality result in conservative public opinion responses while decreases in income inequality results in more liberal responses. "When inequality in America rises, the public responds with increased conservative sentiment. Rather than generating opinion shifts that would make redistributive policies more likely, increased economic inequality produces a conservative response in public sentiment." In other words, conservatism depends on increasing poverty: "increases in economic inequality are self-reinforcing in a way that is perfectly consistent with the dynamic democracy perspective. Economic inequality can beget yet more economic inequality as the unequal democracy proponents argue." Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
A more interesting comparison is per capita income per state normalized for cost of living in that state. In which case, perceived standard of living (average income/average cost of living) becomes quite interesting, and a great deal flatter. A person earning $40K in New York City has a far worse standard of living than a person earning $30K in Georgia. Poverty is still a major problem in some areas (particularly non-casino Indian reservations, Inuit communities in Alaska etc.) but the list of "10 poorest states" is a teensy bit fatuous. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- Mississippi (poorest state) income 34.3K, CPI 203 [5] ratio= .153
- Arkansas 36.2 / 206 = .176
- New York 60.3 / 258 = .234
- North Carolina (10th poorest) 41.1 / 209 = .197
- Showing that the "poorness" is substantially affected by cost of living issues. Collect (talk) 12:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'd argue that the conservative-liberal split isn't poor-rich, it is more or less rural areas voting conservative and urban areas voting Democrat. This is really evident in southern states such as Texas or North Carolina, where the major cities are usually Democratic but the rural areas are usually Republican. Toa Nidhiki05 14:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
- I could argue some stuff, too, but this isn't a forum. My recommendation -- and it's just a recommendation -- would be for Viriditas to put together a stub version of the article in his private workspace. Then we can get feedback, adjust it and make sure it won't be a war zone, all before it goes live. talk) 16:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)]
- I could argue some stuff, too, but this isn't a forum. My recommendation -- and it's just a recommendation -- would be for Viriditas to put together a stub version of the article in his private workspace. Then we can get feedback, adjust it and make sure it won't be a war zone, all before it goes live.
- I'd argue that the conservative-liberal split isn't poor-rich, it is more or less rural areas voting conservative and urban areas voting Democrat. This is really evident in southern states such as Texas or North Carolina, where the major cities are usually Democratic but the rural areas are usually Republican. Toa Nidhiki05 14:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The unemployment rate is 8.3% – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 06:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
DYK for Speeches and debates of Ronald Reagan
DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |