Darkstar1st
- I've send you an email. Please respond.Teeninvestor (talk)
re:
edit
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
coordination
editOops. My bad. I thought that was your discussion page...like an idiot. byelf2007 (talk) 17 July 2011
The Right Stuff: September 2011
edit
By Lionelt
Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.
The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."
WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"
By Lionelt
A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.
I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.
By Lionelt
On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.
The Right Stuff: October 2011
edit By Lionelt
The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.
Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.
Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.
Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.
If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.
By Lionelt
The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page.
Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.
By Lionelt
Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.
WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.
We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.
The Right Stuff: November 2011
edit By Lionelt
On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.
Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.
In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.
October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.
Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
By Lionelt
Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.
The Right Stuff: January 2012
edit 
By Lionelt
On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.
Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline.
By Lionelt
Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.
Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.
Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.
Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
By Lionelt
Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.
The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.
Edit warring
editAN/I WIKIHOUNDING by Collect?
editHello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
April 2014
edit
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Conservative liberalism may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- {{<!-- Please do not remove or change this Copyvio message until the issue is settled -->
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 06:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Amusing indeed
edityall come back now :) Darkstar1st (talk) 17:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- What we caught, we threw away; what we didn’t catch, we kept. What did we keep? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
- perhaps you are not as educated as you thought. the riddle was ask of Homer. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: User:Darkstar1st/VA hospital scandal (May 21)
edit
Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Darkstar1st/VA hospital scandal.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .
contributions to Wikipedia!
- Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
Your submission at Articles for creation: VA hospital scandal (May 21)
edit Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Darkstar1st/VA hospital scandal.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .
contributions to Wikipedia!
- Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
|
Hello! Darkstar1st,
I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering or curious about why your article submission was declined please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! JustBerry (talk) 21:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
|
thanks JustBerry! i appreciate your time and hope the scandal will soon have an article as it grows from the "single event" of the 40 deaths in phoenix to the separate event in gainesville with the 3 supervisors placed on leave to the 24 other veterans hospitals currently being investigated as a result of this scandal. perhaps this is a single event being repeated in different locations, if so, maybe it could be seen as several events with similar circumstances, specifically the manipulation of patient appointment wait times. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation: Veterans Affairs hospital scandal (June 6)
edit Please read the comments left by the reviewer on your submission. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
- If you would like to continue working on the submission, you can find it at Draft:Veterans Affairs hospital scandal.
- To edit the submission, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
- If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, or on the .
contributions to Wikipedia!
- Please remember to link to the submission!
- You can also get real-time chat help from experienced editors.
the VA Scandal is now an article. plz review the articles for creation criteria and or join the debate on that talk page. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, from what I can find in the archives, and I don't remember particular drafts, I've looked at thousands, ... anyway, Zach was involved there, and I wasn't. Zach's point was correct, however, AfC is a safe place for contributors who want to develop there, but we have no community authority to prevent people from creating articles. I will take a look at the the new article, but you might also wish to consider deletion processes and/or noticeboards (the latter for copyright, NPOV, or BLP issues) if you believe they are appropriate. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually you were j⚛e decker, [1]. why do you think i would pursue deletion for an article i created? did you read the above? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for the link, I had looked, only found Draft:Veterans Affairs hospital scandal, which I hadn't been involved in, tried various permutations of the the title with the Draft prefix, found nothing else, and made the wrong assumption. I totally should have looked up a few page inches on your talk page.
- Lacking any context, I didn't know why you had pinged me with respect to the article, assumed you were trying to point me at some problem with it (but I didn't know what problem), and wanted to suggest some general ways of addressing it.
- Anyway, I'm glad someone has an article going on on the subject, I think it's notable, and horrible, although I think it's going to be a helluva thing to write well and neutrally. Thanks for the ping! --j⚛e deckertalk 23:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- i pinged you because you rejected the article originally and i am unable to locate your reason why you did, and with the hope you will be able to use this example in your future assessments. apologies for the confusion, User:MatthewVanitas moved/changed the draft name. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
- Actually you were j⚛e decker, [1]. why do you think i would pursue deletion for an article i created? did you read the above? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
we got off to a bad start
editdear Iryna Harpy, i actually live in Hungary (see my picture) and know a little about the countries bordering here. indeed i do research before i edit, as well as before i create an article, which i have several times, some even have quite a bit of traffic. i have been in wikipedia for about as long as anyone you will meet here and am not offended by your observations of me. i hope you will take my future contributions in the good faith they are meant. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- That's fine, Darkstar1. It does not, however, explain why you keep posting your observations as questions. If you have objections to aspects of the article on Ukraine, post them as comments stating what your objections are and why you object (preferably using sources). You are making a point, so don't try to obfuscate it using ingenuous language. You're not "confused": you have an opinion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- what point am i making Iryna Harpy? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- No baiting, thank you. If you know about the history of Ukraine, as you claim, you wouldn't be asking what Kievan Rus' has to do with Ukrainian history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- i actually ask if they were the same country, and if so, if the country went by two or more different names, which you Iryna Harpy have yet to clarify. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- All you need to do is read the lead for Kievan Rus' and your question will be answered. Please do not treat me as if I were a tutoring service and, somehow, am doing you a disservice by not responding to queries you should be able to answer with ease on your own. So far as I can see, I was the only person to respond to your queries and make adjustments to the content where it was useful. Beyond that, picking on me personally as being accountable to you is outside of the bounds of standard Wikipedian practice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- wow that sure was a different vibe then i meant to put out, accountable, tutoring, picking on you Iryna Harpy? to me it appears to be a simple as finding a source supporting the info box, or changing the box, or the name of the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Changing the name of the article? A source supporting the use for Kievan Rus' in the infobox when the child article is littered with a plethora of sources? I've never encountered such demands for an article about a country! Seriously, I'm not engaging in any more banter on your talk page. If these are the issues you've been gunning for, you'd better bring them to the article talk page. It's fairly obvious as to how "we got off to a bad start". Suggestion: make the same observation for the Russia article on that talk page. Can't see any sources for Kievan Rus' there. Should we ask that the editors there change the name of the article? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- a wise suggestion indeed, i will do just that Iryna Harpy. the child article does not claim Ukraine was formed in 882 and there is no source making the claims made in the infobox. you have actually helped with your banter already, the Russia article has the date 20 years earlier at 862, instead of 882. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- LOL! You're possibly a greater masochist than I am. Good luck with that! (Assuming that anyone will respond to you there.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- actually they have already resulting in a major change. thx Iryna Harpy for bringing it to my attention! Darkstar1st (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- the Arrival of Rurik is now in that infobox which makes Russia 20 years older than Ukraine. Darkstar1st (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, m'dear, you're confusing Rus' with Rossiya.
"Arrival of Rurik, considered as a foundation event by the Russian authorities"
is some form of victory to your mind? If you have no concept of etymology and nomenclature, that's your problem. Believing what you want to believe doesn't make it true. Take care not to let the door collect you in the arse on your way out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)- no, i did not make the edit to the Russia infobox and it was you who suggested i take a look a Russia, so actually if anyone "won" it was you. Etymplogy is fascinating, but not my objective, rather i seek clarity in the years russia and ukraine became countries. Truth is elusive in Wikipedia, instead we settle for RS. perhaps you could present a source russia was not a country in 862, or even challenge the edit as OR? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- and as you can see from the years i have been in wp that i have no plans of leaving and have my foot in the door of these articles, not my arse ,Iryna Harpy the Anorak (slang). Darkstar1st (talk) 07:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- Why obsess about nation-states? Do you think every 'country' has an absolute linear history as if they were homogeneous absolutes? You're Hungarian? Then you must know the absolute linear narrative of the evolution of Hungary. Do you seriously think that, if you travelled back 200-300 years in time your predecessors would recognise you as being a part of their cultural identity, or would be able to conceive of what your idea of a 'country' or self-identification is? You're never going to find a satisfactory answer to what you're looking for. As for my challenging any interest groups holding holding onto this drab veil of 'facts' handed down by the hand that signs the paper as if their own ontology depended on it... let them. DNA tells one story: human history can't be analysed that easily. Rus' was Rus'. It was destroyed by the Mongolian invasions. What evolved from there is story lines seeking to connect the old remnants with one princedom. There were no successor states, just states that succeeded in opportunistic land and power grabs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
- No, m'dear, you're confusing Rus' with Rossiya.
- LOL! You're possibly a greater masochist than I am. Good luck with that! (Assuming that anyone will respond to you there.) --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- a wise suggestion indeed, i will do just that Iryna Harpy. the child article does not claim Ukraine was formed in 882 and there is no source making the claims made in the infobox. you have actually helped with your banter already, the Russia article has the date 20 years earlier at 862, instead of 882. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- Changing the name of the article? A source supporting the use for Kievan Rus' in the infobox when the child article is littered with a plethora of sources? I've never encountered such demands for an article about a country! Seriously, I'm not engaging in any more banter on your talk page. If these are the issues you've been gunning for, you'd better bring them to the article talk page. It's fairly obvious as to how "we got off to a bad start". Suggestion: make the same observation for the Russia article on that talk page. Can't see any sources for Kievan Rus' there. Should we ask that the editors there change the name of the article? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- wow that sure was a different vibe then i meant to put out, accountable, tutoring, picking on you Iryna Harpy? to me it appears to be a simple as finding a source supporting the info box, or changing the box, or the name of the article. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- All you need to do is read the lead for Kievan Rus' and your question will be answered. Please do not treat me as if I were a tutoring service and, somehow, am doing you a disservice by not responding to queries you should be able to answer with ease on your own. So far as I can see, I was the only person to respond to your queries and make adjustments to the content where it was useful. Beyond that, picking on me personally as being accountable to you is outside of the bounds of standard Wikipedian practice. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
- i actually ask if they were the same country, and if so, if the country went by two or more different names, which you Iryna Harpy have yet to clarify. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- No baiting, thank you. If you know about the history of Ukraine, as you claim, you wouldn't be asking what Kievan Rus' has to do with Ukrainian history. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- what point am i making Iryna Harpy? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
- Obsess is what i do best, nation-states interest me little, i prefer countries. "an area of land that is controlled by its own government".
- Yes, although i doubt anyone knows the true linear history of every country as true history is often obscured by the record.
- No, they would think i was a savage most likey and they would have no idea where Hungary is. i was born in Kentucky just like they were.
- My idea of a country is congruent with the definition in most dictionaries. I already know the answer and am trying to help you find it as well by examining the existing sources/definitions.
- I didnt suggest you do all that, simply ask for a source claiming russia was founded in 862 if you have a problem with it, not my edit, not my problem.
- Human history is not easy, although it is possible to compile sources, which might be the best way forward for you, should you continue here.
- i agree with you there Iryna Harpy and suggest you should change the founding date in the ukraine and russia info boxes to reflect such. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Your draft article, User:Darkstar1st/VA hospital scandal
edit
Hello Darkstar1st. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "VA hospital scandal".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|User:Darkstar1st/VA hospital scandal}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. C679 19:42, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Veterans Affairs hospital scandal, a page you created, has not been edited in 6 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.
If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.
You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.
If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.
Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 02:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Your draft article, Draft:Veterans Affairs hospital scandal
edit Hello Darkstar1st. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Veterans Affairs hospital scandal".
The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Draft:Veterans Affairs hospital scandal}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save page", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- thx JMHamo. The draft is dormant, he article was created soon after my draft was denied as not notable. Perhaps something broken in the approval process, Veterans Health Administration scandal of 2014 has been a widely read page. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:33, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Deletion tagging
editPlease follow the rules The criterion for no content is "This article may meet Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion as an article that contains no content whatsoever, or consists only of external links, category tags, a "see also" section, a rephrasing of the title, attempts to correspond with the person or group named by its title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, chat-like comments, template tags, and/or images."
An article about a political party that gives its vote in an election has content.
In addition, accordint to WP:Deletion policy. when you place a deletion tag on an article, you must explicitly say so in the edit summary DGG ( talk ) 17:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- The articles I have tagged were mostly unsourced. Plz provide dif. Thx for the reminder about the summary, apologies.
Noticeboards, concerning mass deletions of "libertarian socialism"
edit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. fi (talk) 00:56, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your 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. [2] s1
[3] s2
[4] s3
[5] s4
[6] s5
NPOV
edit
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by adding commentary and your personal analysis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Darkstar1st_on_a_site-wide_purge_of_any_mention_of_.22libertarian_socialism.22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrjulesd (talk • contribs)
- Darkstar1st: you might want to join in the discussion at the relevant section Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents to present your case for your editing behavior, as I suspect you are likely to be blocked soon if you do not do so. -- The Anome (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, Darkstar1st. It's been mentioned at the WP:ANI thread that you had removed some citations on the basis that they're not in English. In case no one has yet pointed this out to you, our policy on Wikipedia:Verifiability says that it's acceptable to use non-English sources. (See in particular the section on Non-English sources.) Of course, English-language sources are preferred, so if you can find an equally reliable English source which says the same thing as a non-English one, feel free to replace it, but otherwise please don't remove non-English citations unless you are sure that there is some other major problem with them (such as failing to meet the criteria for reliable sources, or for not containing text which supports the claim). —Psychonaut (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
- thank you both for the clarification. Mea culpa, I failed to establish the article was contintious, which would forbid the machine translation of a foreign langauge. In the future I will use talk to discuss before removing untranslated foreign sources. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:33, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
AN
edit This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. --Mrjulesd (talk) 02:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
- you are welcome and may want to file at spi instead. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)]
- Greetings. I've closed the discussion mentioned above. While there's no consensus for a ban on your editing at this time, could you please consider working to address some of the concerns raised in the discussion. Toddy1's advice is good, and your response to it is encouraging as well: more talk, less revert. Cheers, HiDrNick! 03:09, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- understood, thx for the advice and comment. perhaps my recent edits are more in line with the 5 pillars? your input/advice would be welcomed! Darkstar1st (talk) 03:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Need to use article talk pages more
editDarkstar1st, I agree with what you are doing. It is good for Wikipedia. But you need to explain your case on article talk pages more. For example, in this edit it would have been a good idea to explain your thinking on the article talk page (with quotes and links to policy). Remember that some of the people who disagree with you are pretty clueless - they need to have it explained to them.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- By the way, do you know about archive bots? I had to learn about them because of problems with some nutcase. They take old postings on talk pages and put them in archives. Because it is automatic, it is uncontroversial. The way to set one up is as follows:
- {{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 200K |counter = 1 |minthreadsleft = 0 |minthreadstoarchive = 4 |algo = old(24d) |archive = User talk:Darkstar1st/Archive %(counter)d }} {{archives}}
- -- Toddy1 (talk) 11:06, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
- most dogs in Hungary know more Magyar than me and could probably code better, thx for the tip on archive. your reminder about talk pages is on time and understood, thx for the help. wp would benefit from more talk and less revert, etc. i used to work for a guy in pucon chile, i emailed him asking for insight and his translation of the source. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Greetings. I've taken the time to fix your nomination of Sheldon Richman for deletion. Since there had been a previous discussion, the proper procedure (per WP:AFDHOWTO) would have been to add the {{afdx}} template to the page instead and create an entirely new discussion page (linked above) rather than adding to the existing one. A link to the previous discussion is automatically included there. Anyway, I believe I've smoothed out all of the wrinkles. Thanks, and happy editing! --Finngall talk 14:33, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
- thanks for the fix and the info on the correct format. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:35, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Chilean "Equality Party"
editI don't understand why you insist on edit warring over this topic after the problems editors had with your tendentious edits had been stated so clearly on the noticeboards and numerous discussion pages.
There is no controversy whatsoever over the translation of the word "libertario"; it means one thing only. Likewise, Spanish Wikipedia has had this party classified as a libertarian socialist for years. I'm all out of good faith, and don't see how your edits can be seen as anything but captious and disingenuous. Please revert or I will take this back to the noticeboards and request a topic ban. fi (talk) 06:02, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- thanks for coming here, we can work out a solution together. I emailed the party, in Spanish and English asking for clarification 2 months ago, no response. I ask my friend who owns a kayak/rafting company in Pucon, he did not think the source you cited was libertarian and your translation was poor. Is there any other sources that mention this party we could include? The article is a stub and maybe as we improve it together we can discover more sources? 78.131.26.8 (talk) 06:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I'll look for other sources when I have some spare time. I find it hard to believe that Spanish-speaking Wikipedia editors just slapped the label on for fun, considering how long it's stood there without objection. The problem is, the party doesn't seem to have much of a presence on the web. I can't speak to how active it is in the "real world." Either way, I'll try to find some pamphlets or propaganda. fi (talk) 06:25, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- thanks I will do. The same on this end. And thank you for coming here first, I will definitely work with you and keep an open mind. I am always a fan of the underdog parties and hope this one survives. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry for the curt and combative reply to your edit. I would have approached differently had I known you were trying to research the topic further. fi (talk) 06:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- thanks, I didn't take it that way, it came off as someone who is passionate about Wikipedia. I prefer editors who speak thier mind and consider you a knowledgeable asset to Wikipedia. I far prefer those who have an opinion to those here to agree with the herd. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
dems distrupting tea party page
editdems distrupting tea party movement page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catsmeow8989 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Discussion
editDiscussion here might interest you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Long_term_pattern_of_POV_edits_and_edit_warring_by_User:Jimjilin
Socialism
editI was surprised by your vote.[7] After years of claiming that Nazis were socialists, you now think that Socialist parties are not socialist. TFD (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- socialist are not socialist, you lost me? my problem with "two" are the weasel words some/generally. example: Capitalism is an economic system based on private ownership of the means of production... Darkstar1st (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I do not know where weasel-wording comes in. The disagreement was over whether socialism meant a state where the means of production was publicly owned and controlled and those who advocated it, or whether it included people generally called socialists who could advocate varying levels of ownership and control. So basically Option One includes only Communists and a few minor groups but leaves out parties such as the Socialist Party of France. TFD (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- some and generally are both weaselesque [8]. from britannica: Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- Weasel says, "views which are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions if they accurately represent the opinions of the source." In this case the Historical Dictionary of Socialism says "there was a general view that the solution to these problems lay in some form of collective control (with the degree of control varying among the proponents of socialism) over the means of production, distribution and exchange."[9] {My emphasis.) The point of the policy is that while experts can make those determinations, editors cannot.
- Both EB and the Dictionary provide different definitions and we must decide which topic this article should address. If we go with the EB definition, it will mean we cannot include political parties that are called socialist because of course they advocate only some public ownership or control, just as EB excludes them.
- TFD (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- interesting viewpoint, if you are correct it muddies the distinction twixt capitalism and socialism with one clearly for private ownership and one uncertain of the amount of private ownership permitted. do you suppose the majority of socialist believe in less than 51% public ownership? most socialist i know want a much larger share centrally managed than not. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, just noticed your posting. The Socialist party in the Czech Republic, the Czech Social Democratic Party, believes in less than 51% state ownership. The same is true of Socialist parties in France, Germany, the UK, Greece, Scandinavia, the Benelux, Italy and pretty much every other country. There is nothing in Crosland's The Future of Socialism or Blair's "New Labour" that advocate that degree of government ownership. TFD (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- my fault, i just learnt the reply feature @The Four Deuces: and will use it next time. As others said in the link you began this thread, the logic is a bit circular. Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy Czech Social Democratic Party, the nexus of capitalism and socialism, both and neither. i suggest this is certainly a minority viewpoint of socialism, perhaps fringe, and by no means more than 51% of socialist hold these beliefs in capitalism. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Social democracy is a term for a variety of socialism (See for example the [Historical Dictionary of Socialism]). In many cases the terms are used interchangeably. Marx and Lenin were members of Social Democratic Parties. The international organization "social democratic" parties belong to is the Socialist International. The Labour Party calls itself democratic socialist in Clause Four. The social democratic party of France is the Socialist Party of France. They belong to the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. Bernie Sanders called himself a socialist, as did the Socialist Party of America. TFD (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- i agreed with your post, although we still need to address what role these play in the term socialism, which appear to be a tiny minority of RS who consider a capitalist economy as their platform. we need to remove weasel words and replace with refreshing elegant prose, i will struggle through sources if need be, although it would take far less debate/time if someone else would instead. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Social democracy is a term for a variety of socialism (See for example the [Historical Dictionary of Socialism]). In many cases the terms are used interchangeably. Marx and Lenin were members of Social Democratic Parties. The international organization "social democratic" parties belong to is the Socialist International. The Labour Party calls itself democratic socialist in Clause Four. The social democratic party of France is the Socialist Party of France. They belong to the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats. Bernie Sanders called himself a socialist, as did the Socialist Party of America. TFD (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- my fault, i just learnt the reply feature @The Four Deuces: and will use it next time. As others said in the link you began this thread, the logic is a bit circular. Social democracy is a political, social and economic ideology that supports economic and social interventions to promote social justice within the framework of a capitalist economy Czech Social Democratic Party, the nexus of capitalism and socialism, both and neither. i suggest this is certainly a minority viewpoint of socialism, perhaps fringe, and by no means more than 51% of socialist hold these beliefs in capitalism. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, just noticed your posting. The Socialist party in the Czech Republic, the Czech Social Democratic Party, believes in less than 51% state ownership. The same is true of Socialist parties in France, Germany, the UK, Greece, Scandinavia, the Benelux, Italy and pretty much every other country. There is nothing in Crosland's The Future of Socialism or Blair's "New Labour" that advocate that degree of government ownership. TFD (talk) 18:48, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- interesting viewpoint, if you are correct it muddies the distinction twixt capitalism and socialism with one clearly for private ownership and one uncertain of the amount of private ownership permitted. do you suppose the majority of socialist believe in less than 51% public ownership? most socialist i know want a much larger share centrally managed than not. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
- some and generally are both weaselesque [8]. from britannica: Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
- I do not know where weasel-wording comes in. The disagreement was over whether socialism meant a state where the means of production was publicly owned and controlled and those who advocated it, or whether it included people generally called socialists who could advocate varying levels of ownership and control. So basically Option One includes only Communists and a few minor groups but leaves out parties such as the Socialist Party of France. TFD (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Self-described socialist parties are the largest or second largest parties in most developed countries and many developing ones. So your view is that they are not really socialist, but social democrat, and only socialists who advocate more than 51% government ownership are socialist. So Mubabe's Zimbabwe African National Union – Patriotic Front is not really socialist, neither is the opposition Movement for Democratic Change – Tsvangirai. Can you name any socialist parties that meet your non-fringe definition that are not communist? TFD (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- my opinion is irrelevant, the clear case you make certainly would have a plethora of sources to choose from. i look forward to seeing the article improved and replace weasel words with those of RS. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:38, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 1
editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sam Cutler, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meredith Hunter. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Merger sections Comment
editHi there, I noticed you asked me a while back to restart a merger discussion on the other page...but the template automatically sets the section when you tag to the article being merged to. Is this a mistake with the template, and convention dictates otherwise? If so I was unaware, I've always done it the way the template does. Pariah24 ┃ ☏ 17:44, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
- hi Pariah24, thanks for reaching out! Good question, not sure. I continue to support the merge although it appears stalled. In the meantime I will run thru the sources and do some cleanup, maybe that will clarify the distinctions should they exist. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
edit
Hello, Darkstar1st. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Quantitative Easing
edit
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been undone.
- If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
- If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.)
Glad to see you active at the QE article, but in the future please make sure you've investigated the subject matter and sources before undoing a documented revert with active talk page discussion. Best wishes. SPECIFICO talk 17:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- thanks @SPECIFICO:, one of my favorite articles/subjects. Your message is confusing as I am part of that active discussion page, and you are not? What is a documented revert? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- A revert for which the policy-based rationale has been documented in either the edit comment or on a separate talk page thread. I'm afraid that you unwittingly endorsed a POV edit that's one of a long series of UNDUE, SYNTH, and unverified edits that have been pushed in a long series of tendentious discussions and edit wars on a number of related pages. SPECIFICO talk 22:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- undoing a documented revert with active talk page discussion, you appear to have become confused @SPECIFICO: you wrote with, which is strange because there was a discussion and you did not comment, instead you post here? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- My edit comment pointed you in the right direction. WP:PRIMARY source, as a second editor also indicated when he removed your reinsertion. That's what edit comments can be so helpful when subsequent editors take the time to consider them. You appear to have ignored mine and knee-jerk reverted. Obviously your statement that the primary source "checks out" did not make sense to any subsequent editors. Capiche? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- we both agree you were mistaken about the talk page, perhaps this discussion is best continued there. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I believe that your edit is no longer in the article, so if you wish again to insert that primary source, you can try to gain consensus on talk. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: what i need you to do is admit you left this notice instructing me to discuss in talk when not only had YOU failed to join the existing discussion, but you didn't even check the talk page before coming here. @TheTimesAreAChanging: recently pointed out your misuse of these warnings. I suggest you retract and issue a mea culpa. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- I believe that your edit is no longer in the article, so if you wish again to insert that primary source, you can try to gain consensus on talk. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 00:36, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- we both agree you were mistaken about the talk page, perhaps this discussion is best continued there. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
- My edit comment pointed you in the right direction. WP:PRIMARY source, as a second editor also indicated when he removed your reinsertion. That's what edit comments can be so helpful when subsequent editors take the time to consider them. You appear to have ignored mine and knee-jerk reverted. Obviously your statement that the primary source "checks out" did not make sense to any subsequent editors. Capiche? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- undoing a documented revert with active talk page discussion, you appear to have become confused @SPECIFICO: you wrote with, which is strange because there was a discussion and you did not comment, instead you post here? Darkstar1st (talk) 22:49, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
- A revert for which the policy-based rationale has been documented in either the edit comment or on a separate talk page thread. I'm afraid that you unwittingly endorsed a POV edit that's one of a long series of UNDUE, SYNTH, and unverified edits that have been pushed in a long series of tendentious discussions and edit wars on a number of related pages. SPECIFICO talk 22:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
edit Hello, Darkstar1st. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Barry
editHi. Do you think Category:Tennessee politicians convicted of crimes would apply?Zigzig20s (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- indeed. i remember the days of Sheriff Fate Thomas and Gov Ray Blanton, then the humiliation of Bill Boner. It is like a bad action movie with every cliche about the south born live. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- OK, feel free to add it then. Thanks for updating the article by the way!Zigzig20s (talk) 16:34, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think we have a category for politicians who've resigned, do we? I can't find it if we do.Zigzig20s (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
- Someone else did it for us.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
ResolvedThanks
editFor your note about the LA Times source regarding the Shooting of Stephon Clark! Cheers, -Darouet (talk) 14:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- it is nice to have calm courteous editors working together to improve wp. you are welcome and thank you as well for your kind response. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks, that is kind of you! I'm surprised there aren't more editors helping work on the page. Oh well. -Darouet (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
We seem to have the right of it, i am sure others will be along soon. Either way i am glad our paths crossed, i am often discouraged by the way policy is applied and supported a small, persistent group of editors. You have reminded me the vast majority of editors here are sincere and able to present ideas without accusations or malice. Darkstar1st (talk) 22:12, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Cynefin
editPlease don't remove any more references from the Cynefin or Snowden articles. It's becoming disruptive. SarahSV (talk) 22:00, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- the last ref was to a dead link, how is that disruptive? [10] Darkstar1st (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- You could have fixed it or asked someone else to do so. I've fixed it on preview, but I can't add the edit to the page because I've already reverted someone three times, so I will have to wait now. And at Cynefin you were removing perfectly good refs. It isn't helpful editing. SarahSV (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- post the link here, i will happily add it for you. also, i doubt that would count as a revert, i didnt remove any text, and that specific passage is not likely to be disputed, as noted in summary. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- You could have fixed it or asked someone else to do so. I've fixed it on preview, but I can't add the edit to the page because I've already reverted someone three times, so I will have to wait now. And at Cynefin you were removing perfectly good refs. It isn't helpful editing. SarahSV (talk) 22:19, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
The paragraph with the dead link fixed is:
- Snowden worked for Data Sciences Ltd from 1984 until January 1997.[1] The company was acquired by IBM in 1996.[2] The following year Snowden set up IBM Global Services's Knowledge and Differentiation Programme.[3]
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
linkedinwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "IBM to acquire Data Sciences", New Straits Times, 7 March 1996.
- ^ "Knowledge Management: Managing a New Age of Uncertainty" (PDF). Alba Executive Education Programs. 2000. p. 5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 20 December 2016.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|dead-url=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help)
You have a warped sense of reality regarding several political issues. The Nazi article is one you've had many problems with over the years, with many, many editors. So don't lecture me on closing perianal fringe posts by 'new' & ip editors that say the same things over and over. I answer them by pointing to our FAQ and closing the thread. Nothing further needs to be said. Just take the page off your watch list. Your views are known and not supported by reliable sources. You know this and have been at ANI regarding your behaviour. Don't make the same mistakes again. Dave Dial (talk) 03:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- perhaps you have me confused with a different editor. regardless of what you consider reality, fringe, or a problem, the faq are not truth, merely a guideline, not a mandate to end debate. I dont think you are using this word correctly, here is the actually definition:ˈlek(t)SHər an educational talk to an audience, especially to students in a university or college. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
The Right Stuff June 2018
edit By Lionelt
Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin Andrevan was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including Winkelvi and the notorious MONGO.
Editors who faced Enforcement action include SPECIFICO (no action), Factchecker atyourservice (three month topic ban ARBAPDS), Netoholic (no action) and Anythingyouwant (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
- There is an RFC regarding Liberty University and its relationship to President Trump; see discussion
- Activist and commentator Avi Yemini is listed at AFD; see discussion
Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: July 2018
edit By Lionelt
WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.
At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."
Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.
Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos
 | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey . The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:
- 53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
- "Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
- "Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."
In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here.
(Discuss this story)Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
edit Hello, Darkstar1st. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
edit Hello, Darkstar1st. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)