PoliticalJunkie2012
Welcome!
Hello, PoliticalJunkie2012, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Matthew Nye, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Vrenator talk 10:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The article Matthew Nye has been proposed for deletion because, under Wikipedia policy, all newly created biographies of living persons must have at least one reference to a reliable source that directly supports material in the article.
If you created the article, please don't be offended. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Referencing for beginners, or ask at the help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one. Vrenator talk 10:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
|
Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism. Simply click here to accept! – Lionel (talk) 07:21, 27 November 2011 (UTC) |
Nomination of Matthew Nye for deletion edit
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Matthew Nye is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Nye until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Will Beback talk 23:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Lopez edit
The source says this:
- .Lopez has already raised a few thousand dollars and put together an impressive group of supporters, including Fred Lippitt; Eileen Slocum; Nancy Mayer's former campaign treasurer, Joan Gray; and Casa Diablo regular John Arcaro (son of former Democratic state Senator, Harold Arcaro. [1]
But how do we go from there to this:
- He was a Staff Assistant to the late United States Senator John H. Chafee and remained active in Rhode Island politics with support from the late Senator and other Republicans including the late Frederick Lippitt, as well as the late Republican National Committeewoman for Rhode Island, Eileen Slocum, throughout his undergraduate studies at the University of Rhode Island.
Based on that source we could say something like:
- He received support from Frederick Lippitt, as well as the Republican National Committeewoman for Rhode Island, Eileen Slocum.
(We should not say "the late" since they were presumably alive at the time.) If we want to say more we'd need another source to support it. BTW, since you appear so close to the subject I'd advise you to read WP:COI. Will Beback talk 00:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I will edit the page according to your recommendation (but I thought Wikipedia editors helped improve the articles in the way you recommend); I think what you suggests sounds better: I'm still learning though I know I have something to contribute here - all the references that are included in the article cover the information provided in each section. I will make sure each section is referenced accordingly, e.g., a reference to a paragraph might be better placed in any of the specific sentences where the reference is relevant. I was trying to balance the reference placement in a way where it could be understood that a particular reference illustrated the point.
I will read the link you sent on proximity to the subject but can assure you this isn't an issue here: I might be more resourceful with music subjects and you might find my efforts there to be much more precise and fuller - but I do trust I can make a valuable contribution with some political entries - particularly entries related to libertarians, some of the Tea Party folks, etc. Please be patient with my efforts - I've leaped into contributing here with an understanding that other Wikipedia writers are willing to help improve the articles over time.--PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
One reason it seems a reference is misplaced: specifically as it related to Lopez-Reyes' work for Senator John Chaffee, is that portions of this article were re-arranged. The third reference mentions his work with Chaffee - as well as Senator Hank Brown, which I have added to the article. I appreciate your suggestions. --PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 00:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I'm working on the dead links. Not sure what happened to two links simultaneously. --PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 00:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your understanding. BTW, it hasn't come up in this discussion but I also deleted some sources which don't mention Lopez. If a reference doesn't mention the subject then it probably doesn't belong. The obit of Slocum was borderline, since it apparently concerned her job title. But in general, make sure to stick to the topic and avoid too many asides (like who else supported a ballot initiative) unless there is a clear connection. Will Beback talk 01:31, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I welcome the feedback. I'm working on making improvements based on your advice. This isn't the only article I've tried to improve or edit, so I'm sure you'll see more articles where there's something or another I could do better.--PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
One dead link is throwing off some of the information I cited. I'm just giving the link a bit of time to see if it comes back up - all these links were good in the last day or two... I'm not sure what has happened. But I will replace them if they don't come back live. Thanks for the heads up; please note that I had good links to the items that are in need of a citation. Between shifting some of the writing around (leaving citations in one place where they work but nowhere close to other text that needed the same citation) and two sites going dead on me at the same time, I am doing what I can to salvage those citations. One of them I managed to fix: Biterman's resignation. I found two links that discuss the issue. The other link, with biographical details for Lopez-Reyes that seem to lack citations, I am at a loss at what happened to the site. I will check it again in a few hours (or a day?) and if it's not back up I will edit the entry again to delete anything that can't be referenced as a result.--PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 02:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at User_talk:Lionelt's talk page.
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.
Discussions at AFD edit
Hello,
I understand that it may be frustrating to you for an article that you have created to be nominated for deletion, and it may seem other articles that are still in Wikipedia ought not to be there. However, as an experienced editor, and one who has participates regularly in deletion discussions, I'd like to give you this little bit of advice: arguing about other articles will not result in the article about Matthew Nye being kept. What will result in it being kept is presentation of significant coverage in indpendent reliable sources such as newspapers and magazines. You may also want to read Wikipedia:Guide to deletion which contains some additional information and advice. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
- Hey PU--Nye has sourcing issues. It's not the end of the world. May I recommend, if Nye gets deleted, that you put the article in the incubator. That way it will be safe until Nye gets more coverage. The great editors at WPConservatism will keep an eye out and add sources as they become available. And one day, just like Star Parker, Nye will graduate and take his rightful place back in main Wikipedia. If Star can do it--so can Matthew. In the mean time, why not create a user page, or introduce yourself to some WPConservatism members, or even create another article. – Lionel (talk) 07:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
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.
File permission problem with File:RowanRobertson.tif edit
Thanks for uploading File:RowanRobertson.tif. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.
If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
- make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
- Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en
wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.
If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en
wikimedia.org.
If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 09:34, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
The subject gave permission to use this photo - I'm not sure what more we can do. I will ask the owner of the photo, who happens to be the person *in* the photo to send an email to permissions-enwikimedia.org. But I have to say that Wikipedia's rules regarding copyright and image use need to be written in simpler terms - otherwise you risk becoming a publisher like any other rather than a publishing piece run by regular users. --PoliticalJunkie2012 (talk) 09:41, 20 March 2012 (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)