On 1 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article First Motion Picture Unit, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the creator of Looney Tunes and Merrie Melodies— Rudolf Ising—served in the First Motion Picture Unit, which made films like Camouflage (pictured) during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/First Motion Picture Unit. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir ( talk) 08:02, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

C'mon FMPU... Baby needs a new pair of shoes!

2,538 measly hits AND I had a video on the homepage--someone call a bureaucrat--I have been robbed!!!

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		Great job with First Motion Picture Unit! Daniel Case ( talk) 13:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

From your past few edits i get the impression you're not assuming good faith. If you see an unsourced edit of mine, the least you could do is ask me to source it instead of plainly reverting me. I think your editing style is hostile and unconstructive. I have come accross this behavior of your at least twice in the past, but decided to ignore it. This is the third time. Your edits beome particularly unhelpful when they make mass reverts often in a short space of time. The fact you can make revert or delete in such a short space of time indicates you have not attempted to do research on an edit yourself and whether a passage is notable/plausible etc. My problems wih your edits can be roughly covered by WP:Etiquette, WP:Assume good faith, and WP:NPOV. Also, some other edits have complained about a such behavior from you fairly recently. I hope you amend these editing habits of yours. I will be watching your contributions. Pass a Method talk 11:47, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Furthermore, in this edit you indicate you do not value the lives of gay people as much as you value black people. This shows your partiality and probably explains some of the above concerns. Additionally i have noticed some hypocrisy in your editing, for example saying "unsourced" but ignoring unsourced text fits your worldview; Or cherry-picking quotes as at I have a dream, but ignoring other texts with similar content. Another problem with your editing is that you believe others should justify inclusion of text even when the text is sourced without explanation. Pass a Method talk 16:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

What silliness. Stating that what gays are going through now is nothing compared to what blacks went through is not stating that the lives of black people are more valuable than gay people. It's a statement of fact, that even many gay people acknowledge. Gay people actually get to have a life, even if not getting to marry in every part of the world, and are not going through anything close to the horrors that black people had to endure. And marriage isn't even important to all gay people. Freedom, on the other hand, which black people didn't have, is important to everyone. And it's funny that you admit you will be stalking an editors edits, after having warned another editor not to stalk you because it's WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Unbelievable. 116.247.86.34 ( talk) 18:03, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Firstly, why dont you reply using your user account, and why do you ignore all the other points? Secondly, in a way, gays are going through worse than blacks, because whereas a black can find condolence in his family, or among peers or among his church/mosque/etc., gays often come from conservative/traditionalist families, or are not acccepted by their religious clergy, and many social groups exclude gays. For example you can probably go to any inner city in most countries and tell youths you are into cannabis and it would be socially accetable. But imagine telling people you're gay instead, it could be social suicide. In fact various polls confirm this such as a recennt gallup poll stating 96% would vote for a black president but only 68% for a gay and only 54% for an atheist. [1] Pass a Method talk 18:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Firstly, I never stated that I am Lionelt. There are people who watch others' talk pages, or don't you know that? And whether or not I have an account is none of your business. I'm certainly not obligated to respond to your drivel under an account. And your stating that "in a way, gays are going through worse than blacks" is quite possibly the most absurd thing I have ever read...if you mean "what blacks went through back in the slavery days." If you do mean that, I highly suggest you read up on exactly what slavery was like for black people. And don't tell me that you have, because I won't believe it. Gay people are free, and most of society is not out hanging them, skining them alive, burning them, telling them that they can't sit [here or there], etc. etc, etc... Not being able to find condolence from family, or among peers or among church/mosque/etc. is nothing compared to the horrors that black people went through during the slavery days. If you mean what both groups are going through now in the modern era, then I can understand your point. But otherwise, no. And the cannabis example is a bad one. What, are people suppposed to be condemned for being into cannabis? 116.247.86.34 ( talk) 18:37, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

People are still legally hanged today for being gay. There is no country where you can leglly be hanged for being black today. Im not sure why you're drifting into 19th century history - my discussion is not about history but modern issues. If you stopped daydreaming and used your neurological receptors you would have realized i was speaking in a present tense (are, can etc.). I failt to see how you could translate my present tense sentence into "the slavery days". This says a lot about your grammatical skills. Also, i still think you're Lionelt, since you haven't denied it. Pass a Method talk 18:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

People being legally hanged for being gay in the modern era is still nowhere close to all of what black people endured during the slavery days. It doesn't even happen in as many places as black slavery did. Everyone who knows the history of both plights knows this. It seems that you don't. And let's not forget that, unless a very effeminate gay man who is not thinking about "acting straight" (which many gay men have talked about), people can conceal the fact that they are gay. People cannot conceal the fact that they are black unless they have a good amount of European blood in them and actually look white, which is to their benefit if facing a person who is racist against blacks. And I stated that "If you mean what both groups are going through now in the modern era, then I can understand your point. But otherwise, no." And I stated that because it was not clear that you were talking about the modern era for both groups. Lionelt and others were talking about what blacks went through during slavery compared to what gays are going through now. So it's only natural that a person would assume that you are speaking of the same. It only looks like you're backtracking to me. Not to mention, resorting to insults when you can't hold your own during a debate makes you look... Well, you get the point. But just to touch on one of your insults, you shouldn't be talking about anyone's grammatical skills, given your constant typos. And what you actually meant is "comprehension skills" anyway.

And by the way, I don't care if you think that I'm Lionelt. As if it makes sense that he would respond to you as an IP on his talk page. And now, since you are trying to control my actions -- trying to get me to state that I am or am not Lionelt, despite the fact that anyone could state that I was clear that I am not -- I'm not going to bother explicitly stating that I am not. Whoop. 116.247.86.34 ( talk) 19:38, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I always edit under Lionelt. (And once in a while my pseudo-bot.) Mainly because I want the credit for my editcount. I'm knocking on the door ofover 20,000, you know. That said, I think 116.247.86.34 makes excellent points. Btw, have you gentlemen/women visited First Motion Picture Unit? I need to get 5000 pageviews and I could use your help. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 21:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I have noticed that wikipedians are quite obsessed with edit counts. I fail to see the logic. I know many great editors with low edit counts and many awful editors with high edit counts. Pass a Method talk 23:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Obsessed? Just because I have my "Edit count" page on my browser toolbar and check it every other hour, make zillions of tiny minor edits instead of big ones, don't do any offwiki writing and use AWB to add wikiproject banners by the thousand doesn't make me obsessed. [preceding was humor] Regarding your other comment, well now you know a great editor with a high edit count.[preceding was slightly facetious but completely true] (Note to WP server: add 1 to my edit count. Thank you.) – Lionel ^{( talk)} 23:29, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Pass a Method: I want to ask you something. I want you to take your time and consider your answer very carefully. I want you to be honest and not shovel BS. How you respond may affect the very foundation of Wikipedia for the foreseeable future: did you visit First Motion Picture Unit? – Lionel ^{( talk)} 23:36, 1 July 2012 (UTC) [In case anyone is counting--and I know I am--that was my 20,381st edit] reply

Hi, just noticed that the DYK icons at the top of your page don't actually point anywhere, and simply say "user got listed on the main page". :-) -- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 16:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

You might want to judge/close the WikiGrail contest since it is over. Toa Nidhiki05 23:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

It's going to take a while to determine the winner. Looks close and I don't want to make a mistake. Gimme a day... :-) – Lionel ^{( talk)} 23:52, 1 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Actually there are 5 min left according to UTC. And as Viriditas is quick to tell you even if you don't ask, we always do things according to UTC. We don't want anyone accusing me of violating the rules.  ;-) – Lionel (talk) 4:55 pm, Today (UTC−7)

Haha, we don't want that at all. Toa Nidhiki05 00:12, 2 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Ping.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 18:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I want to redirect Imam Husayn Shrine to Imam Hussein Shrine, but i can't coz it already has a page. How do you move such a page? Pass a Method talk 07:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello! Your edit here also removed my (now irrelevant) comment. This was almost certainly an accident, but I just wanted to check and see if there was another reason. Thanks! -- Tgeairn ( talk) 02:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Accident. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 02:51, 8 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/First Colored Senator and Representatives.png -- for stalkers who wanna know WTF this is all about – Lionel ^{( talk)} 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I apologise for Raeky's behaviour. I was trying to help out, but he or she seems determined to go off on some sort of odd crusade against... god knows what. I hope you like the restoration I did, anyway. If you missed the download button, here's a link to the full-sized version. http://fc02.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2012/189/d/d/first_colored_u_s__senator_reps__restoration_by_adamcuerden-d56h6gm.png - You'll probably need to convert to JPEG to get it to upload; email me through the email service at User:Adam Cuerden if you need any more help - I'm pretty much retired, but will always jump on things related to civil rights movements. =) 86.139.213.143 ( talk) 14:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hilarious: controversy follows me whereever I go!!!!! Hahahahaha!!! No apology necessary, and the restoration looks nice, great job. But to be honest all I want is a bronze star. I've already uploaded a png (which I converted from tiff myself) and the tiff in addition to the original jpg and being honest again I don't care if the image is yellow, white or turquise. Now... what do you think about voting Support??? – Lionel ^{( talk)} 21:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The Committee is shocked and disappointed that you failed to appear at this year's Chap Olympiad. Neither did you send your butler as your representative (permitted under the rules in extreme circumstances such as terminal gout, moustache mange or gusset-rot). Poor show, old chap. You risk being blackballed by the Committee for your snub, which I'm sure will be of concern to a fellow of your proclaimed testicular dimensions, hence this notification. Writegeist ( talk) 22:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Please be a good fellow and forward my sincere regrets to the Committee. You see a gentlemen of my phallic attribution is in great demand to perform one service or the other as the case may be and as need arises. And as chivalry demands, I am always one to oblige, and never one to disappoint. Love the link; my compliments sir, and my felicitations to Mrs. Writegeist, who I am certain appreciated your comforting and "maintenance" during the recent long and cold winter. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 23:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove information from articles, as you did to Exodus International. Wikipedia is not censored, and content is not removed on the sole grounds of perceived offensiveness. Please discuss this issue on the article's talk page to reach consensus rather than continuing to remove the disputed material. If the content in question involves images, you also have the option to configure Wikipedia to hide the images that you may find offensive. Thank you.

I am doing the review for the article you nominated. The review page is here-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 18:03, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply

There are suggestions at the review page on what should be improved in the article before I believe it can pass.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 21:29, 11 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Opinions on what I wrote on ItsZippy's page? I believe it is unfair for one user to get blocked for edit warring and not the other, and the mod was in the wrong for choosing sides. Lsufalcon ( talk) 20:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC) reply

You are a much more experienced editor than I, so would you mind having a look at something for me? I think it's possible we are seeing some sockpuppetry. Check out this | user sandbox, and pay particular attention to the "possible signatures". I know you will recognize at least one of the handles. Belchfire ( talk) 02:49, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Nothing afoot here. He just likes Jenova's signature and is testing different versions. What is worrisome however is that noone at WT:LGBT has deleted that inflammatory canvass by Jenova. Jenova is using the wikiproject to further a battleground, and the members are eerily silent. Even approving? A wikiproject will be shutdown if the community views it as a vote-stacking machine. And while many would have no issue in WP:LGBT being shutdown, the repurcussions could affect a great many projects.

Don't think for one second that you or I could post something like that and get away with it. For you or I it would mean a one way trip to WP:ANI and a certain topic ban. Double standard? Naaawwwwww. Getting back to the article, don't be surprised if 635 editors "magically" show up at the article, lol. Don't worry... I have plenty of policy-based arguments up my sleeve, hahahahaha. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 03:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply

OK, thanks. I didn't want to pursue that until I'd consulted with somebody more savvy than myself. Belchfire ( talk) 16:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply

-- Omer123hussain ( talk) 09:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi LioneIt,

I would like to discuss the reason for excluding the quotation from Lord Rothermere's Youth Triumphant editorial and have outlined my justification here. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter.

My discussion is intended to be in good faith and with no malice.

Thanks,

— Posted by Luke Goodsell, 08:42, 15 July 2012 (UTC) reply

• Started Talk:Krista Branch/GA1 with a few suggestions and a provisional no vote. Hope my suggestions help. If you can, please take a look at Angelus Silesius (an article I've been working on recently) and tell me what you think. I'm planning on putting this up for GA later this week. Thanks. -- ColonelHenry ( talk) 18:29, 15 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. You have a new message at ColonelHenry's talk page. -- ColonelHenry ( talk) 05:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Lionel. A few weeks ago, issues were raised at my talk page regarding your behaviour. I've spent the past few days looking through your history and I've found a couple of disturbing trends. The biggest problem is with your misrepresentation of sources.

• Exodus International - You suggested that the company sees homosexual behavior as sinful, whereas the source stated that the company maintained that "sexual activity prior to heterosexual marriage" was sinful. You've attributed more to the comment than was said, and missed off other parts.
• Straight pride. You suggested that Steve Nelson of Huffington Post categorised Straight Pride as a First Amendment issue. In fact, though he mentioned First Amendment, he did not categorise it such, he was commenting on First Amendment claims of high school students.
• Confidence Men - Daily Mail reporting on Washington Post excerpt of a book based on interviews. The original subject denies it in the same source. You did the same at Anita Dunn and went on to add it in places such as Presidency of Barack Obama#Criticism and War on Women.
• Cristiada (film) - You attributed parallels which were not mentioned in source.
• Donald Harvey - You state he killed his lover, but the just states that he poisoned his lover, specifically suggesting he did not kill him.

When confronted with these issues, you appear to categorically deny that there was a problem, yet you do change the text to find compromise. I'm very much of the opinion that editors shouldn't be expected to apologise for mistakes (grovelling isn't a requirement), and finding a middle ground is an excellent way forward. However, because there are quite so many incidents and all from the past few months, I thought it worth coming here to ask you to please be more careful in future with how you represent sources, as repeating actions like that in the future is likely to lead to removal of your editing priveleges.

I don't want to be wholly negative - I've seen you do some excellent work on the encyclopedia. Not only with respect to your non-political articles, but also your hard work co-ordinating wikiprojects. Whether or not there is a left-wing bias on Wikipedia, it is a legitimate concern, and I thank you for adding some balance to the encyclopedia. Worm^TT( talk) 13:29, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I want to thank you, Worm, for bringing these concerns to my attention. The process of improving oneself is a never ending journey, and constructive criticism is crucial in this respect. Digging through contributions is a laborious process, and I assure you that your effort is not in vain, and has drawn my attention. With regard to the specific items enumerated, I assure you that in no instance was there ever intentional misrepresentation of sources. What we have here, in fact, is a misinterpretation of sources. After long consideration, I also speculate that my understanding of some of our policies may be erroneous. Originally I had intended to end my response here. However the recent vexacious behavior of Viriditas with regards to Romney makes it obvious that a detailed justification of every single one of my edits is required: which will be forthcoming. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 00:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " Thomas Sowell". Thank you. -- CartoonDiablo ( talk) 19:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is " War on Women". Thank you. -- CartoonDiablo ( talk) 01:38, 18 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the kitten Montalban ( talk) 05:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Cheezburger cheezburger!– Lionel ^{( talk)} 01:15, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your comments re: Boswell Montalban ( talk) 09:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

hey, I saw your recent comment with an aggressive stand so I thought of talking about it.

Please disclose whether you are the article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor, or if you otherwise have a vested interest in the article ; WP:AVOIDCOI.

—  WP:DISCUSSAFD

Now can you please explain what has made you so angry about it ? please tone down your comment on AfD thanks-- DBig Xray 21:08, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Being the "article's creator, a substantial or minor contributor" is referred to as "involved." COI is when you are closely affiliated to the topic of the article. In this instance for COI to exist all of the 3 editors in question would have had to have actually originated the term, worked for a government body to promote the term, authored a treatise on the term, etc. "Involved" and COI are completely different. COI is an violation which usually requires voluntary restrictions. If you edit an article that only makes you "involved"--that's not a COI. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 21:34, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I only quoted what was mentioned on WP:DISCUSSAFD and I see no good reason for you getting hyper on this. Thats all I would say. <sigh> -- DBig Xray 21:38, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

It appears you may have equated "involved" with "conflict of interest" and then linked to WP:COI thinking it is the same. It is not. You have to realize that for all intents and purposes WP:COI editors are prohibited from editing the article at issue. When you accused those 3 of WP:COI an implication was made that they should not be editing P. Z. Just say "involved" and everything will be fine.– Lionel ^{( talk)} 21:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

↑What he said. I came here to state that but Lionelt made the comment first. There is a big difference between accusing someone of having a conflict of interest and accusing them of being involved. In any case, I have rarely seen editors declare their interest in an article at an AFD. It just doesn't happen.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC) reply

ww2censor ( talk) 02:21, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

In http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Political_positions_of_Mitt_Romney&diff=503240455&oldid=503232493, you said (source does not say that his policy is "confusing"). Well, actually, our article quotes the source as saying it's "unclear and confusing", and the source ( http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/07/16/top_senators_can_t_explain_romney_s_afghanistan_policy) says:

"Republican candidate Mitt Romney's policy on the future of U.S.-led war in Afghanistan war is unclear and confusing, complicating attempts to either support or criticize it during the campaign, according to leading senators from both parties."

I think it's very clear that you made an innocent mistake. Please revert it. 24.45.42.125 ( talk) 07:33, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you. 24.45.42.125 ( talk) 07:39, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I've requested that you be immediately blocked for continuing to misrepresent sources on purpose after being repeatedly warned. You may participate in the discussion here. Thanks. Viriditas ( talk) 07:44, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Stating that I intentionally misrepresent sources is libelous.– Lionel ^{( talk)} 00:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

While you're making changes would you mind rewording it so it sounds less like an advertisement for them? Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 09:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I'll make it so you don't even recognize it! – Lionel ^{( talk)} 09:17, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Ok, just tag fairly. I see there's a citation needed tag appeared on their stance on homosexuality. If i see that only things like this are going to be tagged in an article about an organization that is anti-gay then we'll have a problem with bias and censorship again. Thanks and good luck ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 09:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the McMuffin, haven't had one in years. Have a nice day/evening ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 10:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm happy with your edit Montalban ( talk) 10:36, 20 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions. I am glad to see that you are discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan Zindabad are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. Thank you. Comment like "all I have to say is Pakistan Zindabad!!!" doesn't contribute much to the discussion and just makes it off-topic. Please take care of that next time. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:51, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

And you think using this boilerplate warning did any good at all?  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 07:53, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

He can remove it once he has noted it. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 07:58, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

C'mon Vaibhav, wasn't that a great zinger?!? The timing. The delivery. You know, a zinger is also a sweet treat. I'll give you one to show there's no hard feelings about templating an editor with over 20,000 edits. What's your favorite flavor: chocolate, vanilla or strawberry? – Lionel ^{( talk)} 08:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the offer. :) See, I believe that regulars should be templated if they have done some mistake, although most probably it would had been unintentional. You must have noticed how heated this topic is, and the arbcom is already watching over it. Such comments can make the discussion off-topic. Feel free to remove the warning if you feel like, and sorry if you felt bad with that notice, it wasn't my intention to make you feel so. :) ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^{Talk Email} 08:14, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I finally got a chance to see Chief Oates on tv. He is a great man. I'm hoping more biographical information will appear online as the stories develop from breaking news to background information. I'd love to get the article to GA status.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 20:45, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Too expand on this, if we can get this too 2010 characters within the next 5 days, it will qualify for DYK. I'm going to leave a note to see if it will qualify as a formerly unsourced BLP (since the copyvio was unsourced and the reverted version had two broken external links which wouldn't count as sources.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 21:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Count me in. Btw I along the lines of WP:DCM I sent them an "official" media request from an "official" Wikipedia editor--I know they must be inundated, but maybe we'll get lucky. It worked with that cutie Lila Rose.

Thought you were good at noticing this kind of thing Lionelt? Stange that. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 20:50, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Can you two just stop your bickering?  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 20:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm not looking to bicker, i just found it odd he didn't notice it as he's good at noticing these copyright violations from what i've seen and he's gone through this tiny article recently ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 20:55, 21 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you Jenova for the compliment--but I do not consider myself a (c) expert. In fact, I am always asking for help at WP:CQ. I'd like to take this opportunity to clear up a common misunderstanding. While it is a fact that I exhibit excellent grammar, an extensive vocabulary, impressive spelling, and in depth knowledge of classical literature, I am not a trained copy editor, nor is my vocation that of a professional journalist. In the real world I was trained in information technology, and my experience in formal writing for the most part is limited to the occasional research paper I wrote in college. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 00:31, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The first part of your respons there actually made me laugh as i thought you were going to list a massive amount of incredible traits...Anyway just be a bit more careful with stuff like that. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

For all the stalkers, this image that I nominated did not get promoted to Featured Picture. As a Black person I wanna know why? Guess what: in case you haven't noticed, everyone in this pic is Black. Yes, as in African American. Previously known as colored. A picture of Black males. Need I say more?

On the other hand, this video I nominated, featuring a little white girl, is cruising to being promoted. It got enough votes after 3 days!

Or could the reason be political? The Black guys are Republicans, the video is Democratic.

Well? What's goin'on here? Do I need to call Jesse? – Lionel ^{( talk)} 01:43, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

According to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/First Colored Senator and Representatives.png there were outstanding issues that were not addressed in time for it to pass or receive additional support votes. I'm not seeing anything racist in the discussion or in the outcome. There may, however, be a bit of "recentism", in that the video of the girl is far more "notable" in terms of popular culture. Viriditas ( talk) 03:23, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

That whole copyright thing was just a canard. There is definitely a cabal right here at Wikipedia of young, white, Democrat women who are actively and deliberately discriminating against older Black males who happen to be Republicans. I will not rest until I have rooted them out and put an end to their nefarious operations. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 03:35, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Give me their names and phone numbers, I'll deal with them. :) Viriditas ( talk) 03:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

It's a shame that the image wasn't promoted. It's a wonderful image of historical significance.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 04:50, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

First i've heard of being able to promote a video to featured picture status...i learned something today ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Well, if you are disabled as well, then Wikipedia will be 100% against you :(-- Mishae ( talk) 01:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC) reply

What do you think the odds are that a profile of James Eagan Holmes will show him to be a religious conservative? Let's take a look:

1. Born and raised in San Diego, California. Attended school in an area known for voting Republican (Torrey Highlands, CA)
2. USA Today (via the Los Angeles Times) reports that the suspect was "deeply involved with his family in their local Presbyterian church".
3. Coincidentally, the July 20 attack on the movie theater occurred just days after conspiracy theorist Rush Limbaugh, on July 18, attacked the new Batman film for subliminally criticizing Mitt Romney. According to Wikipedia, "Limbaugh claimed that the 'Bane' character was a liberal conspiracy designed to attack candidate Mitt Romney's work with venture capital firm Bain Capital. Limbaugh stated that while 'Bain' and “Bane” are spelled differently it was a liberal media conspiracy to associate candidate Romney and the company he was president of with a fictional movie villain."
4. Even though there is no relationship between Bain Capital and the villain Bane, it is likely that the subsequent attack by Holmes has scared people away from seeing the film. Most interestingly, people who do attend the film will no longer be thinking about the villain Bane, but the villain Holmes.
5. The attack occurred around the anniversary of the 2011 Norway attacks committed by right-wing Christian extremist Anders Behring Breivik, with some commentators finding direct parallels (and influences) between the two attacks. Several articles (it is unclear if they are unsubstantiated rumors or not) have said that Holmes followed Breivik's plans for the attack, right down to specific details regarding preparation and armaments.

Any thoughts? Viriditas ( talk) 04:10, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

As a note, point 3 is clearly irrelevant since he appears to have been planning this for a long time. What is the significance of Holmes' status on the political spectrum anyways?  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 04:45, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I agree that point 3 is weak, but one could plan something for a very long time and simply wait for a "trigger", i.e. an opportune time to commit the act. Was Limbaugh's rage against liberals and Batman this trigger? How incredibly convenient that Holmes committed this heinous act during the opening of the film. If Limbaugh's conspiracy theory was true (it's not of course), then people will no longer associate the Bane villain with Romney, but with Holmes. The significance of Holmes's politics is that we know nothing about his motives nor any specifics about his background. Lionel and other members of WikiProject Conservatism often argue that liberalism is responsible for the decline of civilization, yet we see that religious conservatives like Breivik pop up all the time with no comment. See User:Viriditas/Right-wing politics and violence for some examples. Viriditas ( talk) 04:54, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

In my opinion, the political views of any of these crazies, conservative or liberal, is irrelevant. They aren't accurate representations of their own political or religious ideology. Even extremists like Glenn Beck or one of the news anchors on MSNBC (I turn fox on and then turn it off, I refuse to turn MSNBC on so I can't name an anchor) are poor representations of their respective ideologies because they take it to an extreme.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 04:57, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Let's take the examples of Anders Behring Breivik and Ted Kaczynski. Isn't understanding their political views an inseparable part of understanding their motives? In fact, it was Kacynski's political views that got him caught. His brother recognized his distinctive POV and turned him in. In Breivik's case, his right wing extremist politics motivated him to commit terrorism. Understanding political views of the suspects is not just an essential part of capturing them, but also necessary when finding ways to prevent the same crimes from happening over and over again. There are always going to be patterns, and one can recognize those patterns emerge, for example, in the discourse of right-wing populism which has superseded left-wing extremism in the last two decades. However, as a counterargument, based on the sources that are coming out right now, I think we might eventually discover that Holmes's family has a history of mental illness. Interestingly, while genetics can determine mental illness in some cases, it has also been shown to exert influence on political orientation. Viriditas ( talk) 05:16, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

If we have reliable sources to confirm that Holmes is a religious conservative, I'd say it belongs in the article because it goes towards his motivations. But let's get the sources first. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 08:37, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Who cares about civilization? Civilization ended when Pope Paul replaced the Tridentine Mass. The real trajedy is how liberalism is causing the decline of Wikipedia!!! – Lionel ^{( talk)} 09:10, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I assume you're joking. That would explain the edits claiming that social conservatism isn't inherently authoritarian. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 03:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I never joke. Humor is veboten.– Lionel ^{( talk)} 03:31, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I noted that you deleted the LGBT category for Alan Chambers under the reason it fails to meet the WP guidelines, however, I have added some new information and recategorized Alan Chambers as LGBT. The fact that Chambers accepts that he has same sex attraction should be sufficient for him to be identified as gay, because the definition of 'homosexual' provided by Wiki doesn't say persons who explicitly [accept] themselves to be gay. So Alan doesn't have to accept that he is gay for him to be gay - The fact that he admitted to have the basic criterion of homosexuality i.e. to be attracted to someone of the same sex is binding.

I also see where he is categorized as an ex-gay even though the information provided states that he rejects the term 'ex-gay'. I also see where Frank Ocean is categorized as LGBT yet he has not used the terms 'gay' or 'bisexual' to describe his experience nor did he say he is presently active as a gay person - He spoke to his past experience. I consider this to be hypocritical - An encyclopedia is to give facts and so if a man has to say I am gay actively participating in gay sex for him to be classed as LGBT then the definition given by Wiki needs to be changed, and the many notable men and women who are categorized as LGBT but never 'explicitly' used the term, either because the term never yet coined, or for some other reasons, need to be recategorized.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bemorej ( talk • contribs) 16:21, 22 July 2012 (UTC) reply

You added an "undue weight" tag to the lead of Social conservativism, but you didn't go on to discuss it in Talk. If you won't explain your reasoning, I will remove your drive-by tag. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 07:12, 23 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I have nominated it, see Template:Did you know nominations/Dan Oates.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 05:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

DYK was accepted, now to make sure it gets posted before the olympics. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Dan Oates.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 15:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Lionelt you could source the stuff you remove as fast as you remove it. Do i have to trawl through every article on the LGBT watchlist you have edited to see what you have removed as a BLP violation or can you just be more careful? This is an encyclopedia after all, not just a war to remove as much as possible. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:20, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Please familiarize yourself with our policies. WP:BLPREMOVE is unambiguous on this issue. It enjoins editors to "Remove immediately" offending material. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 08:30, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

But this isn't infringing material, it was just partly unsourced and could have been corrected with the first 2 google search results as i just did ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:35, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

A wikilink is not a source--partial or otherwise.– Lionel ^{( talk)} 08:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

The first line of it references everything said on the statement you deleted. common sense is the issue here, not BLP "violations". ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 09:11, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank You. Mannanan51 ( talk) 17:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)mannanan51 reply

Thank you, Mannanan. I moved it here because I do all my drinking on my talk page. Perhaps you've noticed the kind of stuff people post here. I think you would be driven to drink, too!!! Hahahaah!!!!!

• Hi, Lionelt Though there are unjust rules or behaviours, but there is justice too.

	An appreciation Barnstar
	An appreciation barnstar in recognition of your all past and for future work on Wikipedia. Justice007 ( talk) 15:50, 24 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Justice. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 01:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply

If you read the talk on Sts Sergius and Bacchus you may see that Cuchulan argues multiple argument at once. Montalban ( talk) 09:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Cuchulan has just written the following on my page: Your recent editing history at Saints Sergius and Bacchus shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection

Apparently I'm in an editing war, not him! Montalban ( talk) 12:51, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply

He's now given me an 'editing war' violation on an admin page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Montalban_reported_by_User:Cuchullain_.28Result:_.29 Montalban ( talk) 13:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't know if you are the go to person on his, but the biography on Clare Boothe Luce is an important one for the conservative and Catholic WikiProjects. Currently, it is missing a great deal of information about her personal relationship with the Catholic church and I'm wondering if you could help do the research and expand it. There's a big story here, but all it says is that she joined when her child died in a car accident. Viriditas ( talk) 06:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

As a matter of fact, because of my position as Grand Poobah of WPConservatism, and member extradinary and plenipotentiary of WPCatholic, I am the preeminent "go to person." What is there not to like about CBL? Beautiful. Intelligent. Artistic. Catholic. Conservative. Republican. A woman of the world, a woman for all seasons. Improving her article, specifically with your suggestions, would be an exciting project. However, I have a few open items I need to take care of first. The KofC Good Article nom is wrapping up, and FMPU is ready for Good Article nom, my speechography will make a fantastic DYK, and my filmograpy Featured List nom is also wrapping up. Oh and a Featured pic. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 05:48, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I apologize for the delay in replying; I was attempting to get out from under your ego. Viriditas ( talk) 00:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the invitation I really appreciated learning about such a great organization you founded Which I definately will join as soon as I change my username. Feel free not to answer this but my curiosity compels me to ask why are you a registered democrat and how would describe your politics Algonquin7 ( talk) 07:45, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

If I tell you I'll have to kill you. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 05:59, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Jolly good show with the Chick-fil-A sandwich your definately the most easy-going and fun-loving editor I've come across on wikipedia. You may be a hard man to figure out but I like that so never change by the way I changed my username to John D. Rockerduck the name I used to join project conservatism since it sounded decidely more conservative to me Algonquin7 ( talk) 10:01, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted Your nomination for featured picture status, File:Commercial-LBJ1964ElectionAdDaisyGirl.ogv, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Makeemlighter ( talk) 19:21, 26 July 2012 (UTC) reply

	For my Stalkers
	Please join me in celebrating the newest Featured Picture. – Lionel ( talk) 02:06, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply

So, what a coincidence... I decided to pretty-up my personal space with tabs today, and it turns out that my newest "fan" happens to be a Subject Matter Expert.

I have a question for you, if you don't mind. I'd like to increase the white space between my tabs. Do I need to switch over to the PageTabsTop template in order to do this, or is it doable with the regular "page tabs" implementation? These are separate templates, correct? (I'm still learning this stuff, so please be patient with me if this is a silly question). Can you give me a hint? Here is what I'm working with. Thanks. Belchfire 01:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hmmm...

What about the tabs here: WP:RIGHT. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 01:49, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Oh. Wow. I love how it looks, but I'm completely befuddled by the mark-up. No worries, I'll do some more digging. (And obviously, there is absolutely nothing urgent about this.) Thanks. Belchfire 01:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

See also {{ Start tab}}. – Lionel ^{( talk)} 06:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks, I can make sense out of that one. BTW, I stumbled on to sort of a gimmicky way to customize my tabs... I made them tall by inserting a carriage return after the text content. I haven't decided if I really like it, though. Belchfire 06:13, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

On 27 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dan Oates, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Dan Oates (pictured) served in the NYPD and in Ann Arbor, Michigan, before serving as police chief during the 2012 Aurora shooting? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dan Oates. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 16:03, 27 July 2012 (UTC) reply

You're a Democrat? I just read it on your user page. I never would have thought that to be true. It is truly amazing that a liberal editor has done more to reduce Wikipedia's liberal bias than many other editors.  Ryan  Vesey  Review me! 05:03, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

If you don't mind my comment here from the peanut galleries, I'm not sure you should be equating Democratic with liberal. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 10:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Oh, don't be so credulous, Ryan. Like so many other conservatives, Lionel's public claim to be a Democrat is just a disingenuous ploy for enhancing the perceived credibility of his conservative agenda. It's his way of asserting, "And I must be the objective one!" (I think that's yet another claim if you read his self-profile far enough). All over the rest of the place Lionel lauds social conservatism & the virtues of being Republican (see CBL comments above, and his equation of smart, beautiful, REPUBLICAN!). If that means he's a Democrat, it begs what "being" Democrat - or Libertarian, or socialist, or X - even MEANS beyond rhetorical flourish to him. He also claims to be "polite" and "civil" in the same breath he trumpets never having been blocked as if it confers summa cum lauds status instead of the barest minimum standard for continuing to edit. I rarely edit Wiki, but as a psychologist interested in ideological & personality trait valence enjoys reading the Talk pages of politically contentious articles. While that sounds like a pretty narrow niche, that Wiki now constitutes a primary info source for tens of millions renders it pretty consequential. Lionel is an...interesting case study within the stable of regular editors here, one whose self-concept - conveniently published for comparison on his home page - is completely inconsistent with my & I suspect many others' impression. I'm not sure I'd believe ANYTHING that Lionel himself claims about his own biography, which is a pretty carefully crafted barrel of self-aggrandizement conceits. Which is what makes him interesting next to editors whose profiles are cross-comparably consistent with their edits, are consistent with their rationale, writing style, etc. Probably the only thing more precious to Lionel than the conservative social agenda is his own public image, into which he has little insight, if his self-penned profile is any indication. 100.36.154.131 ( talk) 09:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC) reply

You're not going to get cooperation out of Still-24-45-42-125 unless you edit something that he agrees with to his viewpoint which becomes a POV issue. He's constantly made calls on his own whim, throw around accusations such as claiming "edit-wars", made up policies, used inactive ones or even claimed certain guides were policies, he's reverted NPOV changes to POV or even inserted POV changes in NPOV material, and also he's admitted pushing certain agenda such as the Focus on the Family in the talk thread. It's becoming more of a problem and constant headache for genuine editors. ViriiK ( talk) 07:19, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Just out of curiosity, would you consider WP:AGF to be a legitimate policy? In case you're not familiar with it, it comes with this summary:

• Unless there is clear evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it.
• If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives without clear evidence.

I think you can see how it might even apply to your own post. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 10:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Please see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Focus on the Family#Recreational drugs. Thank you. 72Dino ( talk) 15:05, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey, thanks for commenting on my FLC for MercyMe discography - could you have a look at my FAC for Revelation? I need to get the wheels turning on that nomination, and it has been nearly a week since I nominated it. BTW, good work on that Daisy Girl ad video - it's certainly one of the most shocking and impactful political ads of the 1900s and it is great it is featured now. Toa Nidhiki05 18:40, 28 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi I was about to post this comment on the ANI thread when i was stuck in the series of ( edit conflict) and consequent closing of thread. but on second thoughts i decided to post it here. cheers -- DBig Xray 08:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

I had redacted the comment that is the subject On ANI. I also admit, I wasn't aware that Have you stopped beating your wife is a redirect. but even then I think using such a phrase on a WP:AN3 thread where tempers are higher than average, was not a wise thing to do. Accordingly it was redacted and the person notified. I dont think this issue needs a seperate hearing again at ANI, the matter has already received its due/undue coverage. Time to move on now. -- DBig Xray 08:42, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, I know this isn't what you wanted to get out of the AN/I discussion but that's pretty much what it is. While logical fallacies are out of line here and probably not the best way to retort to edit warring concerns, it wasn't a personal attack. Best just let tempers die down. Regards, — Moe ε 08:46, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

(ec) Thank you DBigXray. You acted on your own volition for an fellow editor you felt disparaged and under no obligation to do so. I appreciate it and I am in your debt. You have been most kind.– Lionel ^{( talk)} 08:52, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Please do not edit-war on War on Women. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 06:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Nice attempt but did you really think there would be a 2032 Olympics American infidel? Mighty Imperialist China will have long since risen up with sidekick Iran and powerful North Korea to crush the puny capitalist West, while giant Russia invades Europe...Have a nice day ツ Jenova 20 ( email) 08:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply

You crack me up.– Lionel ^{( talk)} 09:06, 31 July 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, Lionelt. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is a courtesy heads-up for you. I'm adding everybody who worked on the article since I have. Belchfire- TALK 02:29, 1 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. You have a new message at Toa Nidhiki05's talk page. Toa Nidhiki05 19:25, 1 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Here [2] is your answer. 176.67.167.252 ( talk) 21:04, 1 August 2012 (UTC) reply

The humor is unintention, honest. But I had to chuckle when I realized that my deletion nom puts the pro-gay POV warriors in a difficult spot. They'd love to see the spin-off - it provides much more space for cruft. But the article title is abhorrent, which creates a strong urge to vote 'delete'. Belchfire- TALK 05:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I saw that. Belchfire- TALK 05:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Lionelt. I don't have a secret recipe to having my articles reviewed more quickly, if that's what you're asking. The reviewer, User:Grapple X, has reviewed some of my articles in the past and is an active member of WP:Film (and thus is committed to helping improve film articles, even ones of films he dislikes)! Also, I have reviewed many of his articles in the past, so we have a good working relationship. I hope this answers your question. Regards, Ruby 2010/ 2013 15:02, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply

FYI Belchfire- TALK 22:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Shouldn't "nazichristian" be capitalized? The only thing worse than a personal attack is a misspelled personal attack. Ah, indeffed. Good. Poor spelling like that just makes more work for the rest of us.– Lionel ^{( talk)} 22:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Yeah, and I'm pretty sure it needed a hyphen, too. Criminy, public schools these days... Belchfire- TALK 22:32, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I saw your response to my suggestion on Ryan's talk page. I'm not really familiar with you as an editor, so I'm not going to nominate you myself, but if you think you'd be a good admin, why don't you nominate yourself? I'm not saying that I would or would not support you, but be bold and throw your hat in the ring. Automatic Strikeout 23:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Lionel, you've been around for a long time and have a long track record. I'm sure plenty of people would chime in with their opinions were you to self-nominate. In fact, I encourage it. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 00:38, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Ah, so you (Lionelt) weren't being serious. I didn't realize that. Of course, you could try for an RfA anyway. You never know. Automatic Strikeout 00:43, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

There are certain editors who need to be blocked on a regular basis and AN3 and ANI are just too unpredictable.

Dude, that ain't gonna get you the tools. :) Viriditas ( talk) 05:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

V, you didn't think I was referring to you, did ya? ;-) – Lionel ^{( talk)} 06:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

No, actually, I did not. The problem is that your potential RfA supporters aren't likely to recognize your sense of humor and will take you literally when you say you want the tools to block other users. Viriditas ( talk) 11:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, and it'll be all their fault for lacking a sense of humor. I bet they'd be equally humorous to find that Lionelt filed two false WP:3RR accusations in a row. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 17:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I think we have to give Lionel credit for having a sense of humor. It is my experience that most of this community does not have one. Viriditas ( talk) 05:23, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply

You've said a mouthful. All those false reports against me are the highest form of practical joke. The only thing that's not funny is that the admins didn't realize he was joking when he falsely accused me of 4RR so they blocked me. Somehow, I don't find that funny, either. Guess I need to work on my sense of humor. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 05:42, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I've been falsely blocked far more than you, Still-24-45-42-125. The key to survival here is to remain flexible, adapt, and overcome. Viriditas ( talk) 05:45, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Point taken. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 05:57, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply

This reminds me of the scene in the movie Phantom of the Paradise where the prison warden asks a group of convicts how many of them are innocent and every last one raises his hand. Culture warriors should expect a few battle scars, and be proud of them. -- Kenatipo ^speak! 20:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Kenatipo, did you know you were paraphrasing G. Gordon Liddy? Viriditas ( talk) 00:12, 7 August 2012 (UTC) reply

No, I didn't. Did Liddy help write the screenplay of Phantom, uncredited? -- Kenatipo ^speak! 02:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, Lionelt. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion is taking place at Wikipedia:Wikiquette assistance regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 19:15, 5 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I proud to announce that I have been accorded the title of "Evil Genius" and all priviledges and duties that the rank entails. I will say now that I do not deserve such an honour, there are certainly others far more deserving. I give my word that I will be a good, and a fair Evil Genius. Per heraldic protocol, please address me as "Sir Lionel", or just simply "Sir." Per the protocol I am entitled to affix "EG" to my name.

– Sir Lionel, EG^{( talk)} 03:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Is it that obvious who it is? Unless someone else used that term? ViriiK ( talk) 03:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Ah hem. That should be "Sir Lionel, is it that obvious..." hahahaha!!!! – Sir Lionel, EG^{( talk)} 03:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Ooooo, I wanna be Igor! Belchfire- TALK 04:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

That would imply that he's "Master" but afraid not! You can be the jester of the Royal Cabal! ViriiK ( talk) 04:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I think you should go the whole hog and become Sir Lionel, EGG, MD, PhD ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:35, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Want to hear something funny? I was all prepared to look at the edit histories of everyone involved and to issue polite warnings / notifications as needed, and to escalate the issue to an appropriate noticeboard if needed. If Still-24's claims are true, that would have taken care of the situation. However, when I saw Still-24 claiming that I, another dispute resolution volunteer and four administrators are all puppets mindlessly following the marching orders of Our Lord and Master, AKA He Who Must Be Obeyed Lionelt, I didn't even bother to look. The odds of finding that his accusations are based upon reality are too small for me to waste my time, and I do not wish to reward that sort of behavior. So, by his own behavior he prevented a neutral third-party look at his claims. That and the Lionelt Evil Genius Mind Control Rays....

Of course this will be cut and pasted as "evidence" that I am conspiring against him, but those accusations are going to come no matter what I do. BTW, does anyone know what Machine Elf 1735's deal is? The behavior I am seeing is rather unusual. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:50, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Oh, so you were prepared to do your job as a DRN volunteer and now you've taken personal insult, so you're here asking them for advice on how to harm me. If you're trying to deny claims of influence, this wouldn't be the way to do it. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 17:09, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Congratulations on this great honor, Sir Lionel. No evil genius is more deserving of this title as you - your founding of the evil cabal known as WikiProject Conservatism is a model for all evil geniuses to follow. Toa Nidhiki05 18:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Gentlemen, if I may be so bold, I am going to do what I am being accused of, and advise you how to deal with ("deal with" is not the same as "harm") a certain class of individuals on Wikipedia.

Your first strategy should be to try to cooperate and settle your differences. Often the conflict is a misunderstanding or someone who was a bit over the line but knows better. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors are reasonable people who want to cooperate.

Eventually it may become clear that this is not just a misunderstanding, but instead that a user is disruptive, shows battleground behavior, edit wars, is uncivil, etc. At this point your strategy should be to calmly but firmly inform the user of Wikipedia's standards of behavior. Here is a great resource for doing that:

Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace

Templates have been carefully designed to be effective, and if you use a template nobody can argue that your wording was incorrect.

You also need to take a close look at your own behavior. It needs to be squeaky clean. If this ends up at a noticeboard later, your behavior will be a factor; see WP:BOOMERANG. Avoid even the slightest hint that your goal is a block. Your goal always needs to be to convince the disruptive editor to behave. You can start being Jimbo's little angels right now, and if anyone tries to blast you -- fairly or unfairly -- for anything in the past, just say "I may have been wrong there, but once Guy gave me his advice I stopped doing that sort of thing." Sort of like a get out of jail free card...

At some point it may become obvious that the user is not going to change his behavior based upon warnings. At this point, go to an all-template, no response strategy. If the other user accuses you of something, don't respond. If they ask leading questions, don't respond. If they are uncivil, put a template on their user page but otherwise don't respond. If they edit war, at 2RR and 3RR, use Template:Uw-3rr. If they hit 4RR, file a report at WP:ANEW. for civility problems, start with WP:WQA. (WQA doesn't actually do anything about bad behavior, but their behavior (and yours!) at WQA can be used as evidence later.) Again, stay calm and cool, and do not respond to any provocation. The goal here is to make a good-faith effort to convince them not to misbehave. Finally, if all else fails, take it to WP:ANI, but do not jump the gun! ANI wants to see a series of warnings (templates are ideal), exemplary behavior on your part, and evidence that every effort has been made to resolve the issue before invoking ANI. Read a bunch of past ANI cases, and notice the ones where the filer gets shot down. Learn from that.

Finally, I am always open to giving anyone advice. Just ask on my talk page.

I am going to send one last message to Still-24-45-42-125, who is monitoring this page, and then I will go into ignore mode regarding that particular user. Everything I wrote above is behavior you can adopt. You can stay calm and cool. You can show exemplary behavior. You can try to cooperate and settle your differences. If both sides do this, problem solved. If you do this and the other fellows don't, then they are the ones who will be facing possible blocks. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 19:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you for these handy directions on how to harm other users. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 21:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

The "plot" thickens! (pun intended) hahaha!! But seriously, this is merely an exposition of my prediction I shared with Viriik. Thanks Guy for the sage advice. – Sir Lionel, EG^{( talk)} 05:43, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hint: It's not a prediction if you're actively trying to make it come true. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 01:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I don't think the FL criteria specifically address table width, although I'm sure the community knows methods to reduce table width if necessary. To be honest, I'm not much of an expert on the finer points of table formatting; you might want to ask about it at WT:FLC if you think it will be a problem at a potential FLC. I'm sure someone there knows a trick to shrink table size that I'm not aware of. Giants2008 ( Talk) 20:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Dear Sir Lionel,

Thanks for your message; honestly I'd be happy to help out in my own limited way in any sort of FS, but I think in the first instance a new Featured Sounds section should establish clearly what the criteria for a FS should be - this was one of the problems that the community had in the last few months of operation. There was disagreement about what exactly editors should be looking for with featured content, plus some fairly unpleasant arguing.

Although off-wiki life leaves me far less time that I would like to get involved on WP I would like to help in any way I can.

Ben (Major Bloodnok) ( talk) 22:00, 9 August 2012 (UTC) reply

@ Pine: Pine ^✉ 22:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Hi, Lionelt, please assist me in this regard, I have added template IP multiple users, question is that it is enough or somewhere have to report this too?, if yes, then where?.Your barnstar is accepted. Thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 23:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Does Wikipedia need an article about Conservatism and poverty? Thoughts? Viriditas ( talk) 03:19, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I'd be interested as to why the impoverished are not voting liberal due to better welfare and the like. It is probably that they aren't voting at all. I'm not 100% sure on a Conservatism and poverty article. What about a Poverty and politics article? A split can come later if it grows.  Ryan  Vesey 03:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Might want to start with a History of Poverty and Politics :) Arkon ( talk) 03:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I'd politely suggest starting with sources that let us avoid synthesis. I suspect we can find some for conservatism and poverty. I'm not sure what poverty and politics would really mean. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 03:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

You would need to find sources. There is a direct correlation between wealth and conservatism, lack of education and conservatism, and wealth and education. The relation between poverty and conservatism is indirect. TFD ( talk) 03:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Oh, absolutely. This sort of article desperately depends on having good sources. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 04:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

It's a shell game. Conservatism only thrives when poverty is at its highest. Viriditas ( talk) 05:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

A lot of it is semantic confusion. Roosevelt called his opponents "conservatives", which they vigorously resisted. Then in the 1950s they started calling themselves conservatives, which led to such anomolies as calling the American revolution a right-wing conservative revolt against a left-wing liberal empire. TFD ( talk) 05:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Here's a source. [3] Golly gee, it turns out that 5 of the 10 poorest states have Democrat governors. Whodathunkit? Belchfire- TALK 06:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

That's like saying Obama is responsible for the economic recession caused by eight years of the Bush administration. Could you turn Faux News off for just a moment and think about what you are saying? Conservatism is a reactionary movement. Based on the historical record, it appears to produce and generate poverty in order to perpetuate itself. Viriditas ( talk) 06:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Standard liberal pablum. Based on the historical record, most of those 10 poorest states got that way during the 150 years they were run by Democrats. Generating poverty? From scratch? You mean like in Detroit? LOL! Please.

And why the ad hominem horseshit? Have you run out of ammo that fast? Belchfire- TALK 07:04, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

150 years of conservative policies. Tell me, how can a reactionary party promote economic reform when the problem was caused by their very policies? Sweeping it under the rug and pretending it isn't there might be your preferred way of doing things, but it makes for poor governance. Conservatism can't offer change of any kind going forward in the 21st century because it is bound by an ideology that denies change. In today's world, you need to change your policies based on the changing data. And that data shows that conservatism has led to more poverty. That's the entire reason they have a platform. If there wasn't economic hardships, there would not be a conservative party. It is in their interest to continue to promote poverty. The world, in fact, is less conservative today than it was a century ago. And that trend is unlikely to turn around. Viriditas ( talk) 07:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

You know, when you start putting fictional labels on things, there's no end to the mind tricks you can play on yourself. Belchfire- TALK 07:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Accusing anyone who criticizes conservatives as liberals says a lot about you. You do realize, of course, that it is quite possible to criticize conservative ideology and practice without being a liberal? Start with Ayn Rand, who proved that the conservative economic arguments in favor of capitalism were based on fallacies. Viriditas ( talk) 08:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I was honestly kidding with my comment above, it's a ridiculous concept to be honest. There are probably enough sources to make an article(s), but it's gonna be a hodgepodge of speculation. This didn't start 5, or even 10 years ago. Arkon ( talk) 08:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Wrong. The political science literature covers this in spades. For example, Nathan J. Kelly of the University of Tennessee and Peter K. Enns of Cornell University show how poverty contributes to conservatism, which proves my point that conservatives have an interest in preserving income inequality. According to Kelly & Enns (2010):

in an analysis of public opinion by income group...both the rich and the poor respond to rising inequality by shifting in a conservative direction. Together, these findings offer an important insight into the seemingly conflicting findings of the unequal and dynamic democracy perspectives. Previous research shows that liberal public opinion produces more egalitarian distributional outcomes (through the effects of opinion on election outcomes and public policy), and that the effect of public opinion is larger than other important explanations of income inequality such as deindustrialization, single-female households, and female labor force participation (Kelly 2009). Thus, our finding that public opinion—of all income groups—becomes more conservative in response to an increase in inequality helps to explain how economic inequality can reinforce itself through feedback on the political system (a conclusion of the unequal democracy perspective) at the same time that government responds to the reported preferences of citizens (a finding of the dynamic democracy literature). [4]

Kelly & Enns show that increases in inequality result in conservative public opinion responses while decreases in income inequality results in more liberal responses. "When inequality in America rises, the public responds with increased conservative sentiment. Rather than generating opinion shifts that would make redistributive policies more likely, increased economic inequality produces a conservative response in public sentiment." In other words, conservatism depends on increasing poverty: "increases in economic inequality are self-reinforcing in a way that is perfectly consistent with the dynamic democracy perspective. Economic inequality can beget yet more economic inequality as the unequal democracy proponents argue." Viriditas ( talk) 10:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Wait, wut? Ayn Rand was an economist? OK, I'm outtie. This is getting a little too redunkulous even for me. Belchfire- TALK 08:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

A more interesting comparison is per capita income per state normalized for cost of living in that state. In which case, perceived standard of living (average income/average cost of living) becomes quite interesting, and a great deal flatter. A person earning $40K in New York City has a far worse standard of living than a person earning $30K in Georgia. Poverty is still a major problem in some areas (particularly non-casino Indian reservations, Inuit communities in Alaska etc.) but the list of "10 poorest states" is a teensy bit fatuous. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 12:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Mississippi (poorest state) income 34.3K, CPI 203 [5] ratio= .153

Arkansas 36.2 / 206 = .176

New York 60.3 / 258 = .234

North Carolina (10th poorest) 41.1 / 209 = .197

Showing that the "poorness" is substantially affected by cost of living issues. Collect ( talk) 12:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I'd argue that the conservative-liberal split isn't poor-rich, it is more or less rural areas voting conservative and urban areas voting Democrat. This is really evident in southern states such as Texas or North Carolina, where the major cities are usually Democratic but the rural areas are usually Republican. Toa Nidhiki05 14:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I could argue some stuff, too, but this isn't a forum. My recommendation -- and it's just a recommendation -- would be for Viriditas to put together a stub version of the article in his private workspace. Then we can get feedback, adjust it and make sure it won't be a war zone, all before it goes live. Still-24-45-42-125 ( talk) 16:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC) reply

The unemployment rate is 8.3% – Sir Lionel, EG^{( talk)} 06:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply

On 13 August 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Speeches and debates of Ronald Reagan, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Time magazine ranked Ronald Reagan's speech (pictured) at the Berlin Wall in the top 10 greatest speeches? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Speeches and debates of Ronald Reagan. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Orlady ( talk) 16:02, 13 August 2012 (UTC) reply

BOOOOOYYYAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

Hello Lionel, last weekend you looked at the new paragraphs I'd written for Bob Corker's article about his tenure as Mayor of Chattanooga and I wanted to check that you had seen my response to your question. I have provided the quotes from the Nexis articles and think this now gives you the information you need to verify what I wrote. Can you take another look now? Thanks again for your help. Mark from tn ( talk) 17:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello again, I have provided a link and quote from a report as additional verification linking the Senator to the Benwood Initiative below your last reply here. If you would be able to look again, I would be most grateful. Thanks again. Mark from tn ( talk) 14:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC) reply

	Wikipedia's newest Featured List
	I would like to thank everyone who helped improve and voted for The Gipper's filmography. And a special thanks to Happyme22 for creating it. Please join me in a glass of bubbly as I raise another bronze star on top of my userpages. – Sir Lionel, EG( talk) 06:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Congrats on the Featured List, what do you think of the articles I've collected so far at User:Ryan Vesey/sandbox? Does that seem to include all of the Ronald Reagan articles that are FA or GA?  Ryan  Vesey 13:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Ryan. Woa, you were really serious about FTopic! You know, I hadn't realized there were to many quality Reagan articles. What topic were you thinking of? The ones that jump out at me:

"The Great Communicator" -- a Good Topic

1. Ronald Reagan
2. Reagan filmography
3. FMPU
4. Speeches and debates (need to nom for GA)
5. Tear down this wall!

"First and second couples of the Reagan Presidency" -- a Featured Topic

1. Ronald Reagan
2. Nancy Reagan
3. George H. W. Bush
4. Barbara Bush (need to nom for GA)

"Mortaility of Ronald Reagan" -- Good Topic

1. Ronald Reagan
2. Assassination
3. Death and state funeral

– Sir Lionel, EG^{( talk)} 03:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I hadn't initially realized that we couldn't pick every good Reagan article and create a Reagan good topic; however, why not do the first and third? I don't feel that the second would qualify because it would require virtually every president/first lady to be considered complete.  Ryan  Vesey 03:58, 17 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Looking at the criteria WP:FT? and the full list WP:FT, it appears that the entries have to share similarity. I asked User talk:Grapple X about using all of the articles in a FT. I renamed the 2nd one to reduce the scope. – Sir Lionel, EG^{( talk)} 08:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

He seems to be prone to "3RR accidents." Based on his behavior, I have to wonder how committed he is to 2RR.

Heh. Viriditas ( talk) 13:28, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello Lionel, thank you for taking another look at the new paragraphs. While I am grateful for you saying that I can add them into the article, I am very wary about doing so. I've previously said on the article's discussion page that I don't intend to edit the article myself and I would prefer to stick to that and avoid any perception of meddling with its content. Would you mind adding the paragraphs for me? Thanks again. Mark from tn ( talk) 14:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I noticed that you were one of the editors who has been given access to the newsletter delivery bot, and I'm hoping you've figured out how it works. If you have, I was wondering if you would be willing to deliver the Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Outreach/August 2012 newsletter. John Carter ( talk) 18:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Know anything about Metapedia? Is it common for them to allow biographies with links to users here, eg me, so that Metapedia users can harass others? Dougweller ( talk) 16:48, 17 August 2012 (UTC) reply

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I bestow this barnstar to you since no editor, in my expierence, has done more team building, or teamwork than you Grand Poobah John D. Rockerduck ( talk) 06:32, 18 August 2012 (UTC) reply

• Thank you, John D. Teamwork is the glue that holds this project together. I'm moved by your gesture.– Sir Lionel, EG^{( talk)} 07:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Ronald Reagan and extraterrestrials. This would make a great DYK, don't you think? Viriditas ( talk) 06:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Sources: Ronald Reagan and the Day the Earth Stood Still; Rewriting the script; George Bush, Reagan and life in outer space; The Cold War Sci-Fi Parable That Fell to Earth; President Reagan: The Role Of A Lifetime

Dougweller ( talk) 08:22, 19 August 2012 (UTC) reply

User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Viriditas ( talk) 20:10, 20 August 2012 (UTC) reply

You removed a portion of an article claiming a copyright violation. The article content at In God we trust pre-dates the article you claim the content originated from. Wikipedia can not be infringing copyright on a website if the content is newer than the content on wikipedia. IRWolfie- ( talk) 22:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Lionelt, that's called "backwards copyright". You'll run into it every now and then. It's basically a false positive. The blogger copied Wikipedia. When you identify this problem, use the {{ Backwardscopy}} template on the talk page, but only if it is a mainstream source. This isn't, so only a message on the talk page is needed. Viriditas ( talk) 23:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Ouch - so many places using identical language - impossible to find out who first used it for sure. Usually unless you can find a strong date for the first usage, or a book usage, a lot of "plagiarism" gets by on Wikipedia. But I would bet that there is one source outside Wikipedia which is first - I can not believe so many independent users borrowed the same wording - many likely took it from WP. Alas. Collect ( talk) 23:21, 20 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Even so, circular referencing (citing something as a source that is copied from Wikipedia) is a problem that should be avoided. ~ Adjwilley ( talk) 19:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

There is no circular reference. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Could you go and give your opinion on this request, since you commented on the prior request? Silver seren ^C 00:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hate to bother you Grand Poobah but recent actions from an editor Still-24(who insists your out to get him) seems to talking about attempting an RfC of wikiproject conservatism with the criticisms mostly pointed towards you such as

"I'll note that many of my edits are within the scope of that project, yet Lionelt has never invited me to join. However, I've seen him invite many of the people who keep reverting my changes. Selective membership seems to be the root cause of all evil."

I suppose he never realized that he could just go to wikiproject conservatism and join up, but I thought you might enjoy knowing that since your the root of all evil, your bestowed title of Evil Genius is well earned indeed and might actually be lacking.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:StillStanding-247#Draft_RFC_on_WikiProject_Conservatism John D. Rockerduck ( talk) 01:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks, John, but I figure Lionel's already seen it. The issue isn't whether I could join, but whether Lionel exclusively invites other conservatives to join. Perhaps he'll change his tune now that the issue has been give more publicity, but that's certainly been his pattern so far. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 07:50, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hardly Still-24, he invites editors who he thinks might actually consider joining, also you do hold him in pretty low regards calling him an evil genius or his well-written essay a "Radical Manifesto" or saying he has bore false witness against you, I might be able to see why he was not jumping up and down to give you an invitation Still-24. Also you have been pretty hard on Lionelt since he filed the report that got you blocked for 24 hrs you then changed your name to Still-Standing presumably to put on war paint and to show him up(Let it go man you better than that). I might be painting a false picture here but it is not a completey unreasonable one to make, another adminstrator said the same thing about your name change, so here's my constructive criticism have someone else file the RfC since editors could make the fair case that your bias against Lionelt personally John D. Rockerduck ( talk) 20:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

John, I'm pretty sure I never described him as either evil or a genius. That's something he named himself. I do think his "how to make Wikipedia more conservative" essay goes against the fundamental purpose of Wikipedia.

I changed my name because it contained my IP and that led to an unpleasant incident that I really can't talk about. It's unfortunate that some people read more into things than is there, but that's not under my control.

Also, it's not personal. I'd feel exactly the same about anyone else doing what he's done. StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 02:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Sure but my point you probably should have someone that Lionelt never blocked file the RfC is still valid also I checked into it and the way you say I edit-war after doing like two edits and the one Lionelt blocked you for is perfectly fair according to your own standards you use with me SEE WP:POINT using my standards of giving the benefit of the doubt and never saying 2RR is edit-warring I would say it was unfair for Lionelt to do that but for you to say it is hypocritical John D. Rockerduck ( talk) 07:21, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the award and With all very best wishes, -- Kirananils ( talk) 10:45, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

If I might piggyback on here, please accept as well my thanks for the barnstar. I often wonder whether the time spent editing might not be put to better use, so that very kind expression of encouragement is much appreciated! Dezastru ( talk) 17:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I'd also like to add my thanks for the award you gave me. I appreciate it too. Giants2008 ( Talk) 01:44, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Sandra Fluke. Because you participated in the original deletion discussion for this page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Cheers, Zaldax ( talk) 13:29, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Good news! You are approved for access to 350 high quality reference resources through Credo Reference.

• Fill out the survey with your username and an email address where your sign-up information can be sent.
• If you need assistance, ask User:Ocaasi.
• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Credo article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Credo pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Credo accounts/Citations.
• Credo would love to hear feedback at WP:Credo accounts/Experiences
• Show off your Credo access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Credo_userbox}} on your userpage
• If you decide you no longer can or want to make use of your account, donate it back by adding your name here

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi 17:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Your is a violation of WP:TPG. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 09:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Don't unilaterally close discussions you are involved in. Particularly when there is no consensus. IRWolfie- ( talk) 12:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Paul Ryan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 10 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. I will begin later this evening. The collaboration could use the time to begin running through criteria and begin collaboration with things that are obvious like expanding the lead to summarize the body of the article accurately. Run through references and take out non-reliable sources. Check the claims being made to the source. Format all references as inline citation and not bare urls. Other common things overlooked, copyright concerns for text. Besure there isn't anything that paraphrases too closely to the source and check the license, author and source of all images. Happy editing! Amadscientist ( talk) 13:24, 26 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Did you mean to re-insert the Akin's material? Just wondering. ViriiK ( talk) 04:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

I want you to understand that I explicitly reject the notion that you violated any policies by reporting that 4RR. In other words, I am not accusing you of WP:MEAT (which doesn't even seem to apply, regardless) or any other policy violation with regard to this matter. If you believe there was a personal attack based on a false claim of policy violation, this is incompatible with the fact that I freely admit that there was no violation.

Now, I can see that you seem distressed, but I assure you that, not only is there no personal insult, none was intended. I most certainly did not intend to cause you distress, only to answer your question about person/people while putting it in context. I know that pretty much the worst thing you can tell someone who's not calm is to calm down, so I won't say it, but I'm sure you can guess what I'll be thinking.

Have a good night. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 07:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Could you please stop using the word "outraged"? Do you own a thesaurus? Viriditas ( talk) 13:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hey, opened a review of your nomination with some initial concerns that can be addressed.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 18:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Updates on the review page regarding the Paul Ryan. I have compiled all the noteworthy issues I found during the review so that should make it easier to resolve things.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 04:56, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Regrettably I have decided to withdraw from the Ryan GAN due to irreconcilable differences with a certain editor. – Sir Lionel, EG^{( talk)} 05:00, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Meh, you can probably do some of the more simple tasks without much chance of heartache. I understand, of course, if you don't but it is just my small bit of hope that you can still contribute to this in some way.-- The Devil's Advocate ( talk) 05:14, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Thank you very much for the barnstar regarding the Chick-fil-A article. It is very much appreciated. 72Dino ( talk) 14:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC) reply

This is a violation of WP:CIVIL, particularly in its use of coded language to avoid openly speaking against me. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 05:48, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Give it a rest. Arkon ( talk) 05:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply

<redacted> nonsense. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Arthur, I wouldn't call Arkon's comment nonsense, much less <redacted> nonsense, but it's definitely wrong. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 06:32, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Don't you think you're clutching at straws a bit there? I've only been watching but the last example you pointed out is nothing, it reeks of desperation. Please just stop this or at the least sideline your investigation(?) until you have something that will stand up to scrutiny. You could be looking at accusations of WP:Hounding yourself the way this is going and this isn't productive when we should all be on the same side. Thanks and have a nice day/evening ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 08:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply

You should take a look at the history on my talk page. He knows to stay the hell off but refuses to do so so he makes nonsense crap that I don't care to read about and are reverted instantly the second he posts them. ViriiK ( talk) 15:15, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Well i see he's had a warning now and not messaged since so it appears to have ended. That's good news at least and we can all move on (hopefully) ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 15:52, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply

This, the diff above, is highly inappropriate and incompatible with a collegial and open editing environment on Wikipedia. There are many users trying to work with StillStanding to improve his editing, and you're not exactly helping. Please consider this a friendly administrator warning prior to a block. Thanks, Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Ed, now that you've demonstrated your bias so clearly for all to see, I respectfully suggest that you stop running interference for Still-24 and recuse yourself from defending him any further. It's quite evident that you're pursuing an agenda here, and this business of preemptively clearing the path in front of him is a rather unseemly way for an admin to behave. This is intended to be constructive, so I hope it's received in the spirit that it is offered. Belchfire- TALK 06:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Thanks, but I have only taken administrative actions in this area, including the facilitation of an interaction ban between StillStanding and Guy Macon. I have no agenda (that I know of!), nor any special like for StillStanding, who I'm just as close to blocking for incivil commenting. If you believe otherwise, you are welcome to start a discussion at WP:AN, where I am confident you will hear the same thing. Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Barnstars of that nature are inappropriate. Unsubstantiated attacks on uninvolved admins are also unwelcome. I suggest you redact your statement. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Sir Lionel, you Evil Bastion! I'll keep this short since my multiple paragraph introduction cannot be entered and I've typed it so many times only to lose it because I didn't copy before Preview. I think your Talk Page might be full or my comments were too big and I've been trying to express my thanks since Monday evening. So finally here goes: Well thanks for nothing! I protected Republicans everywhere from Akin Plank and all I got was a lousy sticker! And it was defective since I could not get it on my car to boot! You do amazing work and I applaud your several very successful attempts for near perfection (DYK, FA, FL, The Atomic Girl Video, etc.). It is people like you who help retain editors because your shadow would scare me away with his, IMO, hammer everything to fit his POV. Now either I'm a very strange stalker or I am complementing myself from my sock drawer (I also note that your comments carry a rare kind of humor). Kudos and you don't need me to tell you to keep up the good fight. You might want to check the FRC:Talk because I discredit the apparent consensus that SPLC contributes to FBI on Hate Groups, or anything after 1967. Yendor ( talk) 10:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Lionelt, I read Wikipedia history quite a bit. I ran into the SPLC entry because of the shooting at the FRC. When I read the SPLC entry, I could not believe how bias and one-sided the entire article was written. I rated the page and then an automated reply asked if I would like to edit the page. So, I did, only to discover I could not edit the page. I was virulently attacked. I then tried to explain my edits, only to be attacked again. So, I just gave up.

Today, I am pleasantly surprised to have received your kind notification about my post. I hope that in a small way I have contributed to the resolution of this dispute. The SPLC article needs to be rewritten and valid criticisms entered. You have simply made my day with your kind message. Philipegalite ( talk) 17:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC) reply

You wrote on my talk page: "Thanks for your efforts to finally bring balance to the article. We're close to finally achieving consensus on the nature of the criticism to be added. I hope I can count on your continued participation. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 10:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)"

Sir Lionelt, you do great work around here. I tip my hat to you! And now as you are one of the editors familiar with this concocted "case," can you please opine on it. It seems I am having a similar problem as the guy below (RightCowLeftCoast), so after one post that was deleted on SPLC, I quit editing. And I will not edit or contribute until this is clear and I'm completely exonerated from this Kafkaesque drama. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/LuckyWikipedian Philipegalite ( talk) 14:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply

This is why I often, in the past didn't edit political articles, liberals end up targetting me. I feel Wikihounded and feel like quitting Wikipedia right now. If attempts to bring neutrality to articles only end up getting reverted by tag teaming individuals attempting to preserve a NPOV in an article, what is the point?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC) reply

Do not create, add, or restore hoaxes to Wikipedia. Hoaxes are caught and marked for deletion shortly after they are created. If you are interested in how accurate Wikipedia is, a more constructive test method would be to try to find inaccurate statements that are already in Wikipedia – and then to correct them if possible. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia. Feel free to take a look at the five pillars of Wikipedia to learn more about this project and how you can contribute constructively. Thank you.

About this image that you uploaded and linked to: File:You didnt build that shirt.jpg You describe it as "You didnt build that printed on a T-shirt", implying that it is an actual T-shirt with those words printed on. However, it is obviously a photo of a white T-shirt with the words in a sans-serif font pasted on top in an image editing program. Please do not upload hoax images to commons and then link to them in Wikipedia. FurrySings ( talk) 06:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Chiming in. So it's a hoax how? The "You didn't build that" is extremely prominent and notable so it seems to me that you are the one claiming it's a hoax when it is not. Even the latest one today was in Sioux City. [6] However if you're refering to the t-shirt, there are many examples all over the internet so I think Lionelt was aiming to avoid any copyright issues. ViriiK ( talk) 02:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Lionel, did you really use image-editing software to superimpose the slogan "you didn't build that" on a picture of a white T-shirt here? MastCell  ^Talk 03:15, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply

From his response on my talkpage, it's clear that's what he did. FurrySings ( talk) 16:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC) reply

The image is a copyright violation so that reason doesn't make much sense. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

--The Olive Branch 19:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lionel, a short while ago, you helped me with some new paragraphs on Bob Corker's mayoral tenure. I've recently prepared another revision for Senator Corker's article, this time for the " Sale of protected of Wetlands" section. If you are able to help with this, please see the request that I placed here, on the article's talk page. Thanks. Mark from tn ( talk) 21:41, 5 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Lionelt, you may be interested in knowing that the evidence is still steadily piling up against Pass a Method. [7] 176.67.165.198 ( talk) 07:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC) reply

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Again thanks. Your friendship is appreciated and your sound advice will be followed! Philipegalite ( talk) 23:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Lionelt. Currently indef-blocked user Raquel Baranow has reached an agreement with TParis under which an unblock will be considered if they can find a suitable mentor. They have mentioned you as someone they would like as an adopter; please could you visit User talk:Raquel Baranow and offer/decline the request there? Cheers, Yunshui  雲‍ 水 09:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply

All editors who were approved for a Credo account and filled out the survey giving their username and email address were emailed Credo account access information. Please check your email.

• If you didn't receive an email, or didn't fill out the survey, please email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com
• If you tried out Credo and no longer want access, email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com

If you have any other questions, feel free to contact me. I hope you enjoy your account! User:Ocaasi 15:35, 13 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Lionelt. I noticed you contributed to the request edit requests by Heritage Foundation. I came across the Heritage Foundation in my research on astroturfing and I've seen a couple of their request edits around.

I just thought I would let you know I've spent a substantial bit of work trying to improve our request edit templates and process. My efforts are partially selfish here, because I use the request edit system myself and I want it to be a better process, more comparable to AfC.

I've talked to a few editors about it, but I'd be interested in your thoughts or feedback on the templates, process, instructions and overall system outlined on the page. Corporate Minion 23:54, 14 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. Thank you! The discussion concerns the Christian right. Psalm84 ( talk) 04:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

	The Truthiness Barnstar
	Instead of Advil I think you need some Advil with Codeine which is legal over the counter in Canada. So I offer as such to you unless that is considered uncivil. Yendor ( talk) 06:41, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Sir Lionel, who is Lila? I don't think I have ever seen her before? Yendor ( talk) 08:57, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello again Sir Lionel, without casting aspersions or accusations, how could any editor make in excess of 20,000 to 40,000 edits over a period of a few years? I am a small time editor whose enthusiasm comes and goes and who thinks that my latest edit removing the FBI from the lead is a major accomplishment. Making 5,000 or 10,000 edits in a year would seem like a full time job to me and I know Wikipedia or Wiki Media only has a select few employees. Even then I doubt I could make 356 substantial edits over one year while being paid. So generically speaking, how does one, and I have seen a lot of editors/near Admins with Wiki reported 5 digit edits, make that many edits? My only guess is that it involved a bot? Hopefully this is an easy answer type of question. Thank you for your time, Yendor ( talk) 11:26, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I manage 650+ a month on my hobbies and interests and i don't use bots or work or Wikipedia/media. It depends on the size of the edits. You can write an article offline and create it in 1 edit or you can do it in stages of small edits. Thanks ツ Jenova 20 ^{( email)} 15:20, 16 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi! I saw you were offering adoption through the adoption program and wold like to ask you to be my adopter. You are involved in several subjects I would love to contribute and are also an amazing user and I hope I can one day have helped as much as you have. I am eager to learn and hope you will accept.

Thank you,

N8 Toe — Preceding unsigned comment added by N8 Toe ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email!

1. Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
2. Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code. Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
3. Create your account by entering the requested information. (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
4. You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID. (The account is now active for 1 year).

If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia).

• A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
• Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
• Show off your Questia access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/Questia_userbox}} on your userpage
• When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot ( talk) 05:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Lionelt. I'm leaving you this message because you have previously been involved as an adopter with Wikipedia's Adopt-a-user program. A clean-up of this program is currently underway, and as part of the process I am trying to find out who is and isn't still interested in remaining an adopter.

If you would prefer not to be part of the adoption program anymore, you need do nothing; when the overhaul of the project is completed your name will be removed from the list of active adopters. However, if you have current adoptees, an active adoption school or an interest in adopting in the near future, then please let us know by signing here.

If you want to remain in the project and can currently take on more adoptees, there is a serious backlog at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user; it would be enormously helpful if you could take on one or two of the users there. Please do keep an eye on the project for upcoming changes, we could use your opinions and your help! Yunshui  雲‍ 水 09:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Your participation is needed on the talk page here, as there is a community concern regarding the project. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply

I hope you don't mind, but I took the liberty of sending him a brief email asking him to check his talk page. I'm StillStanding (24/7) ( talk) 04:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC) reply

Lionelt, you seem like a fair-minded editor. There's a dispute at Conversion therapy I'd be grateful if you could take a look at. Hebradaeum ( talk) 22:47, 4 October 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm fair minded too, maybe I should have a look. IRWolfie- ( talk) 09:00, 5 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Hi Lionelt,

I am currently working on creating a new page for the 2004 State of the Union Address. I was wondering if you could give me any advice on material to include, as well as what not to include when I create the page. I currently do not have anything on my sandbox yet for this, but am hoping to get some of my information up soon. I would really appreciate the help. Thanks! Btdavila ( talk) 19:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC) reply

Lionelt, While looking at the "Sarah Palin's Vice Presidential Candidacy" Wikipedia page, I noticed that the talk section had been removed and replaced with a link to the Conservatism Portal, which you seem to manage. Why is this? What is the main purpose of the Conservatism Portal and why has it been used to replaced the talk section on this page?

Thanks, Kazele ( talk) 15:45, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

The talk page hasn't been removed, it's just blank at the moment because no one has written anything. The wikiproject conservatism template is just to tell you that the article is under the scope of that wikiproject. IRWolfie- ( talk) 15:31, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Category:Conservatism audio files, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 19:01, 1 November 2012 (UTC) reply

I usually sent John Carter a list of the previous month's DYK entries for the newsletter but he seems to be on a wikibreak so as a listed editor I thought you might want them:

• Archdiocese of Râmnic, Biruitorul, 15 October 2012

• Diocese of Caransebeş, Biruitorul, 16 October 2012

• Wythburn Church, Peter I. Vardy, 18 October 2012

• St. Gumbertus, Ansbach, Gerda Arendt, Dr. Blofeld, Nvvchar, 19 October 2012

• St. Johannis, Ansbach, Gerda Arendt, Dr. Blofeld, Nvvchar, 19 October 2012

• Nikollë Bojaxhiu, ZjarriRrethues, 23 October 2012

• All Saints Church, Lydd, Dr. Blofeld, Rosiestep, Gilderien, Ipigott, 25 October 2012

• St Mary's Church, Acton Burnell, Peter I. Vardy, 27 October 2012

• St Eata's Church, Atcham, Peter I. Vardy, 28 October 2012

• Nativity of St. John the Baptist Church, Piatra Neamț, Biruitorul, 01 November 2012

• Anna Schäffer, Shii, 02 November 2012

• List of Archbishops of Vancouver, Bloom6132, 02 November 2012

• James Francis Carney, Bloom6132, 02 November 2012

• St Luke's Church, Chelsea, PKM, Johnbod, 06 November 2012

• Gregory Orologas, Alexikoua, 07 November 2012

• Ambrosios Pleianthidis, Alexikoua, 07 November 2012

• St Giles' Church, Barrow, Peter I. Vardy, 14 November 2012

-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 23:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC) reply

Hello. There is currently a discussion at WP:ANI regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User North8000 disruptive talk page editing at talk:Homophobia. Thank you. - Mr X 20:19, 16 November 2012 (UTC) reply

On 18 November 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article 2016: Obama's America, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that 2016: Obama's America, the fourth-highest-grossing U.S. documentary of the past 30 years, was initially released in only one theater? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/2016: Obama's America. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project ( nominate) 00:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Category:Belgian people convicted of child sexual abuse, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. No unique names 15:27, 18 November 2012 (UTC) reply

You have been mentioned at Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians Ottawahitech ( talk) 15:11, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I hope your break has been enjoyable and has recharged your batteries. May this cookie entice you to return to Wikipedia. RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 16:36, 25 January 2013 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Andy Griffith Show Opening.ogg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Odie5533 ( talk) 17:01, 6 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi Lionelt,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:First Colored Senator and Representatives.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on February 28, 2013. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2013-02-28. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 04:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Can I give you a barnstar? 172.218.49.11 ( talk) 00:34, 18 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. Back in 2011 you PRODded this, and it was deleted. Undeletion has been requested at WP:REFUND, so per WP:DEL#Proposed deletion I have restored it, and now notify you in case you wish to consider AfD. Regards, JohnCD ( talk) 11:11, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Christianity newsletter: New format, new focus

Hello,

I notice that you aren't currently subscribed to Ichthus, the WikiProject Christianity newsletter. With a new format, we would be delighted to offer you a trial three-month, money-back guarantee, subscription to our newsletter. If you are interested then please add your name to this list, and you will receive your first issue shortly. From June 2013 we are starting a new "in focus" section that tells our readers about an interesting and important groups of articles. The first set is about Jesus, of course. We have also started a new book review section and our own "did you know" section. In the near future I hope to start a section where a new user briefly discusses their interests.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 21:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC) reply

User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias (2nd nomination) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Lionelt/Countering liberal bias during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 10:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC) reply

World Digital Library Wikipedia Partnership - We need you!

Hi Lionelt! I'm the Wikipedian In Residence at the World Digital Library, a project of the Library of Congress and UNESCO. I'm recruiting Wikipedians who are passionate about history & culture to participate in improving Wikipedia using the WDL's vast free online resources. Participants can earn our awesome WDL barnstar and help to disseminate free knowledge from over 100 libraries in 7 different languages. Multilingual editing encouraged!!! But being multilingual is not a necessity to make this project a success. Please sign up to participate here. Thanks for editing Wikipedia and I look forward to working with you! EdwardsBot ( talk) 19:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC) reply

Category:Sean Hannity, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2032 Summer Olympics, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. 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) 14:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. You're being contacted as you've previously used global message delivery (or its English Wikipedia counterpart). It doesn't feel so great to be spammed, does it? ;-)

For the past few months, Legoktm has built a replacement to the current message delivery system called MassMessage. MassMessage uses a proper user interface form (no more editing a /Spam subpage), works faster (it can complete a large delivery in minutes), and no longer requires being on an access list (any local administrator can use it). In addition, many tiny annoyances with the old system have been addressed. It's a real improvement! :-)

You can test out MassMessage here: testwiki:Special:MassMessage. The biggest difference you'll likely notice is that any input list must use a new {{#target:}} parser function. For example, {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales}} or {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales|test2.wikipedia.org}}. For detailed instructions, check out mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage.

If you find any bugs, have suggestions for additional features, or have any other feedback, drop a note at m:Talk:MassMessage. Thanks for spamming! -- MZMcBride ( talk) 05:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the sammie! Malke 2010 ( talk) 01:50, 12 October 2013 (UTC) reply

I have asked for a discussion to address the redirect Feast day. You might want to participate in the redirect discussion.

You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Catholicism and/or WikiProject Saints -- Jayarathina ( talk) 13:00, 16 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Awesome article Kdir85 ( talk) 05:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi. You're being contacted as you're listed as an EdwardsBot user.

MassMessage has been deployed to all Wikimedia wikis. For help using the new tool, please check out its help page or drop a note on Meta-Wiki.

With over 400,000 edits to Wikimedia wikis, EdwardsBot has served us well; however EdwardsBot will no longer perform local or global message delivery after December 31, 2013.

A huge thanks to Legoktm, Reedy, Aaron Schulz and everyone else who helped to get MassMessage deployed. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 02:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello Lionelt. It has been over six months since you last edited your article submission, entitled 2032 Summer Olympics.

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 edit the submission 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|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/2032 Summer Olympics}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo ( talk) 02:09, 29 November 2013 (UTC) reply

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:17, 9 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Lionelt, I need your help on this article /info/en/?search=Walter_Veith As it needs work to keep it from being deleted from Wikipedia. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Simbagraphix ( talk)

Also if could get your input on this related article for Amazing Discoveries.... /info/en/?search=Amazing_Discoveries

....Thanks. Simbagraphix ( talk)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman 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/Fire from the Heartland: The Awakening of the Conservative Woman 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Mackensen (talk) 23:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Hi Lionel,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:Commercial-LBJ1964ElectionAdDaisyGirl.ogv is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on September 7, 2014. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2014-09-07. Thank you for all of your contributions! —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:06, 26 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Please see Talk:S._Truett_Cathy#RfC:_.22anti-gay.22.2C_again. Drmies ( talk) 17:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC) reply

I have nominated Ronald Reagan filmography for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. - SchroCat ( talk) 11:12, 24 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 14:07, 24 November 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for uploading File:Cover of The Pink Swastika.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. -- B-bot ( talk) 03:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of conservatism, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of conservatism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of conservatism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator/Timeline of conservatism, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator/Timeline of conservatism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator/Timeline of conservatism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 ( talk) 04:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC) reply

Why did you redirect Anne Paulk to John Paulk? They having conflicting interests. Rohan608 ( talk) 19:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello, Lionelt. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Anne Paulk, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Anne Paulk to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Innisfree987 ( talk) 16:35, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply
This has been appropriately reverted. Sorry for the bother! Innisfree987 ( talk) 16:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC) reply

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Expand citations. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Expand citations redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 ( talk) 22:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC) reply

Please weigh in on this discussion as you did previously. /info/en/?search=Talk:John_Fleming_(American_politician)#Request_for_Comment:_2017_discussion_on_The_Onion_.22incident..22. Thank You! Tomuchtalk ( talk) 15:23, 1 April 2017 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:WikiProject Conservatism/Incubator during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 23:52, 8 October 2017 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Beyond Ex-Gay 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/Beyond Ex-Gay 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. Mathglot ( talk) 01:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC) reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Homosexuals Anonymous (logo).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. SERGIO aka the Black Cat 17:51, 9 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello Lionelt! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 20:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC) reply

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Paul, Apostle of Christ at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{ db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot ( talk) 08:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Gatoclass ( talk) 12:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC) reply

Hello Lionelt. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Israel Gay Youth, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims importance/significance of the subject. Thank you. Sam Sailor 10:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC) reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of fictional black conservatives in the United States is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional black conservatives in the United States 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 high-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 notice from the top of the article. - CHAMPION ^{( talk) ( contributions) ( logs)} 04:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 00:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to List of court cases involving Alliance Defending Freedom, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you. Bettering the Wiki ( talk) 03:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC) reply