This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

You commented in the RfD discussion about Criticism of Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 August 5#Criticism of Wikipedia. That discussion was closed as "moot" due it having been unilaterally converted to an article during the discussion. I chose to boldly implement the apparent consensus of that discussion and the previous discussions linked from it, and reverted it to a disambiguation page. That action has been reverted due to a perceived lack of discussion. I would welcome your comments at Talk:Criticism of Wikipedia to see if consensus can be reached again for an dab page, article or redirect. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators ( about the project • what coordinators do) 09:47, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Americans, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Afro-Caribbean and Intermarriage ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Marine Corps Recruit Depot San Diego ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Balboa Park

Second Philippine Republic ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Benigno Aquino

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 12:49, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not good at this, so thanks for your patience. Thanks for removing Notability Tag on Cecilia Manguerra Brainard. Your concerns have been addressed: 1. Article has been edited further to neutral tone; If stripped of too much info, it could turn into a Stub.

2. All but one external link left.

Can the Sept 23 tag be removed?

Thanks again. Palhbooks ( talk) 14:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

May I ask you a separate question. I've edited biography of Lina Espina-Moore to address the tag on her article re need for inline citations - the editor who put in that June 2010 tag doesn't seem to be with Wiki any more. How can that tag be removed? Thanks. Palhbooks ( talk) 14:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Any editor can remove any tag, if they believe that if the concern has been met, but that isn't stopping other editors from retagging or adding new tags.

May I suggest you join WP:PINOY, and/or WP:WPAA; there maybe other editors there who share your interest who can assist you in your growth as an editor on Wikipedia.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 15:14, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 149th Armor Regiment (United States), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Flares and KQED ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi RightCowLeftCoast. The 3O is mainly about the earlier incivil behaviour of the other editor. I am busy now with an SPI but I refuse to participate while even under your 3O involvement this person keep personally attacking me: diff. If they do not retract these attacks I will not participate in the 3O. By the way the original dispute was about an earlier series of attacks which I removed here. Thank you. Δρ.Κ.  ^{λόγος πράξις} 22:40, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Consulate attack in Benghazi, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IED ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:17, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you were involved. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators noticeboard/Incidents#WP:CANVASS issue? Thank you. AzureCitizen ( talk) 15:30, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: AustralianRupert on artillery in South Australia, and Nick-D on Venice's empire Op-ed: Nick-D on the "Kokoda: Beyond the Legend" conference

— Northamerica1000 ^(talk) 07:00, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited U.S. Naval Base Subic Bay, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stars and Stripes ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:14, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

October 26 - FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable - You are invited!

Everyone is invited to the first FemTech Edit-a-Thon & Roundtable at Claremont Graduate University on October 26 from 3-6 pm. The event will open with a roundtable discussion about feminism and anti-racist technology projects, followed by an edit-a-thon focusing on feminists & women in science. Experienced Wikipedians will be on hand to support new editors. We hope you can join us! Sign up here - see you there! 00:55, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; milestone for the Fortifications task force; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/October 2012/Hawkeye7 on mission command Op-ed: The ed17 on how The Bugle could be improved

I wish to speak to you about this subject whenever you're free because I have something I like to address. I further like to explain that I don't know how to use Talk Pages that well, so I wish to apologize for any errors I may have cause on your talk page. IceBrotherhood ( talk) 00:05, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Please follow the link left on your talk page to the talk page of the article in question.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi RightCowLeftCoast. First let me commend you on your hard work on this and other pages. Much appreciated! Part of the reason why I replaced Ethiopians and Somalis with Kenyans and Ghanaians is because it states in the "Black and African Americans" section that "according to the Office of Management and Budget, the racial category include those who self-identify as African American, Sub-Saharan Africans, and Afro-Caribbeans." However, Ethiopians and Somalis generally do not self-identify racially as "Sub-Saharan African". They identify on a geographical basis as such since that's the half of Africa where the Horn region is situated. Similarly, few identify as "black" (c.f. [1], [2]). This in turn is due to the distinct genetic history of the Afro-Asiatic communities in the Horn region (e.g. [3], [4]), as well as their differing traditions of descent (c.f. 1, 2). Even fewer regard themselves as African American. The latter population is instead considered a separate community of West African origin, with a very different history, culture and ancestral background. Additionally, Somalis and Djiboutians are part of the Arab World and are classified as Arab Americans by the Arab American Institute (c.f. [5]). This is an altogether separate classificatory designation. I think, therefore, it's best to either replace the Afro-Asiatic Horn populations in this particular section table, or create a new table for Arab Americans that would accommodate most of them and the Sudanese as well. Best regards, Middayexpress ( talk) 20:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps, we should carry on this discussion on the talk page of the article in question.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Sturmvogel_66, AustralianRupert, and Nick-D look at ships, soldiers, and railways Op-ed: Nick-D on navigating the FA and A-Class review processes

Decemmber 8 - Wikipedia Loves Libraries Seattle - You're invited

Date Saturday, December 8, 2012 Time 10 a.m. – 3 p.m. Location Seattle Public Library Meeting Room 1 on Level 4, Central Library, 1000 4th Avenue, Seattle WA, 98104 Event An editathon on Seattle-related Wikipedia articles with Wikipedia tutorials and Librarian assistance on hand. Hashtag #wikiloveslib or #glamwiki. Registration http://wll-seattle.eventbrite.com or use on-wiki regsistration. Yours, Maximilianklein ( talk) 03:51, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I responded to your comment both because I wanted to provide another perspective, but also because I quite enjoyed your comment about intelligent and civil discourse from opposing viewpoints. Corporate 08:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW - I like your edit-notice. Do you know anyone else that has a good civility-based edit notice for their Talk page? As a disclosed COI, sometimes I only come into the picture after a company has made someone (usually justifiably) very angry. I would love to make a similar edit notice, probably by copy/pasting one from someone else. Corporate 09:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your efforts in improving Wikipedia. May the notability box you inserted on Roy Anthony Cutaran Bennett now be removed? Rammer ( talk) 19:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, most of the references that were added fail WP:RS, and most fall under the WP:SPS category of non-reliable sources. Therefore, I am still unsure if the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:SOLDIER.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:15, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Simon Harley on British battleships and Nick-D on the French Resistance Interview: Five editors discuss some less-represented areas of military history Op-ed: Ian Rose looks back on 2012

WP:DTTR Soxwon ( talk) 19:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Addition of content not verified is subject to removal per WP:BURDEN, as I initially stated in the edit summary that I initially used. Please do not introduce WP:OR into the article.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Hardly worth citing, it's common knowledge, not WP:OR. We don't cite that the sky is blue and we don't need a citation for the fact that Republicans generally favor defense spending, social conservatism, and pro-business policies (just look at the platform for Pete's sake). Soxwon ( talk) 19:33, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Some of the content that was added appeared to be biased OR, and since no reference was provided, was subject to removal. If the reference which is provided is the party platform, then please add it. Please do not allow the article to devolve into an WP:ATTACKPAGE.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the policy and perhaps corporate welfare was not appropriate. However, I would maintain that any discussion of the Republican Party's policies of "limited government" would be wise to include their main fiscal and social policies in the subject, i.e. their pronounced social conservative policies and their views towards defense spending. Both of these would seem contrary to the idea of limited government. Soxwon ( talk) 23:40, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That is an opinion, and one that is not verified. There is a constitutional arguement for defense spending, and that is my opinion. However, our opinions have no place in the article space, what can be verified by reliable sources does. The article needs significant work to verify the content, and what content cannot be verified should be removed. Furthermore, due to the controversial nature of the subject perhaps what is there should also be attributed.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:56, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for giving me that cookie for expanding the Asian Pacific American Wikipedia article. I really appreciate it. If you are interested, I also previously added similar tables to the African American, Great Migration (African American), and History of Hispanic and Latino Americans articles. Likewise, I plan to add 2010 data to the "Asian Pacific American" article and to create a similar table for Non-Hispanic Whites in the future. Futurist110 ( talk) 07:56, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

</noinclude>		The Third Opinion Award
		— ~~~~

Unfortunately it really is not settled. JGVR ( talk) 03:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What happens when a 3O is given and is rejected by an Admin that insists on editing the page incorrectly??

Talk:Henry van Rensselaer (disambiguation) JGVR ( talk) 20:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The proper course of action, is that getting a third opinion is the first step in dispute resolution, and more importantly in attempting to reach a consensus so that an edit war is avoided in a civil manner. The third opinion is suppose to begin such a consensus building process, and is often sufficient to moving past an in-pass where only two editors are involved in a discussion. If an opposing editor does not agree with the third opinion provided, an editor can bring the matter to dispute resolution or open an request for comment.

I sincerely hope that this helps. Additionally, having not returned to the thread at this point I am assuming good faith of the other editors (an administrator's actions). If it is an editors opinion that an administrator has acted in a manner inconsistent with their office (being an administrator) there is a review process for that.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I saw your message about Talk:William Trump and did answer there. There are many more articles created by Geo Swan about Coast Guard personnel and light house keepers (such as Henry Blake (lighthouse keeper)). To put it mildly, I'm on Geo Swan's shit list. I have a feeling if I do any more Proding, they might end up be blocked. Could you take a look at the articles? I recall on first glance that several people might be notable, so not all will be a redirect. Bgwhite ( talk) 07:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

If there is a concern about the subject's notability, then PRODing or placing an article up for AfD is the proper course of action. If there is an opinion that too many PRODs at one time may cause someone to be blocked, my advice is to slow down, and see WP:TIND. The articles will be there after the older PRODs and AfDs are resolved. Given that most of the subject's of these articles are deceased, their change in notability will not likely change, and thus a couple weeks will not alter the outcome of the consensus build through an AfD. If the subject is notable, an AfD will only verify moreso that the notability is valid, so assuming good faith of the nominator there should be "no harm, no foul". I hope this advise helps.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 07:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I just wanted to say thanks for keeping an eye on the WPUS talk page. I'm glad to see someone is still watching it. Kumioko ( talk) 04:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 2012 Benghazi attack, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Saint Eulalia ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Before I promote this, I wonder if you have completely finished reviewing the article. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I have went ahead and struck my concerns. Go ahead.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 17:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

Hi, I am the one who posted the page for Rick L. Evans.

Here is a start for third party verification of his life before The Imperials. I have many other sources that I am tryingto access and deliver to upgrad this article to full compiance.

Rick L, Evans, as spokesmen for The Imperials, has listed information, in this radio interview, that is notable and is “third Party” verification about his notoriety before The Imperials. Quote -- “These days, the group is comprised of a rock solid line-up of founding member Armond Morales (bass), 29-year veteran Dave Will (baritone/lead), popular alumni Paul Smith (tenor/lead) and new member Rick Evans (tenor/lead), who has traveled extensively with Billy Graham, Harvest Crusades, Promise Keepers and more”. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHEYqEXNeTk http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POdtJkjWaX4

This is just one of many outlets that list his accomplishments before The Imperials. I am working to find the verifiable information and would like your input on what I need to bring to the table to keep this article from being deleted. I admit to being a bit new to this but want to comply with criteria to validate this person of notoriety, and accomplishment, in the Christian Community — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lee Karnbach ( talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I noticed you contributed to my GA review of the Medal of Honor page. No one has replied in a while so i was wondering if you had anything further to add to our discussion on the review page?

Thanks! Retrolord ( talk) 11:02, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I had not seen that you had made a new response on the GA review page. It is not on my watchlist, as I was not its nominator. However, as it appears that I have been the one who has been making the fixes I will remedy it. Additionally, I will be busy with work for the next couple days so I maybe slower in responding than I was before; sorry in advance for my tardiness.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 14:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi RightCowLeftCoast, I just wanted to let you know I commented out your references at Battle of Benghazi. They're certainly useful, since the term is likely to be controversial or novel to some, but WP:DABPAGE generally proscribes references on dab pages. If you'd like to discuss the issue further, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks, BDD ( talk) 19:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to say thanks for your work so far at Military history of Asian Americans, and for your work on Filipino American military history generally. Hope you keep feeling better! Cheers -- Khazar2 ( talk) 17:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Rick Burr, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page War in Afghanistan ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL, you beat me to undoing that external link by seconds. -- MelanieN ( talk) 18:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Gotta watch out for soupbox vandals.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 18:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

On 10 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article David Pendleton, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Republican David Pendleton was the Hawaiian House Minority Floor Leader from 1998 to 2002, and now sits on the Hawaii Labor and Industrial Relations Appeals Board as an administrative law judge? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/David Pendleton. 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.

Carabinieri ( talk) 16:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Congrats on getting the DYK thingy for David Pendleton!!! I was the second guy to make an edit to it, but you're the one who pretty much made the whole entire freakin' thing, gratz! Enjoy your stroopwafels! Helicopter Llama 21:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

On 11 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Clinton Romesha, which you created or substantially expanded. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Clinton Romesha. 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.

KTC ( talk) 19:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Stephen Colletti article has been improved. [6] Care to up from "weak"? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:32, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The work done to the article is commendable, but I have done my searches of available reliable sources, and agree that the subject passes WP:NACTOR. That being said, outside of entertainment focused sources, the subject's significant coverage is minimal outside of gossip about the subject. I support keep, but due to lack of more significant coverage, I have to say that I weakly support notability outside of his entertainment career.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 14:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Distinguished Warfare Medal, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Valor ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 11:03, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Check out this guy. — - dain- talk    22:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I want to thank you for your quality addition to the above article. It would save you problems with it in the future if you could find some other community reaction to it that was in favor of the school's action (which I by the way, find indefensible.) I am afraid another editor will show up and gut it as POV. Good luck and again, Thanks! Gtwfan52 ( talk) 01:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

	The Special Barnstar
	For having the "intestinal fortitude" to make a quality edit that may inspire a shitstorm Gtwfan52 ( talk) 01:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the recognition. Keep up the good work!-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 15:39, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

On 17 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Distinguished Warfare Medal, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Distinguished Warfare Medal is the first American combat-related award to be created since the Bronze Star Medal in 1944? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Distinguished Warfare Medal. 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.

 —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 07:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Your logic at recent AFDs ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas College Democrats Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvard College Democrats Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yale College Democrats Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Texas College Republicans) has been some of the best I've ever seen on Wikipedia.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 01:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost... an uncanny amount of sense.... hrmmm... I second the statements (for what it's worth heh). — - dain omite   02:02, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks both for the positive comments regarding my AfD opinions.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 04:11, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Whenever I see your comments on talk pages, AfDs or what-have-you they are always very articulate and it definitely comes across that you actually put thought, effort and *gasp* logic into your comments and arguments. There really needs to be more Wikipedians like you. — - dain omite   08:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Again, thanks. Many people write off Wikipedia because it can be edited by anyone. However, because it is also its greatest strength. If the editors who continue editing, despite the criticism, remain use reliable sources, work to improve content, and remain civil with one another Wikipedia can achieve the equivalent quality of older encyclopedias that the naysayers find more reputable.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 14:22, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your addition of Mary I of England to Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/October 1 because the article already appears on July 19. If you look at the talk page of any article, you can see what days (if any) it's being used on so that you can avoid duplicates. Thanks. — howcheng { chat} 03:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I am new to editing in the selected anniversaries area, and saw that the article was GA quality, and that it was the 460th anniversary of her coronation, and was being WP:BOLD. I will try not to duplicate such things again in the future.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 14:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

A most pleasant message. Thank you so very much. – S. Rich ( talk) 20:19, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

If I understand the DYK process correctly, the last icon on the page is what DYK bots and manual editors look at in order to determine whether or not to promote the article. I suspect you have reviewed and passed the Template:Did you know nominations/My Hands. Therefore, all it needs now is the code {{subst:DYKtickAGF}} (which generates a ) placed at the beginning of a line near the end of the review or at least after the placed on the 15 February. It is normal to add a comment after the icon such as "Good to go" followed by your signature. Then the article will be passed for DYK. I hope this helps -- Senra ( talk) 23:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I will try it.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 01:54, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Love the cheeseburger . May I ask what does "the majority of the internet" mean, on a light note? Pits Confer Guests 10:01, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

You used two userboxes created by myself.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 20:03, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

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 are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is " Talk:United States, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States/Defining the United States of America".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{ subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk 13:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC) Dispute Resolution diff It looks like you may have picked the wrong diff; did you mean to say this one? -- Golbez ( talk) Thanks for pointing that out to me. I will correct it.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 16:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC) DYK for Benjamin Freakley On 28 February 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Benjamin Freakley, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Benjamin Freakley (pictured) served under General David Petreaus during Operation Iraqi Freedom, and later commanded the 10th Mountain Division in Afghanistan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Benjamin Freakley. 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) 00:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Petraeus Hi, RCLC. Petraeus is spelled wrong in the Benjamin Freakley DYK. Can you use some of your vast influence here to get it corrected? I mentioned it on the Main page talk page about an hour ago. Thanks. -- 108.45.72.196 ( talk) 03:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC) Just looked again—it's fixed. -- 108.45.72.196 ( talk) 03:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC) March 2013 You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Viriditas ( talk) 01:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC) What would that be? Please provide diffs to show this edit war that this warning accussess me off. 3RR has not been violated, and I have been civil in my discussions on the talk page. This notice could be seen as coming from a battlefield mindset, and could be viewed as being continued WP:WIKIHOUNDING and I kindly as the editor to stop. I have already asked the editor to stop once before, and this is the last time I ask. Additional wikihounding actions will be documented, and if need be will be reported. Please do not continue to engage with me in this manor, and I once again ask for civility.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Could you elaborate on this accusation of Wikihounding? Remember, you went to the Conservative WikiProject for backup in your editing dispute at New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case. Viriditas is active on that WikiProject's pages, and presumably your request there led him to the article. MastCell  Talk 05:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC) I was not seeking "back up". I was very clear at WP:RIGHT when stating that I notified all WikiProjects which the article had been tagged with. I did not remember tagging the article as I have been reminded, and thus to assume the I tagged it for the particular purpose of advancing a POV is not assuming good faith. Viriditas has a history of accussing me of pushing POV over a number of talk pages, including at Talk:Burrito. Multiple accusations, over a lengthy period of time, over numerous talk pages. If the reason for this is that the editor believes me to be a POV fighter, that is not assuming good faith. If it is Viriditas' mindset that I am a POV fighter I can understand why Viriditas maybe doing what it appears Viriditas maybe doing, but that does not make it right.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 06:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Final vote The debate you are involved in at the Dispute resolution noticeboard is reaching finality and your final input is needed here. Could you please weigh in at your earliest convenience? Thanx! -- 108.13.143.74 ( talk) 01:41, 6 March 2013 (UTC) Ft Hood casualties Re:the most recent response by ROG: Can you explain to me, the difference between "32 counts of premeditated murder" and the number of casualties at an active shooter crime scene. ANY shooter massacre, not just Ft.Hood. I would ask at the article talk page but ROG would just say, "AGAIN?? I already told you why."....and call my question trivial. He is determined to have it his way. ``` Buster Seven Talk 20:09, 11 March 2013 (UTC) Earlier in the discussion, when I suggested 32 might be the correct answer of wounded, I was told that would be OR. What I know is what can be verified, reliable sources give numbers from 29 to 38, with many reliable sources at different times giving different numbers. The casualties technically be all wounded/injured/hospitalized/medically treated plus dead/killed. Therefore the number should be wounded plus dead/killed. I am willing to compromise with ROG in saying "more than X" were wounded (which is what the Austin Statesman has been doing in later published articles). If ROG is calling our contribution to the article trivial, that isn't really being civil, and is not assuming good faith of fellow contributors. The RfC does not appear to be bringing in new editors to provide additional comments regarding this issue. Once RfC closes, if no consensus can be formed, WP:DRN might be the next course; however I hope a consensus that all can be amicable towards can be achieved.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC) -- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 00:51, 12 March 2013 (UTC) United States Hi I am sure an experienced Wikipedian like yourself would know that a change like this would be controversial and would need a consensus before enacting it. Strangely enough I cannot see where you sought such consensus. Could you please point me to it? Thanks in advance. -- John ( talk) 18:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC) It was a bold change, resized, removed one external media file, and added one image. I do not see the change as controversial. May I kindly ask why it is controversial? I would argue that having an image and speech by one individual would give undue weight to that one individual. Moreover, most sections have two images associated with the section. Adding an additional image would be appropriate. Other appropriate images could be used such as: No past discussion, that I am aware of, said that there was a past consensus on what images to use in the history section, what sizes they should be, etc.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Fair enough. Well, now that it's been reverted I am sure you will be going to article talk to argue for the change you wanted. -- John ( talk) 20:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Query Sorry to bother you again. I noticed you requested that another user remain calm a few days ago, but then tonight, you personalised the discussion ("Because ROG5728 says so?") Do you think these two posts are mutually compatible? I can see the other user getting wound up; is this your intention? -- John ( talk) 20:23, 12 March 2013 (UTC) No, perhaps I should have been more civil. My question was meant to ask why the reasoning behind the other editors logic. May I ask why my edits are being reviewed?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 23:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC) It's a fair question and it deserves an answer. I've seen you around before, and I noticed your interactions with ROG5728 at the Fort Hood Shootings page, where I've edited before and recently disagreed with your suggestion about the casualty figures. When I saw your edit at United States being reverted (it's also on my watchlist, one of 48,545!) I thought I would come over and give you a "word to the wise". As I've noticed you refer to me as an admin, let me reassure you that I would not use my admin tools if I saw you doing anything that looked funny; on the other hand I do know (as I'm sure you also do) the routes down which someone being disruptive could go. I feel hopeful that you can use me as a barometer, if you can see our interaction as an opportunity rather than a threat. Quite apart from my admin bit, I've also made over a kazillion edits here and been around for geological amounts of time, by Wikipedia standards. I've almost never shied away from controversial articles, and maybe I can help you; looking at your contributions I can see you have a lot to add. I helped get Margaret Thatcher to good article status if that counts for anything in your world-view. Anyway, I'm not reviewing your edits any more than I do with any other editor I interact with. Take care, and let me know what I can do for you. -- John ( talk) 23:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC) Disambiguation link notification for March 14 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited History of the United States Army Special Forces, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Geographic ( check to confirm |  fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 14:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC) Courtesy notice Courtesy notice to let you know that an Afd you participated in, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yale College Democrats, has been brought up in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 March 18. Cheers! Location ( talk) 19:08, 18 March 2013 (UTC) ged well i am trying to get my ged and need to know what philipians are please help me.....(6/29/11) The Right Stuff: September 2011 September 2011 FROM THE EDITOR An Historic Milestone By Lionelt Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape. The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as ' no ownership of articles', and particularly ' no original research', will not necessarily apply." WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!" PROJECT NEWS New Style Guide Unveiled By Lionelt A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here. I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove. ARTICLE REPORT 3,000th Article Tagged By Lionelt On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page. Project Portal Join Archives Newsroom Subscribe Suggestions The Right Stuff: October 2011 October 2011 INTERVIEW An Interview with Dank By Lionelt The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia. Q: Tell us a little about yourself. A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008. Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects? A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another. Q: What makes a WikiProject successful? A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership? A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push. If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes. DISCUSSION REPORT Abortion Case Plods Along By Lionelt The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on the Workshop page. Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes. PROJECT NEWS Article Incubator Launched By Lionelt Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN. WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated. We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space. Project Portal Join Archives Newsroom Subscribe Suggestions The Right Stuff: November 2011 August 2018 PROJECT NEWS WikiProject Conservatism faces the ultimate test By Lionelt On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page. Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal. In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke. October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove. Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism. DISCUSSION REPORT Timeline of conservatism is moved By Lionelt Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism. Project Portal Join Archives Newsroom Subscribe Suggestions The Right Stuff: January 2012 January 2012 ARTICLE REPORT Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism By Lionelt On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion. Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline. PROJECT NEWS Project Scope Debated By Lionelt Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion. Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating. Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove. Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism. DISCUSSION REPORT Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum? By Lionelt Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article. The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles. Project Portal Join Archives Newsroom Subscribe Suggestions This is a crime There is absolutely nothing to eat on this talk page. You must be starving. Here, I know it isn't Friday, but munch on this: Lionelt has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Spread the goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{ subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message! Nomination of You didn't build that for deletion A discussion is taking place as to whether the article You didn't build that 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/You didn't build that 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 template from the top of the article. Thanks! Thanks for the barnstar =) The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013 Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose ( talk) and Nick-D ( talk) 03:56, 25 March 2013 (UTC)