User talk:Lionelt/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Right Stuff: January 2012[edit]

The Right Stuff
January 2012
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 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.

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.

Great work on the Right Stuff this month. I remember reading somewhere that an overly detailed Wikipedia article about a political BLP (usually conservative and/or republican), is often used as a vehicle to attack the candidate. Other than being very watchful, how can we (as a Wikiproject), combat against such use of Wikipedia as a political attack tool? Perhaps create an essay, with potential elevation to a guideline (highly unlikely given my WP:SOLDIER experience), to help ward against such actions? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, RCLC. You're comments are timely and thought provoking. I would be interested in reading the document to which you are referring. To ensure BLPs are neutral, we first need to be able to recognize tactics used to manipulate them. Then countermeasures can be deployed. We should get to work on this ASAP. As we get closer to November the article for Obama's opponent as well as other candidates will come under attack. – Lionel (talk) 04:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well there are several non-wikipedia articles about the subject in reliable sources:
"Liberal Bias at Wikipedia?". NewsBusters. 23 April 2006. Retrieved 7 February 2012.
Mark Glaser (17 April 2006). "Wikipedia Bias::Is There a Neutral View on George W. Bush?". MediaShift. Public Broadcasting Service. Retrieved 7 February 2012.
Matthew Sheffield (21 August 2008). "SHEFFIELD: Conservatives miss Wikipedia's threat". Washington Times. Retrieved 8 February 2012.
Rowan Scarborough (27 September 2010). "Wikipedia Whacks the Right". Human Events. Retrieved 8 February 2012.
Matt Sanchez (14 May 2008). "Wiki-Whacked by Political Bias". PJ Media. Retrieved 8 February 2012.
The left is rather dismissive of the view from those on the right that there is a bias here on wikipedia, even if it's an unintentional imbalance as the Wikipedia founder has stated due to the slight demographic majority of left leaning editors over right leaning editors.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disengage please[edit]

Please disengage from Roux's talk page; this edit summary here [1] is a little excessive, and considering that you are intimately involved in the dispute, your presense there is unlikely to calm the situation. It would be best if you just avoided commenting one way or the other. --Jayron32 05:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Antoshi's talk page.

CPAC "criticism" section[edit]

I missed it when I did my minor edits the other day, but I'm watching it now, and that kind of "criticism", if it returns, won't be there long. --Kenatipo speak! 00:03, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Religion articles[edit]

I see that you have encountered a similar problem as I have on these religion articles. If we worked together, we could clean up some of these articles. If you are interested, let me know. Also, what is the issue with Homosexuality and Seventh-day Adventism? Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 06:01, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you take a look at the exodus talk page and comment on the two issues currently being discussed. Above the "bronze age collapse" break, they want to leave out my edits (most of them are softening the imbalance, like altering a claim that "scholars agree" on something to naming the scholar who personally holds that view). Below the "bronze age collapse" break I am arguing for them to restore my section on the Bronze Age Collapse, as it is directly relevant to was going on at the time.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 05:35, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, as that section seems clearly original research, I asked you there to explain why you think it should be included. Qgs seems reluctant to go to WP:NOR perhaps mistakenly thinking local consensus would override it. Dougweller (talk) 06:22, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Third opinion[edit]

Hey there Lionel , ill reply to that email you sent me in due course but for now could you help me out a sec?

Having a bit of a dispute on The World at War page (check the history for details) but basicailly theres this user who has been rude to other editors,(along with not assuming good faith) and adding nonsensical edits and also reverting and reverting other peoples and my edits and has refused to compromise, While i agree my edit may be a bit debatable in its necessity he has already breached the 3RR rule and with being rude to both me and another user.

User:Goldblooded (Talk/Discuss)(Complain) 22:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mathsci (talk) 10:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I restored the disrupted edits on the exodus and started a new discussion section at Talk:The_Exodus#Discuss_the_edits. Please comment when you have a chance.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christianity banner[edit]

Am actually going about trying to adjust the banner in a number of ways, to produce a greater consistency and logical arrangement of the subprojects. Part of that involves perhaps getting some input on the proposed changes of scope of some of the related project, as per the comments I made at WT:X. I think it would probably be very useful to get them all done at once, though, to minimize the impact of the changes, and would welcome any comments on the other proposed changes. John Carter (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:40, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, and a rather important one. Wekn reven 19:05, 13 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there, just dropping by to let you know that the above article yesterday reached GA status (second attempt). Regards, Jprw (talk) 07:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears that this user may be stalking/harassing you. I have noticed after researching his AFD requests, they seem to be centered around articles in which you have created/contributed to. If you should decide to take any case before an arbitrator/administrator, I wanted to let you know that I will stand by you as a witness if necessary. Please let me know, thanks. SaveATreeEatAVegan 07:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem, and thank you for the barnstar reward, my friend. The harassment of Wikipedia's vital contributor's is a serious offense, and I for one will not sit back and allow it to be tolerated. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication to our project, and I'm sorry you had to deal with such nonsense. SaveATreeEatAVegan 08:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Barnstar Reward[edit]

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Your non-stop efforts and tireless contributions do not go unnoticed. Thank you for all your hard work and dedication, friend. SaveATreeEatAVegan 08:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very pleased to see the article easily survived the AFD. SaveATreeEatAVegan 12:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you take another look at the talk page for the exodus, specifically the bottom? I commented on PiCo's behavior on the most recent post by History2007. He seems to be purposely obstructing the discussion.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rick Santorum[edit]

I'm not revert warring. Please don't template me in the future, I consider it uncollegial. --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • True, I'm a relatively new user. But you should treat me based on my understanding of policy and experience not on the short time I've been here. Misrepresenting the edit-warring policy to a new user is hardly a great idea, and it's simply good fortune that I've read the relevant pages myself and therefore am undeterred. Regards. --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:50, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Nah, this is my first account. I edited as an IP doing minor fixes since around 2006 or 2007, so I'm pretty familiar with how everything works. I thought I might as well create an account when I found some articles I wanted to do serious work on a few weeks ago, because it would be confusing for other editors (my IP addresses can be highly dynamic). But yeah, I consider myself a regular. People forget that IPs are human beings sometimes. Anyway, all the best. --He to Hecuba (talk) 10:54, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

Tag team edit wars are still edit wars. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you're referring to my revert of the POV tag, there is a new issue on the talk page which justifies re-adding the tag. – Lionel (talk) 22:19, 16 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Conservatism Portal links[edit]

Hello there. I noticed that you had asked Rcsprinter to add links to the Conservatism portal to a number of articles. I believe that a number of those links are unwarranted, based on the topic's only tangential relevance to conservatism, especially when taking into account the broadness of certain topics. Here's a list of the ones I take issue with- please let me know what you think:

Thanks! johnpseudo 13:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks John for bringing this to my attention. Links were added to these articles because they have been assessed as Top or High priority. I didn't assess and do not know why some of them, e.g. Bonapartism or Václav Klaus, were given Top/High priority. Others are not only Top priority, but also appear on the core template: {{Conservatism}}. E.g. Social order and Aristocracy. I would say that those are excellent candidates for the link.

The bigger question might be what is the criteria for adding the link in the first place? From WP:ALSO: "links in the "See also" section do not have to be directly related to the topic of the article, because one purpose of the "See also" links is to enable readers to explore topics that are only peripherally relevant." So, links with "only tangential relevance" are permitted.– Lionel (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A conservative news article[edit]

Hi Lionelt, you may find this news item of interest to the conservatism project:

Baroness Warsi's strike at 'secular fundamentalists' as she meets Pope

By Nick Squires, the Vatican, 6:20PM GMT 15 Feb 2012

Baroness Warsi has hit out at "secular fundamentalists" as she met the Pope and concluded an historic visit of British ministers to the Vatican. The Cabinet Office minister and chairman of the Conservative Party gave Benedict XVI a personal gift during a 20-minute private audience – a gold-plated cube that opens up to reveal 99 tiny cubes, each inscribed with a reference to Allah. In keeping with the theme of interfaith dialogue, she also gave him a copy of the Koran which was translated by an East European Jew who converted to Islam and helped write Pakistan's constitution. "They were personal gifts from me," Baroness Warsi, the first female Muslim cabinet minister, told The Daily Telegraph at the Vatican on Wednesday. She also presented the pontiff with a letter from David Cameron, the Prime Minister, a message from the Queen and a copy of the King James Bible...

File permission problem with File:A 090806 ducks01.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:A 090806 ducks01.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Kelly hi! 17:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Instead of just deleting paragraphs why don't you first look for sources? It took me five seconds to find sources for the material you deleted from Central Neighbourhood House. Vale of Glamorgan (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I understand your irritation, Vale of Glamorgan. On the other hand, I see why Lionelt was justified in doing what he did—the article has been tagged for "Needs citations" since August. In a case like this, where the info comes from the website of the organization the article covers, I think we should put a general attribution in the "References" section, like "The information in this article is drawn from the CNH website". It doesn't meet our requirement for 3rd party sourcing, but I'm an inclusionist. --Kenatipo speak! 16:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


FWIW, when we had a monthly newsletter for a very brief time, we ran a monthly contest to create and bring a new article up to DYK status. It seemed to work, although, admittedly, it only involved one person per month. I know MILHIST runs a contest, in which people who develop articles get points per article developed, based on a few set criteria. Maybe something like that would be the way to go, if we could come up with some sort of guidelines for points like they have. I very much doubt the Signpost would allow interviews to winners, though. There are at least 1000 WikiProjects and work groups out there, and they are probably interested in getting as many recognized as possible. Maybe a "thank you" in the next monthly issue, again, if we had a regular one, might work however. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, Signpost was some serious reaching... Acknowledging the winner would work well in a newsletter--if we had one. Anyway, I'm going to check interest for the contest at the NB. – Lionel (talk) 03:43, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please read this page before doing next "merge" [like this.--В и к и T 20:12, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christian Voice[edit]

I've had to remove Green's rebuttal because Christian Voice's blog is not a reliable source as it is a blog and self-published. WP:SPS states: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer", and WP:BLPSPS instructs: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject" I am genuinely sorry about this: the initial claim could do with a response, but this cannot be it. If you can find one in an [WP:RS|RS]], please do add it.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moreoever, please stop removing WP:V, WP:N and WP:RS-referenced information that pertains to Green specifically in the context of his leadership of the organisation as "off-topic". I reiterate: firstly, the source mentions his leadership of CV several times and alludes to it in its title. Secondly, the Green and CV pages were merged due to a consensus of editors that Green and CV are two names for the same thing: what pertains to one pertains to the other. Finally, if mention of Green in this context is "off-topic", so logically is any mention of his leadership and background, which would deprive the article of vital context. We have already been through this on the talk page many months back: having failed to make your case there (and unsuccessfully trying numerous other lines of argument to have this information removed), it is not edifying to return several months later to remove a large chunk of fully-referenced notable information as if the debate over its inclusion had never taken place.FrFintonStack (talk) 02:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sincere apologies for that comment: checking the page again, I realise that you removed it only from the "controversy" section, where at some stage it had been duplicated, and not from the "leadership" section, where it had long resided.FrFintonStack (talk) 04:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Dear User:Lionelt, thank you for your kind comments. It is nice to know that I am making a difference here. I may be absent for a while, only taking the time to edit periodically. I hope you have a nice evening. With regards, AnupamTalk 02:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


RE: an in-line portal link as "political spam" — eye of the beholder, and all that, but with the long knives out in some quarters as to what is perceived as a POV-driven agenda at the Conservatism project, I hope you will give most serious consideration to my take on this. See Also links are not the place for in-line links to portals. The small portal icons are borderline. Project portals should be kept out of mainspace altogether, some might reasonably argue. best, — Tim //// Carrite (talk) 16:48, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abortion article titles notification[edit]

Hey Lionelt. This is just a notification that a binding, structured community discussion has been opened by myself and Steven Zhang on behalf of the Arbitration Committee. As you were named as a involved party in the Abortion case, you may already know that remedy 5.1 called for a "systematic discussion and voting on article names". This remedy is now being fulfilled with this discussion. If you would like to participate, the discussion is taking place at WP:RFC/AAT. All the best, Whenaxis talk · contribs | DR goes to Wikimania! 22:51, 22 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Compare and contrast[edit]

EB is a tertiary source. And it is reliable. The policy does not prohibit tertiary sources, however, if a secondary source is found EB should be removed and replaced. But not until such secondary source is added.


removed tertiary source per WP:RS " may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion") Eschoir (talk) 03:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mailing list[edit]

(sees orange bar, messages crossed in transit)

Lionelt - I've started a thread on ANI regarding the recent newsletter distribution. I've not as yet mentioned you by name, but will soon. (Not in any sort of disparaging way, by the way.) - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:56, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please remove my name from further delivery of this spam newsletter. While I am a member of Project Catholicism I only accept newsletters from that project not others using their member list. Thank you.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Cyberpower678's talk page.
Message added 03:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply[reply]

AnupamTalk 03:20, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1st revert?[edit]

Lionel, isn't the 1st revert at 20:59 18 February? That would give a total of 7 in a 24-hour period, adding 2 onto the front end of your 5. (When you've got him down, kick him, I always say!) --Kenatipo speak! 03:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANI--don't shoot the messenger[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. See section Questions concerning institutional votestacking- "9-1-1 button". Drmies (talk) 05:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Issuing project invites to single-purpose promotional accounts? Not a good way to dispel concerns about your pet project being a canvassing machine. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:30, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have no idea what you're talking about. I observed an editor who made questionable edits and gave them a Welcome message which has useful and helpful links to important policies. The article where I noticed them has a conservatism banner--I know of no better project to obtain guidance on how to become a productive member of the community. – Lionel (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And again. Inviting editors who are blocked for disruptive POV-motivated editing to your WikiProjects is only going to strengthen the already strong case of users who are pointing out that the projects are serving as ideology-based hubs rather than interest-based ones. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Without the guidance of experienced editors in his chosen topic area how can he possibly learn to edit collaboratively instead of disruptively? You and I both know that as soon as he comes off the block he's going to edit war again. You feel projects are votestacking machines. I find them to be supportive environments for improving articles and editors. Time will tell which one, or if neither, of us is correct. – Lionel (talk) 02:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps you could dispel some of these suspicions by actually providing guidance to the disruptive editors you want editing these articles, instead of showing them a list of articles they have an agenda about and letting them loose. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 02:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Esoglou (talk) 09:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hadn't myself noticed the load time for the above page, but I tend to agree with you that it might also be very useful if that page were streamlined a little. I suppose we could make the members list just a link to a separate page, and maybe do the same with the GA/FA articles, and so on. I guess it would be useful to know what specifically you had in mind. John Carter (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The main page frequently will be the first exposure that prospective members have of the project. That initial experience will determine if they join or not. IMO it should convey to prospects that we are a group and that our group is the best in wikipedia; and it should do it without a lot of wiki-speak. The bulk of the "work" related stuff could be moved to subpages--regular members shouldn't have no difficulty finding the pages they need. The subpages could be accessed by tabs and a footer nav box. We might consider eliminating the sidebar on the main page. We could create a working design in a sandbox. – Lionel (talk) 03:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Filet-O-Fish has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Grondemar 02:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My bad[edit]

My bad. Haven't checked with the MOS on that one in a while. Sorry (and thanks), Dahn (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Praise from Caesar. If you would like to propose it, I certainly won't object - I tend not to propose my own articles for GA, because it is enjoyable to get genuine feedback such as yours. The only things are that the GA review process is getting slow these days, and also that, at this stage, I can't in good faith guarantee that I'll be around to fix the issues posed by the review (potential objections, questions etc.).
I was touched by the decision to include Nicolae Iorga on the Conservatism portal DYK. Brace yourself ;). Dahn (talk) 23:43, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ichthus: January 2012[edit]


January 2012

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here


Please stop your disruptive editing and sanitizing of information on the Homosexuals Anonymous article. There is already a project to neutralise and improve the article and you could contribute to that productively on the talk page instead of being disruptive. This is a warning to work with us and not against us for the good of the article. Thanks Jenova20 10:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you talking about? Are you insane? – Lionel (talk) 10:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's some of the most recent:
Here you removed a reliably sourced section stating it had no sources, even though it had 2 and no one else had a problem with it. Someone reverted you after this.
Here you added a very POV section including "The vehicle to achieving freedom from homosexuality", which seems to be presented as fact and was again reverted by someone else.
Here's another where you tried to add very POV information that I reverted where you talk about homosexuality being overpowering and unconquerable unless people seek help.
Here you stated "Many participants in these programs report satisfactory results" with just one reference provided by this very organization and blanked out another independent reference claiming otherwise. This isn't even all of these edits, just the most recent ones you did.
So before labelling anyone else as insane i would start WP:AGF and either quit editing this page or be more productive while doing so.
Thanks Jenova20 13:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you done? – Lionel (talk) 00:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States[edit]

I've been very quiet about the whole (self inflicted) drama regarding a certain "gone but still posting user". Even while he's sniped at me all over the 'pedia. But this goes too far: "Let's not let him fade away into oblivion without thanks from the group he loved". I really feel a need to interject here and point out WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I'm not trying to be a PITA, I'm not saying he wasn't a good editor, but... really? Let's get some perspective here. He's one editor that left in a huff because he pissed off a lot of people and didn't want to discuss a particular issue (multiple times with mulitiple editors, over *years*), and it's at least the second time he's left in this manner. I know this may trigger a flurry of posts on your talk page, and I'm sorry for that, but I felt it better to post it here than on the WPUS talk page. Best, Markvs88 (talk) 12:31, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First, let me clarify here and now I am not the Kumioko user. I say that because I have already been accused of it by another user because I took interest in the discussion and live within 500 miles. I think Mark is grossly downplaying his role in the whole incident. Why did I read the discussion? Because I saw the name Kumioko seemingly all over, I did, out of curiousity look over a lot of the discussions because as someone who has been Lurking for a while, I was going to create an account and decided against it after the whole incident. I'm not going to harp about this or that I only want to say that I think Mark is being quite insincere in their statements when he was one of the main instigators. I also don't get the impression that Kumioko was the one avoiding discussion. A very quick review of both users talk pages (and Kumi-Taskbot) and the reversions they both did to each other shows that although Kumioko could have absolutely handled the situation better there is no doubt that Mark was acting provocatively. I also do not think that they "Pissed off a lot of people", I think it was a handful of editors who refused to "discuss" anything that wasn't what they wanted. With all that said, I think that this discussion is of little meaning since its unlikely anyone in the project will do a Newsletter. (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I think this could have been handled better. First, an explanation with the newsletter would have been good. Second, the link to unsubscribe could have worked (it didn't direct you to the correct list until I updated the shortcut. Third, broader input should have been sought after the bot was blocked, justifiably in my opinion, rather than filing a ANI complaint.

While I support the goal of encouraging users who have listed themselves as part of a project to "return to the project", using a bot to add newsletter to 100s of users was not wise. My spot check showed that many users immediately reverted the newsletter off their talk page. My suggestion is that you should remove them as well so that you don't get bad feedback again with the next letter, or at least say something like: this is an example to opt-in add your name here. I've never seen an opt-out system work well on Wikipedia. --Trödel 13:25, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Lionelt, thanks for the invite to the WikiGrail, it looks like an interesting project. I have a couple questions before I sign up though: would I get credit for working on an article about Mormonism or a Christianity-based new religious movement like the Urantia Foundation? And what about an article on a politician who promoted a sort of Christian nationalism? Looking at the scoring page, I assume that if I got an article to GA in the past, but brought it to FA I'd still get points as long as significant work was done to get it there during the competition? (Thanks for the compliment on my talk page, BTW). Mark Arsten (talk) 19:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your interest, Mark. Regarding article eligibility: "All submissions must bear a Christianity project banner on its talkpage." In the case of Mormonism, definitely. Urantia doesn't appear to be Christian, so on first glance I would say no. The politician, yes. FYI some of the subprojects have Assessment Departments that can make final determinations. Yes you'd get all of the points for the FA. – Lionel (talk) 08:15, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, sounds good to me then. The Urantia-related article I was thinking of was on the founder of the movement (William S. Sadler), who was an Adventist missionary before he started the group, so I think he could be covered by Wikiproject Christianity in that regard. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

issues on the exodus[edit]

Could you go over to the discussion board for "the exodus" and help with the dispute?Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you encourage Quark to join in the discussion there and not just revert? Dougweller (talk) 22:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My purposed edits for the exodus; to change the second paragraph of the intro from:
"The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[1] A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of books containing the exodus story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC and later expanded into a work very like the one we have today.[2] A minority of scholars assumes that this has yet older sources that can be traced to a genuine tradition of the Bronze Age collapse of the 13th century BC.[3]"
"Currently, the traditional picture of the exodus has been questioned and modified, either slightly or radically, or it has even been downright rejected. A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of books containing the exodus story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC using earlier sources, and later expanded into a work very like the one we have today.[1] Conservative and traditionalist scholars often argue that the exodus narratives originated close to the event itself.[2] While no definitive archaeological evidence of the exodus survives, few scholars doubt that the exodus occurred.[3] Due to possible conflicts between the exodus narratives and the current state of archaeological knowledge, the most common approach among scholars is to date the exodus to the 13th century and argue that a smaller group left Egypt than the narratives appear to suggest.[3]"
I posted them on the talk page also.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I posted the following revised into on the talk page:
"Currently, the traditional picture of the exodus has been questioned and modified, either slightly or radically, or it has even been downright rejected. A common hypothesis among biblical scholars today is that the first major comprehensive draft of the Pentateuch (the series of books containing the exodus story) was composed in the late 7th or the 6th century BC using earlier sources, and later expanded into a work very like the one we have today.[1] Conservative and traditionalist scholars often argue that the exodus narratives originated close to the event itself.[2] While no definitive archaeological evidence of the exodus survives, few scholars doubt that the exodus occurred.[3]"Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 02:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note that I just posted 8 different sources for my claim on the exodus and PiCo continues to filibuster.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 23:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Toa Nidhiki05's talk page.

sorry about that edit[edit]

at Traditional Values Coalition. I was really thinking along the lines of a talk page right then. I feel that my point stands though, that Matthew 5-7 have zero gay content in them. Hers, (the TVC spokesperson) is the sort of reasoning that gets groups such as this put on hate lists. Carptrash (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed merge[edit]

Please see the discussion at Talk:Straight_pride#Proposed_merge. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:11, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 9[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Day of Silence, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Abomination (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) 10:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lionel, I changed the link from Abomination to Abomination (Bible). ("Ev'rybody must get stoned!" ) --Kenatipo speak! 19:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Don Bosco[edit]

Hi, I removed the "support as nominator", no objection, I probably agree - but the RfC rules, unless I am totally wrong, are same as RM. No seconding oneself. If I'm wrong please restore. Ciao. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jeffrey Satinover edits[edit]

The edits I added provide context on the controversial nature of Jeffrey Satinover's writings. One of the references I added (the article) is an interview where Satinover explains his own views, in his own words. I fail to see how my edits violate policy, are potentially libelous, or are logically faulty. If you disagree with the edits, you must provide a rational and specific argument for the disagreement.

BRD policy says: "Don't invoke BRD as your reason for reverting someone else's work or for edit warring: instead, provide a reason that is based on policies, guidelines, or common sense." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miamibeachguy (talkcontribs) 00:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Miamibeachguy (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)miamibeachguyReply[reply]

Sorry for forgetting to sign my above comment.

Happy to discuss my edits, but your claim that I "called 4 living people homophobes" is false, as explained on my own 'talk' page. If you have a reasonable argument that I have violated a Wikipedia policy, please explain. If not, your reversions of my edits seem rather arbitrary.

Miamibeachguy (talk) 19:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)miamibeachguyReply[reply]

There is always room for reasonable editing, such as moving information to different sections within an article, but you have deleted huge sections of truthful, well-sourced, well-referenced information. I am willing to discuss reasonable edits; however, efforts to suppress information will not be tolerated. I have several questions:

1.) Do you consider the American Psychiatric Association to be a reliable source? 2.) Can you cite a rational reason not to include links to the websites and pamphlets of the organizations that continually cite Satinover's work? 3.) I quoted Satinover's writings directly, and you removed those sections. Why? You also deleted my synopsis of Satinover's book, "Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth." One what basis are you deleting quoted material? Have you read the book? 4.) You deleted everything in the article about Satinover's work on sexual orientation change efforts. Before I began editing, the article referenced this topic (saying he had been "criticized" for it), and you presumably had no problem with it. Why delete it now? 5.) You added detail about Satinover's testimony before the Massachusetts Senate Committee Studying Gay Marriage, saying that Satinover testified that "research shows that raising children in a same-sex household is deleterious to their well being and development." However, you failed to mention the fact that Satinover's views are outside the mainstream of the scientific and therapeutic community (notably, the American Psychological Association), and in fact there are studies that reach conclusions *opposite* to what Satinover claims (i.e., gay parents might be *better* parents overall). Why do you only include the anti-gay information? 6.) You characterize Satinover as a neutral "policy advisor" on the topic of homosexuality, but any reasonable reading of his writings shows him to be solidly in the anti-gay camp. His writings and testimony have only been used by organizations and individuals that seek to deny the civil rights and human dignity of people who identify as LGBT. If you continue to make edits that whitewash this fact, we can only infer that you have some bias. 7.) Are you Jeffrey Satinover himself?

Miamibeachguy (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)miamibeachguyReply[reply]


Despite your help, Q has continued to remove the material about archaeology from the lead, so I've taken this to ANI and mentioned that you asked him to stop reverting. He seems to have difficulties in understanding how Wikipedia works, as well as problems understanding the sources he wants to use (eg suggesting we use Freund, thinking that Dever's book was minimalist, etc.). Dougweller (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dispute over exodus[edit]

PiCo is engaging in original research. He is putting the personal view of one scholar, William Dever, into the disputed intro as if his views represent mainstream scholarship when they do not. In fact, Dever's views are shared by very few scholars. PiCo is including Dever because of his personal assessment of Dever's reliability, which is by definition original research. I cited eight different scholarly works, some of which PiCo even agreed were good, that contradict Dever and show his views to be outside the mainstream. These sources all say what the views of scholars are generally. Contrast this with PiCo, who wants the view of one particular scholar to be included as representing "consensus". The article should mention the views of scholars generally, not one scholar in particular. PiCo and Dougweller keep reverting any edits that bring some balance back to the article. They are working together to introduce a strong bias into the article. As it stands right now, the article has a heavy bias.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 17:09, 10 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey Lionel! I was wondering if you could adopt me and teach me how to edit! You've done a lot on Wikipedia and I'm sure I can become just as well adjusted! What do you say? :D - Teammm Let's Talk! :) 15:41, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have been able to bring some other editors into the discussion. I invite you to comment here at Talk:The_Exodus#Intro. Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the exodus talk page, PiCo admits the wide variation in scholarly opinion on the exodus, but refuses to allow the article to even mention the existence of that diverse scholarly opinion. He is engaging in original research by claiming that the evidence that one side (which, interestingly, holds the view that he does) claims makes them right, and so the other opinions can't even be mentioned. In other words, he wants the article to only mention the side that he thinks has the strongest case for being right, rather than for it to discuss all major scholarly views. This is by definition original research. He is simply enforcing a strong bias on the article, treating the other views as if they don't exist, because he can. Any edits I make, even trivial ones, are automatically reverted and he completely refuses to allow any edits but his own. Please assist.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Christianity assessment[edit]

Hopefully, they do. But there are other projects which have regular "assessment drives", which are particularly useful to note articles which have been substantively improved, but haven't had that noticed. Maybe in an upcoming newsletter we could discuss having an assessment drive. Also, I would welcome your input, and that of virtually anyone else, at the new discussion I am starting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Activity. John Carter (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creating a WikiProj Advice page[edit]

Hi Lionel. Nice to meet you. At the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion#Seven Point Counter Proposal I was happy to note your positive suggestion [2] that a WP Advice page be set up using the Seven Points I have outlined. I will support your move and back you up in this regard (I am not familar with setting up such a page, so that is why I hesitate and would appreciate that you get it going. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The style guideline is here: WP:RELMOS. Let me know if this is what you had in mind. – Lionel (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Lionel: Thanks for all the good work. I have read it and it seems generally that it needs to read a little more like a "manual" and not like a general discussion. I know that this is easier said than done. At the talk page I have added Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style#Reminder: Seven Point Proposal and please see this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Religion/Manual of style#Contradiction and resolution. I also think you should make the general discussion group more aware of this page and the discussion. Thanks again for all your efforts. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 21:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 16[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited The Heritage Foundation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jon Huntsman (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) 18:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sandbox draft of the exodus[edit]

I created a sandbox version of the exodus page at User:Quarkgluonsoup/The Exodus/Draft. Please come over and make what edits you think would improve the page.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The sandbox version of the exodus article has been moved to Talk:The_Exodus/Draft.Quarkgluonsoup (talk) 16:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at JohnChrysostom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at JohnChrysostom's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your revisions to The Liberty Film Festival[edit]

Re: your March 14th revisions to the entry for The Liberty Film Festival, the Liberty Film Festival is not actually related to either the American Film Renaissance or the Motion Picture Alliance for the Preservation of American Ideals. The Motion Picture Alliance in particular was not even a film festival, and dates from the 1940s-1950s. The Liberty Film Festival also held an event in 2005 that was explicitly critical of the Hollywood blacklist, and of the Motion Picture Alliance's role in promoting it. User:Thorpe79 —Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC).Reply[reply]

Heritage Commons Category[edit]

Hi Lionel, just wanted to let you know that I've followed up one of your suggestions for improving coverage of The Heritage Foundation on Wikipedia: there's now Commons:Category:The Heritage Foundation and I've begun to add related images. This is the first time I've created a category (or even used Commons, for that matter), so I followed the instructions at Commons:Categories. Let me know if there's anything I've missed. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great job!!! One last thing: add an inter-wiki link to the category at the Heritage article. – Lionel (talk) 22:25, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edward Brooke not a Conservative[edit]

Just because someone belongs to the Republican Party, that does not necessarily make them a conservative. Sometimes, quite the opposite is true: Brooke was known as a member of the liberal wing of the Republicans, and here is an even more extreme case. See also Talk:Edward Brooke#Conservatism; apparently once upon a time there was an "African American Conservatism" category (which doesn't seem to exist anymore), and someone protested it. The Brooke article isn't currently categorized in anything conservative (or liberal either, for that matter.) JustinTime55 (talk) 19:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You (or AWB) added the WP:Conservatism banner to the talk page: [[3]]. Was this unintentional? JustinTime55 (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC) (This is a backup to my response on my talk page, just to make sure you see it.)Reply[reply]

Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa[edit]

Hi Lionel, Thanks for your note on the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa. I am currently gathering research and then will give GA status on the article a go. ShiningWolf (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sometimes it can take a while to get a reviewer. You might ask for reviewers at a relevant Christianity Wikiprojects. Good luck!!! – Lionel (talk) 22:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edit-warring warning.[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Straight Pride. 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:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. 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. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • You are really audacious. At Straight pride you have committed one of the most egregious acts of censorship I have ever seen. If this kind of behavior is allowed to continue why even have an encyclopedia? We might as well just shut down the server farm now. Who needs SOPA when we have Dominus Vobisdu? You have presented NO POLICIES, NO ARGUMENTS, NO SUPPORT for censoring Straight pride.– Lionel (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And btw have you heard of WP:DONTTEMPLATETHEREGULARS????? – Lionel (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for October Baby[edit]

Thanks from me and the wiki Victuallers (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey, Lionel, I found this [4] in a ref at the Russian version of our Straight Pride article. There's a stick-figure logo in the photo at the top of the page I found amusing. --Kenatipo speak! 19:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also, the Russian article mentions incidents in Romania and Israel as well as Russia, with refs. --Kenatipo speak! 19:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]



Budapest is not in Romania. :) MastCell Talk 20:29, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MastCell? Never have I ever known a ruder pest! --Kenatipo speak! 03:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, points for quoting my favorite musical. :P MastCell Talk 18:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not true, of course—you're on a different list than the one that includes OM, MF and WMO, for example. --Kenatipo speak! 01:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 2012[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Straight pride. Please comment on the content and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. You are welcome to rephrase your comment as a civil criticism of the article. Thank you. Diff Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Well if you read the talk page you can clearly see that he baited and provoked me. I acted in self-defense. See WP:Stand Your Ground hahahaha.– Lionel (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • First of all, that isn't the least bit humorous. Second, don't call the kettle black. If you are old enough to edit Wikipedia, then you are old enough to take responsibility for your actions. You're not a victim, so stop acting like one. Viriditas (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours to the article Straight pride has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. This includes edit summaries such as "Hetero Day in Canada!!! O Canada!!!!", and "ROMANIA! Noroc, comrades!!!!" Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Unless you can cite a policy regarding edit sums, I think I'll just flush this shit down the toilet. – Lionel (talk) 01:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Please review WP:CIVIL and WP:REVTALK. Keep it civil, use the edit summaries to briefly and accurately describe your edits so that editors reviewing their watchlist changes can acknowledge your changes, and treat others as you would wish to be treated. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well that's an info page which is as binding as a wet noodle. I could say something unkind about your failure here, but I'll keep it to myself.– Lionel (talk) 02:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WP:CIVIL is a policy and it explicitly applies to edit summaries. Viriditas (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. Just when this thread was about to bore me into a coma, I'll bite........ Exactly how do either of those edit sums violate CIVIL? – Lionel (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, review WP:REVTALK and compare and contrast it with Wikipedia:Civility#Edit summary do's and don'ts. Are you getting it yet? Viriditas (talk) 02:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nope. CIVIL, which is a policy, applies to other editors. The edit sums you you cited do not fall under that policy because they were not directed at an editor. They do however fall under REVTALK, which I have ignored in the past, have ingored in the present, and will continue to ignore into the foreseeable future. But nice try, V. You don't mind if I call you V do you? I mean, after all of this quality time we've spent together on my talk, I think we're at that stage in our relationship where I can go for the "V". And you can call me........ Lionelt Hahahaha!!!!!! – Lionel (talk) 02:36, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You are mistaken. After you review Wikipedia:Wikilawyering, please refer back to WP:CIVIL, where you will discover that contrary to the civility policy, you made snide, aggressive comments in your edit summary about Canadians and Romanians which could insult editors from those countries. Please be more careful in the future. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your concern, V, but I'll take my chances. And I'll continue to make edit sums exactly like those which you take issue with until admins indeff me, arbcoms ban me, and the worst sanction of all: when bureaucrats lock me in a room with you for a month!!! – Lionel (talk) 02:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion. You don't write edit summaries for yourself. You're writing them for the benefit of other editors. If other editors express issues with your use of edit summaries, then you should consider taking them to heart. Your recent edit summaries to straight pride consisted of "Hetero Day in Canada!!! O Canada!!!!", and "ROMANIA! Noroc, comrades!!!!" That's not an acceptable use of edit summaries. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lemme think about it... – Lionel (talk) 03:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought about it. Hahahahahahahahaha – Lionel (talk) 03:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. In that case, if it does continue, then I will consider filing a user RFC. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 03:11, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Thank you. V.Lionel (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find the edit summary inappropriate. The event occured in a small city in Canada and was not a nationwide event. In fact the city did not repeat the event. The "former mayoral candidate" Bill Whatcott finished fourth with 344 votes in a city of almost 200,000 people. He has been arrested over 20 times, and jailed and fined. The suggestion that he is representative of Canada is offensive. TFD (talk) 03:21, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Et tu TFD???Lionel (talk) 03:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understood Lionel's edit summaries perfectly; nothing inappropriate about them. (I'm fluent in Canadian and Buda-Pestian, don't you know.) --Kenatipo speak! 04:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Kenatipo, since Lionel's edit summaries didn't communicate anything in clear English to editors watching recent changes, what exactly is it that you understood? Please remember, intellectual honesty is required. Viriditas (talk) 04:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, K, neanderthal mendacity is required.– Lionel (talk) 04:47, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@V: that he was adding something to the article about incidents in Canada and Romania (or perhaps Hungary), of course! --Kenatipo speak! 05:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just popping in here. Yes, edit summaries should be descriptive. Please be mercilessly polite to those who disagree with you, or even just want to take you to task for something. It means less crow to eat if and when others say that they were right and you were wrong. Your responses on your talk page do not seem to me to be fostering a collegial editing environment. WP:DTTR is not an excuse for ignoring feedback in such a manner. Jclemens (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Censorship at Straight Pride[edit]

  • Lionel, I'm stunned by your behaviour yesterday. You made seven additions which were quickly reverted - because they were unsourced, poorly sourced, irrelevent or misrepresented the sources. Now, I've looked and I'm not sure I agree with the reasoning behind each revert, but the article is not meant to be a list of every incident with the words "straight pride" appearing. The larger problem is that of your behaviour, that you did not discuss ANY of those additions on the talk page - but instead warned two editors who reverted you [5] [6] about reaching 3RR. It certainly appears that you were placing statements in a controversial article which you expected to be reverted, for the purpose of disrupting the article. Those are battleground tactics, which I will not stand for. Consider this a formal warning, you may be blocked if you continue in this manner. WormTT · (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree.
  • The sources--except one--were sufficient and on a par with the rest of the article. If someone had an issue with those additions they should've tagged them--not deleted them. Interesting that the only addition kept was the one about Budapest, which featured skinheads. Additions about college students exercising their 1st Amendment rights get deleted, additions about the KKK, skinheads, and fascists beating up gays are kept. Does this sound like a double standard to you? Does this sound like censorship to you?
  • You don't seem to be in a kerfuffle about CJWithers radically altering the article and removing relevant content--without discussion beforehand. Since the pro-merge editors can't get consensus on the talk page, they're attempting to merge the article through editing. The community obviously doesn't want the merge--but they don't want to confront the pro-merge editors directly by editing the article.
  • But what I find most shocking of all is that since you reviewed the article history why didn't you block Dominus since he is at 1,000,000RR?
  • Please AGF. I have every intention of expanding and improving the article. But for the censorship going on at that article those additions would've been the seeds for expansion. Your assertion that I am only editing with the anticipation of being reverted is misplaced. – Lionel (talk) 18:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lionel, I respectfully object to your misleading sectioning of Worm's comments above.[7] Per Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, when splitting threads and adding new sections, "it is essential that splitting does not inadvertently alter the meaning of any comments." Clearly, Worm was not talking about censorship, but your new section makes it appear that he did. Viriditas (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. My point is not about censorship, but about battleground tactics. You appear to have added lightweight changes to a controversial article, not discussing any after reversion, but instead warning about people reaching "3RR". That was an underhand way of working and that is what I was warning you for. WormTT · (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was one of the tagged people and i only had 2 edits at that time, only 1 was a full revert. Thanks Jenova20 08:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 3 edits you posted on my page show 2 additions and 1 revert. If we are to count them all as reverts as you suggest then i could have had you blocked a long time ago since clearly the policy is on reverts of other peoples work other than good faith additions to the article in general.
You're interpreting it as no one can edit an article 3 times in a day and that can't be how the policy is applied. Jenova20 09:54, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Worm, with all due, your objections are subjective, even speculative. Regarding the changes, take a look at the additions. Each was a novel, unique addition to the article. The "D" part of WP:BRD does not apply because I did not readd the disputed material. The content I was adding was not in dispute.

Speaking of Dominus..., how do I go about getting a 1,000,000RR card? You never know when one of those will come in handy. – Lionel (talk) 10:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want to continue to class any edit/addition on a page as a revert Lionelt then you've breached that rule more than me any day on this article so quit being hypocritical. Jenova20 10:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you believe that Dominus has overstepped the edit warring bounds, then do feel free to take it to the right noticeboard. I would expect both you and he to be blocked if you do, but I could be wrong. WormTT · (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Straight Pride has been nominated for Speedy Deletion[edit]

Hi Lionel, I have noted your interest in the Straight Pride article. The circumstances of the article has been changing quickly. The most recent seems to be a nomination for Speedy Deletion. Thought you would appreciate knowing, if you don't already. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Massive Deletions at Straight Pride article[edit]

Hi Lionelt, another editor has made massive deletions of recent work on the Straight Pride article. We may need to seek protection of the article or use the RfC process to get beyond this edit war. Any advice you can offer as an already involved editor would be appreciated. Thanks. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 16:05, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

template: College Republicans[edit]

I added more links. Will you see if it meets the viability requirements?Theseus1776 (talk) 16:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:Well deserved[edit]

Dear User:Lionelt, thank you for the kind award. I was glad to help write the newsletter! With regards, AnupamTalk 20:47, 30 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Latin American Conservatism[edit]

Hello, I am an unregistered but frequent Wikipedia user and I noticed you have worked a lot in the Project and portal about conservatism. I found it very interesting and complete, but I think it still lacks information about latin american conservatism. There are important conservative parties in countries like Chile, Honduras, Mexico, Colombia and Brazil, where conservatism has played a large role in national politics. The Colombian Conservative Party was founded in 1849 and since that year it has been one of the most voted parties. Some important leaders of that party include Rafael Núñez, Álvaro Gómez Hurtado and Mariano Ospina Pérez. In the case of Chile, Honduras and Mexico, their current presidents are conservative. In Brazil, the conservative PSDB party is the main opposition. Latin american conservatism is influenced by the Catholic Church although ideas similar to those of the american fiscal conservatism and neoconservatism have gained supporters in the region. Adding information about latin american conservatism is important for the Project and Portal. I might consider creating an account here to work in Colombian conservatism.

April 2012[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Talk:Barack Obama. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Loonymonkey (talk) 00:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval, you may be blocked from editing. April Fools Day does not justify Vandalism. SMP0328. (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply] might not be aware, but we do everything on Wikipedia according to UTC. Viriditas (talk) 07:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


- Burpelson AFB 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! – Lionel (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More Wiki-cheer[edit]

Some tea to go with your sandwich =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! I think I'll ice it--it'll go great with the Filet-O-Fish.– Lionel (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vandalism at Portal:Barack Obama/Intro[edit]

This edit[8] is hard to view as anything other than vandalism. April 1st is not an excuse for an edit like this to someone you clearly oppose. It might be a good idea, particularly considering [9] as well, if you stay away from Obama related articles or at least make sure your edits aren't going to be considered contentious. Please note that this is just advice, but your edits this week are likely to affect how editors see any other edits you do on Obama related pages. Dougweller (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Totally disagree. And so does the editor who reverted writing "cute" in the edit sum. Please do not presume to tell me with whom I agree and disagree. Note that Obama and I are both Democrats. Also note that I added eight caricatures to the conservatism timeline. Which means I screwed over the right wingers 8 time worse than Obama. So there goes your theory about political motives. And lastly the portal is not in article space, so based on the "gentlemen's agreement" it is fair game. – Lionel (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The whole "but, but I'm a Democrat" thing is getting a bit old, Lionel. Viriditas (talk) 11:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It still has a few good miles left.– Lionel (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That dog don't hunt. Once people figure out you're referring to the Democrats in the United States prior to 1830 the joke wears a bit thin. Give it a rest, please. You're not a Democrat, as defined in the 21st century. Viriditas (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a joke? Seems more likely to confuse than amuse. And portals are reader-facing space, and I'm sure you know that that is the main area of concern. "Portals complement main topics in Wikipedia, and expound upon topics by introducing the reader to key articles, images, and categories that further describe the subject and its related topics." I doubt that you will get very far by claiming that there is some sort of basic difference, the whole point was that we want to remove these 'pranks' from pages aimed at our readers. And maybe vandalising Timeline of modern American conservatism is equal opportunity or something, but it's still vandalism. I trust you won't do anything like this again. I suspect that anyone warned this year or reverted as vandalism (as you were twice at that article, restoring it was an even worse idea than adding it) will be given short shrift if they do it again next year. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For good or bad at least people are talking about the portal. Most portals, this one included are rarely used by readers so this "joke" was largely contained within the editor community. Had it been done to the Obama article rather than portal it would have made a much bigger impression on the viewing audiance. It was a harmless prank along with the hundreds or thousands of others that both have and haven't been caught. Lets move on and let it go. (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Lionelt. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good Friday[edit]

I hope you have a wonderful Good Friday and Easter weekend. --Guerillero | My Talk 17:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa[edit]

HI L, as per you suggestion I submitted the Apostolic Faith Mission of South Africa for a GA review. Happy Easter. ShiningWolf (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your HighBeam account is ready![edit]

Good news! You now have access to 80 million articles in 6500 publications through HighBeam Research. Here's what you need to know:

  • Your account activation code has been emailed to your Wikipedia email address.
    • Only 407 of 444 codes were successfully delivered; most failed because email was simply not set up (You can set it in Special:Preferences).
    • If you did not receive a code but were on the approved list, add your name to this section and we'll try again.
  • The 1-year, free period begins when you enter the code.
  • To activate your account: 1) Go to; 2) You’ll see the first page of a two-page registration. 3) Put in an email address and set up a password. (Use a different email address if you signed up for a free trial previously); 4) Click “Continue” to reach the second page of registration; 5) Input your basic information; 6) Input the activation code; 7) Click “Finish”. Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive.
  • If you need assistance, email "help at highbeam dot com", and include "HighBeam/Wikipedia" in the subject line. Or go to WP:HighBeam/Support, or ask User:Ocaasi. Please, per HighBeam's request, do not call the toll-free number for assistance with registration.
  • A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a HighBeam article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free HighBeam pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate
  • HighBeam would love to hear feedback at WP:HighBeam/Experiences
  • Show off your HighBeam access by placing {{User:Ocaasi/highbeam_userbox}} on your userpage
  • When the 1-year period is up, check applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TFD at WQA[edit]

I believe I included one or more of The Four Deuce's attacks on you in a post at WP:WQA concerning his behaviour. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. You are co-nominator at the above FLC. It has received multiple comments but none of them have been addressed. Could you indicate to me whether you intend to fix the issues or would you prefer to withdraw the nomination? Cheers, The Rambling Man (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'll work on the first bit sometime tomorrow. Toa Nidhiki05 01:59, 20 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
nice careful detail work on the Timeline!!! Rjensen (talk) 01:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I haven't been on WP for a while. Glad to see some sensible things were happening while I was gone. Mamalujo (talk) 16:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 23[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Timeline of modern American conservatism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Law and order (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) 11:04, 23 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Self publishers[edit]

Hi, FYI, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_reliability a drive to slow down self-published book references is getting started. Would you like to join that project? Membership is free. History2007 (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at File_talk:Reagan_Address_7-27-81.ogv's talk page. 7  08:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of Nancy Heche for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nancy Heche 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/Nancy Heche 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. West Eddy (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dan Savage[edit]

Recently, you added Category:Anti-Christianity to the BLP on Dan Savage. Could you please explain why? Viriditas (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

He was in the news recently for a speech where some accused him of anti-religious speech...Not sure exactly how stuff like this works with BLP articles though. Sorry to butt in Jenova20 11:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I saw that, but I didn't see anything anti-religious, which is why I asked. Maybe I was looking at the wrong article. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's POV really. Unless there's an indepentent source to comment on it. And then in that case it will probably be a religious source commenting. By the same logic i doubt i could label The Bible as being in a "hate-speech" or "homophobia" category even with reputable sources... Jenova20 12:23, 3 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brother Lionel, you are a one-man bulwark against the rising tide of perversion. Whatever you do, don't take your finger out of the dike. --Kenatipo speak! 01:18, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Clearly, the only thing important in this entire universe is where a man puts his penis and what a woman does with her vagina. When God goes to work, these tasks are at the top of his agenda, and really, nothing else matters. The sex lives of human beings take up most of God's time. After all, who needs star systems, planets, black holes, and gamma ray bursts? God's no dummy. Sex is more interesting than a boring galaxy, spinning around like a drain in a bath tub. "Hmmm", God mutters to Himself. I wonder how many times Lionel masturbated to that photograph of Bea Arthur today?" God has priorities, after all. Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UN_FUCKING_BELIEVABLE!!!! You DO have a sense of humor, V. I just lost a $1.49 bet (the cost of a Filet-O-Fish on Fridays). I guess you aren't a hopelessly surly character afterall. Not enough to be invited to the Dept of Fun, but this vulgar and sacriligious rant is a start, as it were. – Lionel (talk) 02:00, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally, I'm disappointed in our Dan Savage article—it doesn't tell us his favorite santorum flavor. --Kenatipo speak! 02:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
S_T_O_P!!! Favorite flavor. You're killing me! That was as funny as some of the stuff you unloaded when BelloWello got indeffed---the dancing on his grave stuff. You are a CRACKUP! – Lionel (talk) 02:44, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You know, this uncharacteristic outburst of humor from V reminds me of another tightly wound editor who had a similar lapse in analness. I was haranguing Binksternet about not having a sense of humor, and boy did he unload a funny. I almost choked to death on my Filet-O-Fish. Good thing Bea was there to perform the Heimlich. It was over a year ago. Bink hasn't cracked a funny since. Too bad. He showed promise. Maybe it's a lib thing. Always trying to change the world is stressful; bad for your disposition. – Lionel (talk) 02:53, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Lionel, are you a fan of Lisa Lampanelli? Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not familiar with her. But according to her page she is an equal opportunity denigrator--something I practice myself. But as a Black person, I'm not confortable with her gratuitous usage of nigger. And btw I'm opposed to efforts by Blacks to reclaim it. – Lionel (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I watched Take It Like a Man (2005), and it was pretty raunchy, so I kind of agree with you. However, I thought her New York Friars' Club roast of Chevy Chase, was brilliant. You know, the racial content of her jokes isn't all that fresh or interesting; her "schtick" is mostly in the timing and delivery, which frankly, amazes me, as she has a real gift for that. But calling her usage "gratuitous" is being kind! Do you like Chris Rock? He does stuff with his eyes and face that just crack me up. His delivery is really wrapped up in his body and vocal inflections, which is another wonderful comedic talent. It sort of reminds me of George Carlin, so it's not at all surprising to read that Carlin was one of his biggest influences. Viriditas (talk) 08:01, 19 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -Abhishikt (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello Lionel, my name is Carol, and I also took several photos at the Washington for Jesus Rally in 1980. It's my understanding that you are the author of the photos that are posted on Wikipedia? Did you take other photos of the rally? Everyone was smiling and pleasant. I was overwhelmed as to how genuinely kind and friend Hundreds of thousands of people ended the day in prayer. We were asked to all join hands, and in small circles,in faith, unity and love,as if we were one voice we all began to pray the Our Father. It was a day like no other. A little piece of Heaven on this Earth. A glimpse into the Kingdom of God. I would love to see any other photos you might have. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carpyuno (talkcontribs) 07:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AN/I followup[edit]

Hello lionel,
Perhaps you forgot to respond over at WP:AN/I; I realise that you're quite busy writing about Ronald Reagan. It would be helpful if you could comment on some of the evidence of anupam's pov-pushing, as you promised. It must be painful to realise that one of your favourite editors is just a pov-pushing sock. Or did you know all along? bobrayner (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have been mentioned (indirectly) in an ArbCom case. You may wish to comment: [10]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


All Around Amazing Barnstar
Dear Lionelt, thank you for writing about the positive aspects of my contributions before the community; it means so much to me that words cannot describe. Throughout our interactions at Wikipedia, you have devoted so much in ensuring that the community is aware of my intention to make Wikipedia a better place. This barnstar is titled the The All-Around Amazing Barnstar and you deserve it because you are an amazing person. Your friend, AnupamTalk 16:50, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks Thanks[edit]

I just want to thank you on helping me find the right place to post stuff! I will do that from now on. Thank you,HotHat (talk) 06:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Economy[edit]

This is just an example of the mainstream media doing everything it can to avoid talking about the economy.

You're right, they should talk more about the Bush recession we're still in recovery from. Obviously, we need another Republican to get us out of the economic crisis they created. Makes perfect sense. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bush? Who's that? – Lionel (talk) 08:42, 14 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi Lionelt, I saw you are accepting users for adoption and I think it would behoove me to have someone of your expertise and track record showing me the ropes as I (tepidly) move towards more advanced editing. I'm interested in making thoughtful, neutral, and accurate contributions to Wikipedia--especially in the highly contentious areas you specialize it. I'd really appreciate the opportunity to learn from someone like you. Thanks! Joseph Steven (talk) 05:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3rr threat at AAPS[edit]

Lionelt, a little decorum goes a long way around here and leaving comments like you did are unhelpful but if it makes you feel better then go right ahead(for the record I wouldn't be at 3rr and you should know this). You clearly are conversant with Wikipedia rules and as such you must also be aware that you are conducting a slow edit war. You invoke WP:CCC yet offer no new argument that I can discern. The areas you are contesting have been discussed before and you are merely trying the same thing by rewording your argument. This is the way I read it anyway. If I am wrong about this I would appreciate it if you could expand on your comments so that I may understand how this is a different or new argument. Looking forward to your response. Happy Editing. Daffydavid (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggestion for Reagan speeches[edit]

In your Reagan speeches sandbox, you might consider adding to the table a column for speechwriter, if known. For instance, Peggy Noonan (Pont du Hoc speech), Ben Elliott, Peter Robinson ("Tear down this wall" speech), etc. [11][12]

Binksternet (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is an excellent suggestion, and I have started adding writers to the draft. On a side note, researching the writers has led me to numerous additional items to add, e.g. the "Top 100 Speeches." Adding another column might crowd the table, so for now I'm going to work the writers into the cells in the "Speech" column. Thanks, Bink. – Lionel (talk) 07:59, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

TUSC token 96f1dbbe3147560da2f623befa753f2a[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Hello, I was wondering do you think this is notable under MUSICBIO.HotHat (talk) 05:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Passes notability with flying colors. I checked it for WP:DYK--it would make a great nomination. I strongly encourage you to claim your due recognition for your hard work. – Lionel (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you think this one is notable at all?HotHat (talk) 07:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This also looks notable. But it is only 986 chars, and you need 1500 for WP:DYK. You should expand this a little and take it to WP:DYK. Note: you only have 5 days to nominate and article for DYK--so don't delay! – Lionel (talk) 08:14, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speech infobox[edit]

Thanks for that, I had always been troubled by the inadequacies of the old template. I've run with it and implemented on Cross of Gold speech as well as Checkers, and will continue to expand them. Is there any chance a "results" or "aftermath" field can be added to the template?--Wehwalt (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Wehwalt. The News_event template had "outcome", so for compatibility I added that. However, if it would be better to use "results" or "aftermath" that is easily done, too.
Seeing how the template looks at Cross of Gold, I wonder if the urls on the bottom might be overdoing it: the template allows for 4! What do you think about something more streamlined like this:
Website           Audio (later recording by Bryan), Transcript
Lionel (talk) 22:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That would work. Thanks. I am editing from my iPhone so will implement later if you don't.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Edwin Feulner[edit]

Hi Lionel, thanks for taking a look at my edit request on Edwin Feulner's article last weekend. I don't know if you've seen, but I replied to your question about the second citation: it was one that was already in the article. If you're able to, it would be great if you could add the references I supplied and maybe also fix the "Other Roles" heading added by another editor (from what I've seen here, I believe headings should be sentence case). If you're busy and there's somewhere else I could ask instead, let me know. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi again Lionel, I wanted to let you know that the editor who had made the first half of the changes has returned and added the rest of the sources, so I've marked my request as resolved. Thanks, Kalkaska sand (talk) 16:51, 21 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


You may now want to have your say here about One Sonic Society.HotHat (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Will you look here, and tell me what you think!HotHat (talk) 06:04, 25 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The top of your page lists a featured article star that is broken and has "Sabotaged" spelt wrong. Just pointing it out. Jenova20 14:35, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! Originally it was spelled correctly--but BelloWello came by and sabotaged it when I wasn't looking! lol – Lionel (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahh, no worries. Be on the lookout for saboteurs then Jenova20 08:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

resource request[edit]

Hi Lionel,

I've uploaded one of the articles that you requested at the resource exchange. You can find a link to the article at that page.

Best, GabrielF (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bravo! Thank you for the quick turnaround. I suspect that First Motion Picture Unit will become a FL thanks to the sources you found. – Lionel (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NPA & BLP[edit]

Don't re-add grossly insulting text about a living person which you did here at Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council. Thank you. Binksternet (talk) 02:08, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is your only warning; if you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page again, as you did at Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Binksternet (talk) 02:30, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What specifically is your objection? – Lionel (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nota bene* A request for clarification from Bink was placed on his talk. He ignored it. In the mean time the post in question has been restored by another editor and multiple editors have provided substantiation of the post. Thus no BLP violation exists, this warning is void and carries no force.– Lionel (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Ignored it" doesn't quite match my response. I have been away from the keyboard for most of the time since my post at 02:41 UTC May 28. I dropped into WP for a few minutes here and there during a busy load-in I'm doing for a show, but I have not been able to give the matter any worthwhile attention until now—and even now I'm stealing time away from stuff I could be doing. So, yes, I see that the most offensive bits are removed relative to IP 209's initial post. The BLP vio is gone. Binksternet (talk) 23:46, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Been away from the keyboard"? Are you serious? You have almots 100,000 edits! If you think for one minute we're gonna fall for the "I have a real life" routine you are sadly mistaken. I would really appreciate it if when I put a {{wb}} on your talkpage you respond within a reasonable amount of time. I think 5 or 10 minutes should be ample. – Lionel (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extra eyes[edit]

If you have the time, might you go over my contibutions HERE and check me for typos? Thanks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While Jenova might say that I'm the last person to do copyediting, and he'd be right, I'll take a look. Btw, fantastic job expanding that article with what little sourcing there is. And the poster is a nice touch. – Lionel (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do watch your page but only because we share a lot of the same interests, although we're on different sides of the fence (or bat for different teams as it were).
I assume you watch my page also and if not then i am hurt! Morning everyone Jenova20 08:36, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Execution of Justice[edit]

The claim of it not being notable does not seem justified. Can you please elaborate or kindly remove the PROD? Thank you. --Varnent (talk) 07:00, 30 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cheviot Hills Military Academy and the Motion Picture Unit[edit]

Hi Lionel

Pacific Military Academy was shut down during the war years and taken over by the military as a barracks. I would presume the military took over more than just PMA for the purpose of war. Please refer to the following Culver City history link: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello, Lionelt. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request#Hollywood_Quarterly_.28JSTOR.29.
Message added 13:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Shrike (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am just curious does this qualify for DYK?HotHat (talk) 05:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Solyndra controversy deletion discussion[edit]

You might want to check this out [13]William Jockusch (talk) 02:01, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I set a poll up here, please contribute. --Jeremy (blah blahI did it!) 07:24, 10 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Lionelt, there are some more comments and responses to your comments waiting for you at WP:FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:54, 19 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

DYK for Cristiada (film)[edit]

Thank you from the DYK team at Wikipedia Graeme Bartlett (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The source did not say what you did and so i have reverted your addition. Jenova20 12:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Lionelt. Jenova mentioned this to me on my talk page, and I've had a look into the matter. Please do try to be more careful when writing, as there are a number of issues with what you've written. The article discusses "sexual activity before heterosexual marriage", not "homosexual behaviour". Misrepresentation of text to that extent can lead to a block. WormTT(talk) 13:24, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Lionelt. Re "Misrepresentation of text to that extent can lead to a block", it absolutely can. One of the largest problems on wikipedia is incorrect information, and anyone introducing that persistantly will be blocked indefinitely. We also have a large problem with POV pushing, all edits must adhere to a neutral point of view. Again, persistant POV pushing will lead to an indefinite block. You are right that a single event is unlikely to be blockable, however a pattern of this sort of edit is disruptive. Please consider this a formal warning on the matter. WormTT(talk) 07:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited First Motion Picture Unit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Distinguished Flying Cross (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) 14:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could you, if you're not an admin, have an admin look into this? Thanks! Swifty*talk 23:06, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just wanted to say thanks for reverting a bunch of those controversial moves today. I was trying to revert some of the worst ones, but it looks like you got to a bunch of them before I did. Also, it looks like there's a discussion here that you might be interested in participating in. ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Adjwilley's talk page.