User talk:Jprw/Archive 3
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hari/Benn interview
I couldn't help but giggle and recall a creative writing assignment from O level EngLang class, where we invented an interview with a personality whom we admired... Hehe. JenniferGovernment 11:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted article
I was rather surprised, and very disappointed, to see Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest, European Cup Semi Final 1984 was deleted (and I have really no interest in football at all). I thought it was a well written and worthwhile article. I see you have asked for a userfied copy so I hope you are going to be able to revive it. I'd be happy to suppport it at AFD, DRV or whatever. I can see the argument that autobiographies do not support notability. However they are still OK for verification. And the argument that references contemporary with the event are required is wrong (though they would be nice to have). The complaint that it was only a semifinal was ridiculous. Here is a quick chat I had with Suriel. I have tried to watchlist things retrospectively but give me a ping if I can help. Thincat (talk) 05:41, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: September 2011
By Lionelt
Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.
The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."
WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"
By Lionelt
A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.
I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.
By Lionelt
On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.
I notice you're deleting material sourced to Johann Hari. While I know that some of his reporting has been questioned, I'm not aware that all of it has been deemed unreliable. Are you deleting only certain items, or everything? Will Beback talk 10:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Overtly dodgy looking stuff, though a case could be made for all material sourced to him to be non-RS. Jprw (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Are you making that case? Are you deleting material you know to be wrong? Let's not 'jump the gun'. Will Beback talk 12:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I've only removed stuff that is clearly contentious. And I would suggest that this has been long overdue. Jprw (talk) 13:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- It seems to me in cases such as this, where Hari's opinion is being explicitly cited, "removing non-RS" is not an appropriate edit summary. The opinion is indeed being sourced reliably. What is legitimately in doubt is whether Hari's literary opinion is one worth including. However, not all these "non-RS" removals are of this type. Thincat (talk) 14:01, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- PS I have just thought to check whether the very extensive quote and reference was originally added by User:David r from meth productions or friends but, perhaps disappointingly, it was not. Thincat (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, yes, in hindsight I agree that it might not be an accurate edit summary in this context, but it does sound as though it is written by a Hari sock – overlong, written in a tone that presents Hari as an authoritative critic, OTT about anti-semitism, etc., hence highly suspicious and worthy of removal. Jprw (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- "Dodgy looking stuff"? So far as I know, the journalist has only admitted to plagiarising some quotations, not to inventing entire stories out of whole cloth. Even aside from the one which was withdrawn, he has received a number of journalism awards. I don't think we can just go through Wikipedia erasing content because we think it looks a little "dodgy". Will Beback talk 00:58, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- the journalist has only admitted to plagiarising some quotations, not to inventing entire stories out of whole cloth
I'm afraid that things are more serious than that. It has transpired over the past few weeks/months that during his career, in addition to plagiarizing, he has fabricated, exaggerated, distorted, and appropriated on what would appear to be a considerable scale. Hence many of the awards you refer to may now be withdrawn. Jprw (talk) 05:31, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
- I've started a thread at Talk:Johann Hari#Overall credibility to discuss it. Will Beback talk 01:20, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
Re: Deleted article: Liverpool vs. Dinamo Bucharest, European Cup Semi Final 1984
Message added 10:36, 8 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I have updated the draft in your userspace (as you said would be OK), adding the references used. The "Heros" book has a bit of detail about the two legs, more on the actual play than the "incidents". I have photocopied the relevant part and am returning the book to the library. You may want to deal with the Dalglish stuff more thoroughly: it is all on-line. If it gets deleted again it would be a good case for WP:DRV. Thincat (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: October 2011
By Lionelt
The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.
Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.
Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.
Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.
Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.
If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.
By Lionelt
The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page.
Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.
By Lionelt
Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.
WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.
We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.
discussion
Hi there is a talkpage discussion about content that you have previously removed - see here -
Puzzled
Hello. I didn't understand this edit summary --Dweller (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- I felt that some of your changes were good and some were not so good, so tweaked accordingly. Regards, Jprw (talk) 12:23, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
- Ah. The "undo" edit summary is misleading - it makes it look like you've undone the whole of the edit because I've been "tweaking the wording again", when what you've done is revert some parts of it because you're tweaking the wording [again?]. Anyway, glad that's clear now! --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
On the detail, I'm not sure the first two sentences are now FA standard prose, as the first is very abrupt and the second isn't really a sentence, with the subject undefined. Also not sure about repetition of "European" in the last sentence. (PS can't believe I introduced a typo - thanks for fixing it) --Dweller (talk) 12:59, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that the first sentence may be a bit abrupt, I'm sure it can be juggled with some more -- perhaps the semi-colon is indeed the way forward. Jprw (talk) 13:08, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Your article has been moved to AfC space
Hi! I would like to inform you that the Articles for Creation submission which was previously located here: User:Jprw/Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final has been moved to Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final, this move was made automatically and doesn't affect your article, if you have any questions please ask on my talk page! Have a nice day. ArticlesForCreationBot (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Your submission at Articles for creation
- Please continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider
Thank you for helping Wikipedia!
Chzz ► 07:52, 25 November 2011 (UTC)Nomination of Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final 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/Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Adam4267 (talk) 23:06, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Liverpool vs Dinamo Bucharest, 1984 European Cup Semi-Final, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Kosm1fent Won't you talk to me? 09:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
A memorably unnotable match!
I looked with interest at Naphit's detailed critique of the references. It has serious errors in it and I shall be pointing this out and !voting keep in due course. I want to give myself time to consider the arguments but not leave things so late that I seem to be gaming the system by giving others no time to rebut me. I shall also deal with the arguments that the tie is not inherently notable under WP:SPORTSEVENT (which is, I think, true) but which only means we have to establish notability and we cannot assume it. The speedy tags were irritating.
I see you haven't !voted yet although you are rebutting arguments. I think you should vote formally but perhaps, like me, you are intending to wait. Frankly, I am rather wishing I had never seen the original AFD! I don't even enjoy football and that one book I got from the library is maybe the first football book I have read in my life. My boys laughed at the thought of me reading it. They would have wanted it to be about Man U or Chelsea! Now I think about it I got embroiled in AFDs and a DRV about an architects' organisation in Ireland which I had never heard of or had the slightest interest in. I didn't even agree with their agenda. What was I thinking of? I remember DGG saying delete and me saying keep. It was kept! Thincat (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: November 2011
By Lionelt
On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.
Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.
In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.
October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.
Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
By Lionelt
Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.
Your GA nomination of Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality
The article Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Spoilt Rotten: The Toxic Cult of Sentimentality for things which need to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:29, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Luis Suárez (Uruguayan footballer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Barnes (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) 10:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited The Broken Compass: How British Politics Lost its Way, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Beatrice and Maurice Webb (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) 10:40, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
January 2012
Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee."
To be played at maximum volume Jprw (talk) 13:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
The Right Stuff: January 2012
By Lionelt
On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.
Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline.
By Lionelt
Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.
Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.
Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.
Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.
By Lionelt
Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.
The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.
| | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |