Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:43, 7 January 2012

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

RFC

Hi, thanks for your participation at the abortion article. Regarding the RFC you started, it looks like it may get archived soon unless someone edits that section. You might want to consider going to a venue like WP:AN to ask for a neutral uninvolved admin to review and close the RFC, while assessing whether there is strong consensus --- as there should be to change key parts of the article --- to insert "viable" into the lead (where that word has not been located for years), by either inserting that word as a general definitional limitation or inserting it in some other way (e.g. as an aside about technical medical terminology). Or we can just let the RFC get archived.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage

I see that you're against marriage equality. Do not vandalize article pertaining to marriage equality, regardless of your beliefs. Next vandalism attempt will be reported. You provided no reason to delete my contributions.--XLR8TION (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What does my opinion have to do with anything? How was it "vandalism"? Please refer to WP:BATTLEGROUND before making any more combative posts on my page. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC) NYyankees51 (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

1RR violation at Catholics for Choice

This edit was over the line of 1RR. You were reverted twice, so I can't ask you to revert yourself to protect you from the consequences. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry about that. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"even without, criticism is notable"...well, the measure of notability kind of happens to be mention or discussion in reliable secondary sources. Just saying "It's notable" isn't quite enough. Do you have any mainstream newspapers that report this? (I say "mainstream" because, for example, CNA's reporting that the Catholic League called CFC anti-Catholic is a poor source given that CNA calls CFC anti-Catholic themselves.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, SPLC criticisms are considered notable even without secondary sources, so I am using that criterion for the Catholic League. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is always a cop-out. If you have an issue with SPLC criticism being included in an article, there are ways to deal with that, but adding poorly sourced material to unrelated articles is not one of those ways. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, RSN or possibly NPOVN would probably be the place to start if you want to talk about Wiki-wide SPLC stuff. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your presence requested

Regarding your recent revert at Planned Parenthood, there is an active talkpage discussion at which at least 4 editors have argued that the "see also" link is inappropriate (vs. 1 in favor). If you're going to restore it over what appears to be substantial opposition, could you stop by Talk:Planned Parenthood and offer something more than "it's relevant to the article"? MastCell  21:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: the I-ban

FYI, it takes two to tango. Ros and I are two different heads, but at the end of the day, we're on the same coin. Hopefully we're headed toward an agreement that will have us contributing productively to our areas of expertise. - Haymaker (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"2 to tango?" That is a metaphor right? You've not taking off-wiki dance lessons with Ros, are you?– Lionel 03:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Pfft, I do contra dance. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by January 2, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Burkie Barnstar
		Your consistent high quality contributions to conservatism articles have not gone unnoticed. Keep up the great work! – Lionel 02:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Misuse of mediation?. Thank you.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion RFAR

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Steven Zhang 03:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Tired

To tell you the truth, NYyankees51, I'm getting kind of tired of all the drama and trying to shovel sh*t against the liberal tide. Sisyphus (with a shovel) I ain't! --Kenatipo 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you think they feel K? Methinks you have them exactly where you want them. – Lionel 04:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the encouraging words, Lionel, but it would be a mistake to take Misplaced Pages seriously (or do I mean "too seriously"?). --Kenatipo 04:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Gotta keep fighting! NYyankees51 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please no battleground. It would be infinitely more collegial to say: gotta keep beating the living sh*t out of them.– Lionel 02:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at SBA List

You have crossed the line again with 1RR at Susan B. Anthony List. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

How? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51, why did you remove the ref to the SBA List endorsement criteria? --Kenatipo 18:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, it was an edit conflict and I thought I merged my additions in properly but I guess I didn't. Sorry about that, I restored it. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No problemo! --Kenatipo 19:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

PP

Yes this is the point and this is being now discussed as someone requested for comment (RfC) here -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi ClaudioSantos, see this clarifying edit. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I already read it, I agree. While now the users are "voting" here about the link inclution/exclution, I was working and I have added some paragraphs to the history section here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Now it is being commented the weigth of the recently added paragraphs. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Schiavo pronunciation

I not sure why this user:hindsighter is so insistant that the Schiavos are saying their own name wrong. Most if not all of his edits on Misplaced Pages have been grammer or spelling related, but they overall seem reasonable. Hopefully he'll let it go now. Ace-o-aces (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I had to revert him again and I warned him about edit warring on his talk page. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I remember doing an essay on Terri Schiavo as a kid in high school, was before she died. I failed the essay though, apparently I didn't address the main question of the essay. Anyways, </unrelated random comment>. Steven Zhang 04:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So the Edit Warring warning is for me and not for Ace-o-aces. He/She started the war, not me. Ace-o-aces deleted my contribution, not the other way round. I didn’t delete anything. I’ve never come across anybody as stubborn as him/her on Misplaced Pages. Besides, have you just read what he/she said in his/her complaint? "I not (sic) sure why this user:hindsighter is so insistant (sic) that the Schiavos are saying their own name wrong." I can’t believe he/she still hasn’t got it into his/her head that that’s not the right pronunciation of the surname, plus he/she can’t even spell! Why am I stooping so low to have an argument with someone like that? Please read my messages on Ace-o-aces’s talk page, if you still haven’t bothered to do it, that is. If you let him/her get on with it, something’s really wrong with Misplaced Pages. I know I must be breaking a thousand Misplaced Pages rules with this message and I’ll be blocked or even expelled from the website that I use absolutely every day of my life, but you can’t imagine how pissed off I am. By the way, I’ve made more contributions than just ‘grammer’ (sic) and spelling.Hindsighter (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, considering how contentious the Terri Schiavo case was and is, I figured THIS was something we could all agree on. Do we need to put this up for a vote? Ace-o-aces (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

^I agree completely. Hindsighter, it doesn't matter how you think it's supposed to be pronounced, we go with how the person says it. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As a third-party observer, I agree. People pronounce names differently with many regional variations in pronounciation, but it is their name so their choice. CanadianEditor (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Marriage laws overhaul

Was there anything else you wanted to do with that? I think it could be ready to move into mainspace; we'd just need to make sure that all the relevant content from the current version of Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state appeared in the appropriate sub-articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I put that on the back burner. I still think it would be a good idea to add a column showing the margins by which the referenda passed. I find it very helpful/interesting to look at a glance and see the regional ideological differences, i.e. some northern states barely passing it and southern states passing it by a landslide. Other than that, we can definitely move it into mainspace, we just need to figure out what of Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state we're going to salvage. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, so did I. As I said, I don't think the margins are necessary in the main article, since there already exists a sub-article on these constitutional referenda which includes the margins. Maybe one of us should post at the talkpage for the SSM in the US by state article so that people there who haven't seen the draft can check it out and recommend improvements, and so we can get more people on the task of making sure that all the relevant content currently there gets put into the right sub-articles on individual referenda, etc. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:YouAreMore.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:YouAreMore.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Misplaced Pages takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Misplaced Pages. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

RFAR on Abortion

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion Motion

I made a motion here. 71.3.234.41 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, NYyankees51. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Abortion Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 594 words and 18 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to VsevolodKrolikov

In response to "At least some editing in support of "pro-life" is openly politically motivated", there is no conspiracy. Yes, I am pro-life and I say that on my userpage, but that does not take away from the substance of my arguments. I believe Misplaced Pages policy requires that pro-life and pro-choice be the titles; the fact that I personally agree with the title pro-life has no effect on whether policy supports it as well. And if I was politically motivated in this whole process, I would be fighting to make the pro-choice article title something that reflects bad on the movement. But I think Misplaced Pages policy calls for it to be pro-choice, so that's what I'm advocating - I'm not advocating my preferences.

In response to "Refusal to accept mediation outcome is disruptive", the diffs I cited do not show growing support for a move. They show that the second, third, and fourth proposals had fewer participants. It seems to me that the consensus established by the widest number of users should be the one we go with. VsevolodKrolikov's argument only proves that changing the title of pro-life was the politically motivated move because POV warriors persisted. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to MastCell

• Yes, I am a reformed sockpuppet. But I don't see how that has anything to do with the arbitration case. I was sockpuppeteering to vandalize a baseball article, and I didn't understand the rules on block evasion for my legitimate account created after this one was blocked. That is all behind me now. I edited legitimately for three years before the sockpuppeting and now for almost two years after it.
• All of my 1RR blocks were a technical misunderstanding of the rules of what constitutes a revert. After I finally figured out the technicalities, I have not violated 1RR since May 31st.
• My COI with the SBA List ended in 2009, and I wasn't much of a regular editor then. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

As stated above, my COI ended in 2009, and I wasn't much of a regular editor then. If someone wants to pursue that they can, but this ArbCom case is not the forum for it. The user says I have an "obvious" bias but provides no evidence of that, and singles out my editing to Bobby Schilling with no apparent purpose. The case is about the pro-life, pro-choice, and abortion articles, not SBA List or Schilling. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Editing priviliege

No, I see that now. It's an unusual circumstance though, and I'd seriously suggest staying away from anything very contentious (for the exact reason we see here). Having said that, it looks like editors from both sides are trying to get each other blocked now. Hmm - not happening. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My intentions weren't to get anyone blocked but I see now that the wikiquette thread was a bad idea, I didn't realize how it would devolve. I would like to see a resolution to the ANI thread; I don't want her blocked just because she has opinions I disagree with but I do take exception to what she said. If there's some way to resolve it without blocking her that would be ideal. But if pursuing it will just make things worse for everybody I'll drop it, and if you think that's the best idea I will. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that would probably be best - in fact, I'll close the ANI thread before anyone says something they later regret. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. The Wikiquette thread should probably be closed too. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I reply to this publicly...

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Re: "User:Roscelese uses straw man to accuse me of anti-Semitism" above (closed). Thank you.ROBERTMFROMLI | /_CN 20:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Matthew 5:41

You know what would be a really great Christian witness? Spending time fixing the Equality Ride page you largely deleted! I mean, wouldn't it just show you to be a truly loving believer if you-- instead of leaving the page sort of empty-- you really dug in, did some research, and worked on the content to make it better in the process? (Actually, I'd probably be pretty impressed.)

You could even start by creating content with relevant citations and references, since that's the reason you thought to delete a lot of it..-- You know, adding content based on verifiable information. (That way NPOV won't be such a problem either! You know a lot about writing from that standpoint.)

Most of it was primary-sourced I think. It might be a hard job, but the information is out there. Oh yeah, and don't forget Matthew 5:41. Thanks for checking that out... (I think the Soulforce article is a bit under-referenced too...) Flowingfire (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with Flowing on this one. We should consider the impact of deleting stuff. Otherwise all we'll have are stubs. – Lionel 20:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Conservative_Targeting_against_Progressive_Topics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Misplaced Pages:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowingfire (talk • contribs) 08:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit question

NYY, I'm puzzled by this edit. Would you mind sharing your thinking? Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life is the term used throughout the article. I suppose we could keep it if "anti-abortion" goes after "pro-life". I just didn't think it should go before the term used in the article. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, now I understand. My own thinking is that perhaps, regardless of how the title of the article ends up, the two terms should be used--possibly in a haphazardly alternating fashion--throughout the article. HuskyHuskie (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject United States presidential elections!

Thanks for joining WikiProject United States presidential elections. Welcome aboard!--JayJasper (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please help!

Hi I want to know whether to continue building this article List of Muslim converts involved in terrorism or it will be deleted eventually? thanks --Fadywalker (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're asking the question, you know the answer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#New_categories_for_organizations_of_Catholics._PLEASE_comment!

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#New_categories_for_organizations_of_Catholics._PLEASE_comment! -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop reverting my reverts of clear POV attacks on the David Barton page...

Welcome to Misplaced Pages. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to David Barton (author), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Misplaced Pages, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The edits made by "MickeyDonald" are most certainly NOT acceptable, and you know it. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Don't template the regulars NYyankees51 (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Then don't do something so blatantly unacceptable that it requires a template. You really should know better. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And you should know better than to make false accusations of vandalism. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan has been reverted twice but persists in edit warring to push POV. He should immediately cease the disruption. Thanks.MickeyDonald (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Barton (author). 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.

In particular, Misplaced Pages'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 continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Kudu  22:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi KuduIO, I don't think I'm really edit warring, I just made one revert. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi NY, I don't think you are edit warring, you were just part of an edit war, which is why I left this notice. If you don't think it's pertinent, feel free to ignore it and move along. — Kudu  20:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Workshop proposal notification

By way of notification, I have made proposals at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop involving your account. MastCell  21:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

More on 911

Saw you comment over at the 911 page - like that your neutral on the matter at this point. Would love to hear what you have to say over at Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2.Moxy (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I have no experience with GA assessments/reassessments, but I'll see if I can contribute to the discussion. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Anita Bryant

Your recent edit on the Anita Bryant article has been reverted as it was not justified. In future, do not remove sourced information from any article without sufficient reason as this constitutes vandalism. If you disagree with any of the details in an article, raise the issue on the article's discussion page. And so that you are clear, User:Qwyrxian (who is a Misplaced Pages administrator) does not believe there is a BLP issue with the article now that correct sources have been added (as per his comments here). Thank you. 88.104.21.7 (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

88... did bring this up on my talk page, and I think the problems that I had before have been fixed. I don't see anything specific that needs to be removed, though you're welcome to discuss it on the article's talk page if there are specific concerns. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just suspicious because it was a major edit by an unregistered user with no talk page and I saw that it had been reverted once. I'll look more closely in the future before reverting. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:03, 18 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 Misplaced Pages!" 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.

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination)

Hi NYyankees51. Because you participated in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson, you may be interested in Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. this edit is not helpful. KillerChihuahuaAdvice 20:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Details

When I added the $9.0 million to the Courageous article, I figured we were using the one-tenth norm. 9.0,9.1,9.2 etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh okay. It doesn't make a big difference to me. I just think we should keep the exact number in the infobox and in the first use in the release section. Other than that we can estimate. What do you think? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I really added it because the actual was higher than the estimate that most of the articles were using and changed the ranking, which I thought was pretty relevant. To me, when in the text/body, the exact dollar amount isn't critical. Most sources, when discussing it, use the one-tenth. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. I think the exact should go in the infobox, but tenths is fine for the body. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added some pertinent information to the Courageous Film Talk Page regarding Reception and Reference information. I hope this will help you produce a more accurate Article page! These are necessary changes you need to make to this Film Article. The reviews and references should be added for balance and appearance. Please read the Courageous Film Talk page for details. I have provided the source of the reviews in each case. These critics are major players in the industry. Roger Ebert even tweeted about Plugged In Onlines review on Sept. 30th opening day of Courageous. I hope this makes this process easy for you to add some of the pertinent information to the Article page. --Lampstand49 (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I just added the Adam R. Holz Movie Review from Focus on the Family to the Courageous Film Article page. I have properly sourced the review. I hope this helps the WikiFilm Project! If you want to add any of the other reviews that I put on the Talk page feel free to do so! It feels more balanced after the lukewarm Orlando Sentinel and poor Christian Broadcasting Network reviews. Let me know if you need my help. --Lampstand49 (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

please take a look at this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#ClaudioSantos_violates_topic_ban.3F.3F

Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Objectivist

Thanks for your note. I think there are some bureaucratic steps which you still need to take. You need you add yourself as a certifier of the RFCU. Since you wrote it, it's pretty obvious that you endorse it, but there should still be two entries at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Objectivist#Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Second, it needs to be listed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList.   Will Beback  talk  19:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for letting me know. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have cited you

An editor recently commented that this was the most lengthy move discussion he'd ever seen on Misplaced Pages, and I pointed him to your evidence as an example of what a really extended and contentious move/rename debate could look like. Thought you might be amused (as I was) at what the "other folk" who haven't been involved with Abortion articles think is a serious argument about article naming. KillerChihuahua 07:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes. Can't cry about the abortion articles debacle, so the only thing to do is to laugh about it. That other article is quite simply nothing compared to abortion. That is amusing, thanks for sharing. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad you saw it as I did, and found it humorous. At least those involved in the Abortion mess can comfort themselves with the knowledge that they will provide dutch comfort for others. :-/ KillerChihuahua 14:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

GOP Debate

The criteria for inclusion has never been a direct link to the television-provider's website. Compare the Telemundo and FOX News debates in December/January.

Multi-source attestation that are not influenced by one another: The State and Goupstate --Smart (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Those two are reputable news sources. Caffeinated Thoughts is a blog, and the article cites unnamed "very reliable sources". NYyankees51 (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I just assumed if anyone had doubts they'd google for more proper sources. I believe I am still the lead editor of the page, I did afterall start all of the descriptions for the debates that have taken place (except the May one). --Smart (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain

How dare you delete my changes to the Herman Cain article! You obviously only did it because you don't like Herman Cain. What's wrong? Scared of a black Conservative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.193.107 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but I'm actually a big fan of Mr. Cain. Your edits are vandalism. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

hm...

... ... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Murray

No problem, cheers! ~BLM (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | 04:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

you forgot to sign

on jclemens talk page. --Kenatipo 18:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ooops thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! and thank you for maintaining tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area! --Kenatipo 02:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

(That has a real ring to it! Can we make a template out of it?) --Kenatipo 02:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been noticed.

Why Left and Right?

Why does it have to be a fight at all.

Do you not understand the criminals are on both sides. The system is criminal, in that its sole purpose is to highlight supposed 'differences' in opinion. However it's fair to say 100% of human beings just want to be secure, happy, and occupied. They want the ability to raise children and be married and so forth.

If you can't understand the complex simplicity of this argument, by all means continue to (and i quote) " keep beating the living sh*t out of them" and perpetuating this ridiculous cycle of intolerance.

You make me sick, but all sickness can be healed with love. Remember that | 118.92.49.218 (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

10-1 it was objectivist.– Lionel 07:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

What you are referring to is a whore for the same system you promote, and I represent none of that nonsense. I should have known it'd be pointless to attempt enlightening someone who can believe in such fiction. 118.92.49.218 (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Still have no idea what you're talking about, and I'd suggest you stop socking. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Jclemens on the ArbCom abortion decision

I also think Jclemens did a good job, considering what he had to work with. The self-appointed prosecutor (not Jclemens), an admin, only presented evidence against one side in the debate and the pro-life side did not present evidence defending itself or present evidence of misconduct by the pro-choice partisans. The result is that 6 out of 8 editors singled out for ArbCom's kind ministrations are on one side of the debate. But, what is an Arb to do? Jclemens fairly begged people to present evidence in the form of diffs, and even asked for uninvolved volunteers to gather evidence (which got him criticized). Which brings up a question or two: does ArbCom decide the matter based mainly on the evidence provided by the involved parties? how much of its own research does it do? what are ArbCom's responsibilities when the evidence presented is one-sided and the side being accused doesn't defend itself or bring counter-charges? The pro-life editors did not have an articulate and organized champion like the pro-choice side did, and that resulted in a lopsided outcome, in my opinion. But, it's a difficult and time-consuming case, and Jclemens deserves thanks. --Kenatipo 17:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Resolved by motion at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

• Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio 12:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

In use template

Thanks for the appropriate use -- tagged, edited, and removed in a reasonable period of time. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - they are very useful! NYyankees51 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

SBA dispute

You've gone over 1RR by reverting twice in the past three hours; please self-revert to avoid being reported. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see that the first was a revert. By the way, does 1RR still apply after ArbCom? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I see zero reason why not, but if you're really unsure, you could ask. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You are also over 1RR at Susan B. Anthony List. Please revert yourself. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51 (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I filed a report about your edits at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may wish to explain your viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Per the request above, please self-revert that second revert of the contested material quickly. Kuru (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Abortion amendment request

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang 04:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

At Slakr's direction, I've brought the report to WP:AE instead. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)