This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SineBot (talk | contribs) at 05:22, 30 March 2015 (Signing comment by 108.205.228.188 - "→Southern Strategy neutrality dispute.: "). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 05:22, 30 March 2015 by SineBot (talk | contribs) (Signing comment by 108.205.228.188 - "→Southern Strategy neutrality dispute.: ")(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) | This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. |
| This is RightCowLeftCoast's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16Auto-archiving period: 31 days  |
 | This user is fallible, and is only human. If this user has made a mistake, please be civil and kind when explaining what the user has done wrong. The user has flaws, include at times pride, so please accept the user's apology in advance. This user request that political based criticism and personal attacks not be posted to his talk page; appropriate responses to relevant noticeboards will occur if this request is not followed. This user reserves the right to remove comments from his own talk page per WP:UP#CMT Before placing a template please see WP:DTTR |
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Your GA nomination of Peter Aduja
The article Peter Aduja you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Peter Aduja for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rationalobserver -- Rationalobserver (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Afghan war 1978-present
Just wanted to say something. I only just now noticed the merge/rename discussion you started two weeks ago on the talk page of that article because it wasn't tagged. I will of course oppose. No need to reply to my comment there since we rehashed the issue hundreds of times and frankly I'm worn out already. However, this is what I wanted to say, if you do somehow manage to reach a consensus to merge/rename I will not insist anymore that they are all to be considered part of the same war on Misplaced Pages. Because, contrary to what you have said, I do abide by consensus. EkoGraf (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- As stated there, I had appropriately canvassed and informed wikiprojects of the discussion. Any editor is free to add their opinion, even those that may oppose my own.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Ok. In any case, even if you do decide to reply at my comment there, again, I won't, because like I said, I'm done with this issue. No more strength to fight over such a trivial thing. EkoGraf (talk) 02:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
Conspiracies
While I think it's a deeply flawed SPI (and that as someone who very rarely agrees with Collect on content) I don't think conspiracy allegations are either helpful or appropriate on the SPI page. Guettarda (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Since being on Misplaced Pages I have seen non-liberal editors prosecuted, and harassed until they have lost interest in the project. While I have not saved each diff to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, I have seen it enough times to believe it is a possibility, even if those prosecuting believe it is in the best interest of Misplaced Pages to have non-liberal editors become inactive or outright banned. So while others might see the comment, or even this comment, as inappropriate, there it is.
- Collect has been banned, and now to see what sticks, his opponents are beginning a sockpuppet investigation. Who knows what is next.
- Hopefully the ban will serve as a cooling down period between the two editors, hopefully they will both learn from the experience. However, while Collect is away, as pointed out on his talk page, a great amount of effort has been made to make edits to the article which he views as making the article non-neutral. If this is the case, as I have not looked at the article which caused the situation that led to the ban, or the SPI, but I have known Collect long enough through their edits on Misplaced Pages to given his statements a benefit of a doubt if not believe them at face value.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 01:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Collect was blocked for a week (rather than "banned").
- Thank your for your thoughts at the SPI. I agree that, through his many years of service, Collect's concerns about WP:NPOV and WP:BLP have earned the respect of editors. I don't necessarily think that those opposing him are motivated by liberal politics (or left politics).
- The question is: Are editors finding the best reliable-sources and trying to write a NPOV article, or are editors starting with a POV (perhaps based on weak sources, like blogs) and then using Google to find only the sources agreeing with their original POV? The latter sounds like a strategy that can lead to trouble.
- Dear ODear ODear (talk) 15:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
On the reversion of edits to the Transhumanist Party main article
Hi RightCowLeftCoast,
I would like to inform you of an issue that is ensuing with a page in the main article namespace. As it becomes more controversial and triggers larger discussion, it should be brought to the attention of administrators and higher-ranked individuals on Misplaced Pages.
In November 2014, the article "Transhumanist Party" was nominated for deletion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Transhumanist Party. A long discussion about its notability can be viewed at that page, resulting in the decision to replace the page with a redirect to a section of Zoltan Istvan's page, the founder and chairman of the party. The stated reason was that the article was too dependent on primary sources, and they couldn't confirm that it was "real".
After over 3 months of the party's publicity and media coverage, as well as work being done to Draft:Transhumanist Party to add those references and new information being made publicly available, the page was restored. Within hours, the user Dsprc, who was in favor of removing the page the first time, came and removed it again, even though the reference situation had been ameliorated and the party's website was also functional and provided more information and news stories.
Zoltan Istvan is now planning on writing a series of articles that will be published on national news media challenging Misplaced Pages and the users involved in keeping down the Transhumanist Party article. Among the subjects of these articles are users Dsprc, Stalwart111, Philosopher, their actions, and Misplaced Pages executive staff. Misplaced Pages's failure to support an article on this notable political party will not go unnoticed. In the meantime, the page will be properly restored so it can be seen by and improved by users and the public, as there is no doubt that it deserves its page on The 💕 for people to see. Nobody is against making the page better, and there will be new additions and references all the time; the party's news coverage is consistently growing, and maybe its Misplaced Pages page's will soon too.
I hope you can be of help to Misplaced Pages and the Transhumanist Party by appropriately keeping up this article for the public so conflict does not become more severe.
Thanks, Mechanic1c — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mechanic1c (talk • contribs) 18:50, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Oversight at RfM unintentional
My alternatives summary leaving out one of your proposed drafts was unintentional. I mean for all the language proposals to be on the table. I attempted the summary only because Sunray suggested that it would be easy for one of us to write it, but it turns out it is not easy. Sorry. What language would you like to run up the flag pole? We have been agreed before, I see no good reason why I missed it. What would you like to try out in the group of alternatives for consideration? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 17:49, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- @TheVirginiaHistorian: No worries, I have made my opinion known, and we're slowly working out our issues as a group.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Diplomats
Your essay looks pretty good as a starting place. Should it be promoted to get a few more eyes on the essay? --Enos733 (talk) 17:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
A pie for you!
|
Thanks! alex_cold_flame 19:42, 14 March 2015 (UTC) |
Reason for Benghazi 2012 deletion
I was not contesting the validity of the info in the footnote--it is just more detail than we need in an article which is already overly long. There are about 5 pages, including footnotes, devoted to the two security guys killed--far more than for the ambassador. I would shorten it substantially. In any event, getting to the level of discussing the cul de sac strikes me as getting to the point of parody. Tedperl (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
War in Afghanistan 2015-
Would appreciate your thoughts at this talkpage on the vexed question of NATO leading the war in Afghanistan. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:16, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
LA edit-a-thons on March 18 (tomorrow!) and 28
| Wadewitz memorial edit-a-thon (3/18), Redondo Loves Misplaced Pages (3/28) | |
|---|---|
 Dear fellow Wikipedian, The LA Misplaced Pages community has two events in this second half of March -- please consider attending! First, there is a memorial edit-a-thon in honor of the prolific LA Wikipedian Adrianne Wadewitz, which is being held downtown on March 18 (tomorrow!) from noon to 8pm as a part of the American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies' annual conference. Please drop by to contribute your own work or teach other users how to write for Misplaced Pages. Second, there will be an event at the Redondo Beach Public Library (following up on last month's session), in collaboration with the Redondo Beach Historical Society. Please join us from 10am to noon on Saturday, March 28 at the main branch of the Redondo Beach Public Library! I hope to see you there! Calliopejen1 (talk) - via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC) Join our Facebook group here! To opt out of future mailings about LA meetups, please remove your name from this list. | |
Disambiguation link notification for March 20
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited San Diego Police Department, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hispanic American (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) 08:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
DYK for Peter Aduja
 | On 21 March 2015, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Peter Aduja, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Peter Aduja was the first-ever Filipino American to hold major elected office in the United States? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Aduja. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Trying to thread the needle
At U.S. request for mediation, trying to thread the needle in the poll returns between B1-2 “national jurisdiction", and C1-2 “federal republic consisting of”, —
- D.2. The United States is a federal republic consisting of 50 states, as well as a federal district and other territories in its national jurisdiction.
This can be parsed in various ways which accommodates the major divisions among editors as I see them, with an eye to include ALL initial participants.
- a) The federal republic consists of 50 states, as well as a federal district and other territories. or,
- b) 50 states, a federal district and other territories are in its national jurisdiction. -- or —
- c) a federal district and other territories are in a non-state status. — or —
- d) a federal district and other territories in its national jurisdiction but outside the federal republic.
I do not believe d) is a correct inference from the ambiguous statement, so I would like a clarifying footnote citation from the State Department “Common Core Document” to the U.N. Committee on Human Rights, noting Item 22: "The United States of America is a federal republic of 50 states, together with a number of commonwealths, territories and possessions." and, item 27: “...outside the 50 states and yet within the political framework of the United States. These include persons living in the District of Columbia, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands." .
Any thoughts in response to this redraft, --- or any main principles up front, in response to Sunray's invitation below for a priori Principles-for-objection before trying to reach an accommodation or redraft among the poll responses? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Arbitration Case Opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
American politics 2 arbitration case opened
Pursuant to section 3a of an arbitration motion, you were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. Please note: being listed as a party does not imply any wrongdoing nor mean that there will necessarily be findings of fact or remedies regarding that party. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 14, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Bahamut0013
Hello RightCowLeftCoast, we both participated in a conversation on the USA article (about whether the American Revolution was the only war of independence against Britain) which led me to your profile. Totally unrelated to that conversation, I saw a memorial banner on your page to Bahamut0013. The name sounded familiar, and when I visited his user page I saw that he was a Final Fantasy fan. Now I remember that we were actually members of the same Final Fantasy group about ten years ago. We spoke a few times via message board and PM about his love of Final Fantasy and the Marines. Only knew him online for a couple months, but I remember him being a really genuine guy. We hadn't spoken since and I had no idea he was an admin on Misplaced Pages. I'm shocked and incredibly sad to learn about his passing. I wanted to give my condolences and wasn't really sure how to do that other than on your talk page. TempDog123 (talk) 08:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited William D. Swenson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Amazon (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) 09:00, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015
|
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Southern Strategy neutrality dispute.
@RightCowLeftCoast:I wanted to let you know I have added additional references to the neutrality dispute. ] Thanks! Sorry, it appears, perhaps by design this neutrality case is going no where. I do not know who Scoobydunk is but base on a long history of warnings and his/her behavior in the discussion it appears the intent is simply to cause things to crash. I prose that we leave the dispute open for the time until I get a chance to make a few edits. Thanks. - Getoverpops (sorry, I misplaced my log in) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.205.228.188 (talk) 05:21, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
California
Hi, could you please explain your recent revert of my edit to California. Manhatten is clearly a spelling error as you may easily confirm by looking at the relevant web link given which you can see here. After you have looked, perhaps you would consider reverting your revert. Jodosma (talk) 18:57, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- @Jodosma: I think that was an error. I have reverted myself.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:00, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you. Jodosma (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)