User talk:Aletheon

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!) 16:24, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Bias watch
I've found a couple of personal letters to me from E.E. Rehmus from the late 1980's. He gives his opinion on a number of topics including homosexuality, eugenics, etc. Don't know if they're of value to you, but if so, please contact me. DNikifortchuk (talk) 20:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)DNikifortchuk
 * Yes, I would be interested in getting a copy of those letters if possible. Aletheon (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for the invitation. I don't think I'll officially join, but I will be aware of its existence. Grundle2600 (talk) 13:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, sounds good and thanks for replying. I may update you in the future on your user talk page if there is any major opposition to this proposed new Wikiproject, since it seems like you are mildly interested. Aletheon (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I put in my support. Thanks for the invitation! Are you knew at Wikepedia? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your consideration. I guess you could say I'm relatively new here. I've been editing here off and on for a couple years but it hasn't been until recently that I took an interest in becoming involved in a regular way. Aletheon (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I read your proposal and while I sympathize with your intent I see many roadblocks to implementing such a thing. The "left wing" part of the proposal will most likely be a killer, IMHO. Especially around here. I agree that such a bias exists but, given that it exists, this means that there will be many more people opposed to this proposal than for it. This represents a major hurdle ... especially if many of them are admins who don't like to be called biased. :)

I think I agree with the neutral editor who signed and said that it has to be WP:NPOV watch, not just left wing. I say this not because I doubt the existing bias is left wing but simply as a pragmatic matter of getting things through.

I don't know the process for these things, what happens with these proposals? How do things normally get operationalized? --GoRight (talk) 00:59, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm new to the community aspect of this process myself, but I've seen enough of how the bare editing process (apart from any community behind it) works here that I'm convinced that those who are aware of this left-wing bias would have to come together in an organized and purposeful way in order to truly maintain NPOV here. This is why I couched this in terms of "preserving neutrality" on the Wikiproject proposal page. If most people here are simply unaware of or take for granted their own left-wing bias and for that reason that aspect of neutrality gets overlooked for the most part on Wikipedia articles as a whole, then the only way to preserve neutrality would be by organizing a left-wing bias watch as I have proposed. If the prevailing bias were right-wing, then a right-wing bias watch would be called for. But I think we agree about what the prevailing bias is. Aletheon (talk) 04:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * 69.140.152.55 (talk) 07:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Howdy Aletheon, if you're still interested in addressing NPOV issues, boy have I got a group for you: WP:RIGHT. – Lionel (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

The Right Stuff June 2018
  June 2018

 FROM THE EDITOR

The Right Stuff Returns

 By

Fellow members, I'm pleased to announce the return of the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. And considering the recent downsizing at The Signpost the timing could not be better. The Right Stuff will help keep you apprised of what's happening in conservatism at Wikipedia and in the world. The Right Stuff welcomes submissions including position pieces, instructional articles, or short essays addressing important conservatism-related issues. Post submissions here.

Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the latest updates at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story) -  ARBITRATION REPORT

Russian Agents Editing at American Politics?

 By

After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin was the subject of an Arbitration case for conduct unbecoming. Prior to the case getting underway Andrevan resigned as bureaucrat and admin. A widely discussed incident was when he suggested that some editors he described as "pro-Trump" were paid Russian agents. This resulted in a number of editors from varied quarters denouncing the allegations and voicing support for veteran editors including and the notorious.

Editors who faced Enforcement action include (no action),  (three month topic ban ARBAPDS),  (no action) and  (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)

 IN THE MEDIA

Breitbart Versus Wikipedia

 By

Breitbart News, in response to Facebook's decision to use Wikipedia as a source to fight fake news, has declared war on our beloved pedia. The article in Haaretz describes the Facebook arrangement as Wikipedia's "greatest test in years" as well as a "massive threat" to the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Breitbart's targeting of Wikipedia has resulted in an "epic battle" with respect to editing at the Breitbart article. The article has also recently experienced a dramatic increase in traffic with 50,000 visitors according to Haaretz. There is no love lost between Breitbart and Wikipedia where editors at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard have criticized the news websites unreliability and have compared it to The Daily Mail. (Discuss this story) -  DISCUSSION REPORT

Liberty and Trump and Avi, Oh my!

 By

There are several open discussions at the Project:

Recently closed discussions include Anti-abortion movements which was not renamed, and an RFC at Trump–Russia dossier. (Discuss this story)
 * There is an RFC regarding Liberty University and its relationship to President Trump; see discussion
 * Activist and commentator Avi Yemini is listed at AFD; see discussion

Delivered: 11:12, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: July 2018
  July 2018

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> DISCUSSION REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">WikiProject Conservatism Comes Under Fire

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

WikiProject Conservatism was a topic of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard/Incident (AN/I). Objective3000 started a thread where he expressed concern regarding the number of RFC notices posted on the Discussion page suggesting that such notices "could result in swaying consensus by selective notification." Several editors participated in the relatively abbreviated six hour discussion. The assertion that the project is a "club for conservatives" was countered by editors listing examples of users who "profess no political persuasion." It was also noted that notification of WikiProjects regarding ongoing discussions is explicitly permitted by the WP:Canvassing guideline.

At one point the discussion segued to feedback about The Right Stuff. Member SPECIFICO wrote: "One thing I enjoy about the Conservatism Project is the handy newsletter that members receive on our talk pages." Atsme praised the newsletter as "first-class entertainment...BIGLY...first-class...nothing even comes close...it's amazing." Some good-natured sarcasm was offered with Objective3000 observing, "Well, they got the color right" and MrX's followup, "Wow. Yellow is the new red."

Admin Oshwah closed the thread with the result "definitely not an issue for ANI" and directing editors to the project Discussion page for any further discussion. Editor's note: originally the design and color of The Right Stuff was chosen to mimic an old, paper newspaper.

Add the Project Discussion page to your watchlist for the "latest RFCs" at WikiProject Conservatism (Discuss this story) - <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> ARTICLES REPORT

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Margaret Thatcher Makes History Again

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to. A-Class is a quality rating which is ranked higher than GA (Good article) but the criteria are not as rigorous as FA (Featued article). WikiProject Conservatism is one of only two WikiProjects offering A-Class review, the other being WikiProject Military History. Nominate your article here. (Discuss this story)

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:90%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; padding-top:10px; "> RECENT RESEARCH

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:170%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Research About AN/I

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> By

Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by 

Out of over one hundred questioned editors, only twenty-seven (27%) are happy with the way reports of conflicts between editors are handled on the Administrators' Incident Noticeboard (AN/I), according to a recent survey. The survey also found that dissatisfaction has varied reasons including "defensive cliques" and biased administrators as well as fear of a "boomerang effect" due to a lacking rule for scope on AN/I reports. The survey also included an analysis of available quantitative data about AN/I. Some notable takeaways:


 * 53% avoided making a report due to fearing it would not be handled appropriately
 * "Otherwise 'popular' users often avoid heavy sanctions for issues that would get new editors banned."
 * "Discussions need to be clerked to keep them from raising more problems than they solve."

In the wake of Zarasophos' article editors discussed the AN/I survey at The Signpost and also at AN/I. Ironically a portion of the AN/I thread was hatted due to "off-topic sniping." To follow-up the problems identified by the research project the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team and Support and Safety team initiated a discussion. You can express your thoughts and ideas here. (Discuss this story)

Delivered: 09:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)