User talk:Falconclaw5000

3rr
You appear to be edit-warring on right-wing politics. TFD (talk) 06:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: January 2012
  January 2012

ARTICLE REPORT Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism

 By Lionelt On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.

Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline. -

PROJECT NEWS

Project Scope Debated

 By Lionelt Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.

Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.

Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.

Click to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

DISCUSSION REPORT

Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum?

 By Lionelt

Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.

The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.



Your recent editing history at Right-wing politics shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. -TFD (talk) 05:59, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. When you recently edited Right-wing politics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Anglophone and National defense (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) 10:51, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

This is an inappropriate comment
"Or, for those reading this who are economically illiterate: communism results in widespread poverty and starvation." quote by you on Talk:Right-wing politics This is an inappropriate comment that has the effect of humiliating and belittling other users that is in violation WP:CIVIL. Please remove the uncivil comment from Talk:Right-wing politics so that it does not disrupt constructive discussion and debate. Please review what you are saying before posting, so that you do not offend other people. Quick action to resolve the comment would be appreciated.--R-41 (talk) 00:28, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Warning about failure to seek consensus, and failure to adhere to NPOV.
You and Rick Norwood have been engaged in an ongoing vicious cycle of aggressive sophistry that is in violation of WP:NPOV, Consensus. You disregard scholarly work because of your opinion that academia is left-wing - you are telling people to ignore scholarly sources because they might be biased, but by your history of editing - sources by right-wing authors are fine - that is in direct violation of NPOV and in direct violation of Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources as per Identifying reliable sources. It is not just you who is in the wrong, Rick Norwood is being disrespectful to right-wing people. I can tell that neither you nor Rick Norwood have any intention of voluntarily upholding policies on Consensus and WP:NPOV. You and Rick Norwood have either broken or are on the verge of breaking Civility. If you and Rick Norwood continue with this aggressive and disruptive sophistry, I will report both of you for violation of Consensus and deliberate disregard for NPOV.--R-41 (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 17
Hi. When you recently edited Right-wing politics, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Enterprise and Merit (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) 10:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Centre-right into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 08:52, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit war warning, Adam Leitman Bailey
Your recent editing history at Adam Leitman Bailey shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. JohnInDC (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest - Adam Leitman Bailey
Hello, Falconclaw5000. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you are affiliated with some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Adam Leitman Bailey, you may need to consider our guidance on conflicts of interest.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Be cautious about deletion discussions. Everyone is welcome to provide information about independent sources in deletion discussions, but avoid advocating for deletion of articles about your competitors.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 11:34, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Please do not delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Adam Leitman Bailey. Such edits are disruptive and appear to be vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. JohnInDC (talk) 16:53, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
Your name has been mentioned in connection with a sockpuppetry case. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/Internalb for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to cases before editing the evidence page. JohnInDC (talk) 18:03, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Jan Helfeld for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jan Helfeld 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 Articles for deletion/Jan Helfeld until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Marquis de Faux (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)