User talk:RL0919/Archive 2012

MSU Interview
Dear RL0919,

My name is Jonathan Obar user:Jaobar, I'm a professor in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences at Michigan State University and a Teaching Fellow with the Wikimedia Foundation's Education Program. This semester I've been running a little experiment at MSU, a class where we teach students about becoming Wikipedia administrators. Not a lot is known about your community, and our students (who are fascinated by wiki-culture by the way!) want to learn how you do what you do, and why you do it. A while back I proposed this idea (the class) to the community HERE, where it was met mainly with positive feedback. Anyhow, I'd like my students to speak with a few administrators to get a sense of admin experiences, training, motivations, likes, dislikes, etc. We were wondering if you'd be interested in speaking with one of our students.

So a few things about the interviews:
 * Interviews will last between 15 and 30 minutes.
 * Interviews can be conducted over skype (preferred), IRC or email. (You choose the form of communication based upon your comfort level, time, etc.)
 * All interviews will be completely anonymous, meaning that you (real name and/or pseudonym) will never be identified in any of our materials, unless you give the interviewer permission to do so.
 * All interviews will be completely voluntary. You are under no obligation to say yes to an interview, and can say no and stop or leave the interview at any time.
 * The entire interview process is being overseen by MSU's institutional review board (ethics review). This means that all questions have been approved by the university and all students have been trained how to conduct interviews ethically and properly.

Bottom line is that we really need your help, and would really appreciate the opportunity to speak with you. If interested, please send me an email at obar@msu.edu (to maintain anonymity) and I will add your name to my offline contact list. If you feel comfortable doing so, you can post your name HERE instead.

If you have questions or concerns at any time, feel free to email me at obar@msu.edu. I will be more than happy to speak with you.

Thanks in advance for your help. We have a lot to learn from you.

Sincerely,

Jonathan Obar --Jaobar (talk) 07:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Young June Sah --Yjune.sah (talk) 04:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Self publishers
Hi, FYI, at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wikipedia_reliability a drive to slow down self-published book references is getting started. Would you like to join that project? Membership is free. History2007 (talk) 21:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Suspension of administrator privileges
You notified me that you were suspending my administrator privileges. May I ask why you did not notify me beforehand or ask me if I were still active? I read at ADMIN "The admin must be contacted on their user talk page and via email (if possible) one month prior to the request for desysopping and again several days before the desysopping would go into effect." Was that policy not in place at the time, and administrators were just desysopped without anyone bothering to check if they were still around? — Knowledge Seeker দ 20:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You can read about the circumstances at Bureaucrats' noticeboard/Archive 22. The short version is that when the policy on desysopping inactive admins was first enacted, another editor (not me) jumped the gun and made a request for a bunch of desysoppings on Meta. The stewards fulfilled the request without checking to confirm that the process had been followed or that the list he provided met the inactivity standards. This was obviously not what was intended in the policy. However, after some discussion, it was decided that rather than undoing and redoing the whole thing, it would be left more or less as it was, but someone needed to notify the folks who had their privileges removed that it had been done. I volunteered for the notification task, which is why it is my signature on the notice. (If you read the notice carefully, you'll that it does not say that I was suspending your admin privileges. Rather, it says that they "have been removed". I don't personally have the ability to do perform such a removal.) If you want the bit back, you should be able to drop a note at WP:BN and I assume they will give it back to you with little fuss. Hope that all makes sense, and let me know if you need any clarification. --RL0919 (talk) 04:25, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. When you recently edited John A. Allison IV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Libertarian (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) 15:03, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination)
Hi RL0919. Because you participated in Articles for deletion/Universe Today (3rd nomination), you may be interested in Articles for deletion/Universe Today (4th nomination). Cunard (talk) 23:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your excellent merge suggestion, which I've implemented at List of astronomy websites. Cunard (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Credo Reference Update & Survey (your opinion requested)
Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:


 * Link to Survey (should take between 5-10 minutes): http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/N8FQ6MM

It also asks some basic questions about what you like about the Credo program and what you might want to improve.

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange).

Also, if you have an account but no longer want to use it, please leave me a note so another editor can take your spot.

If you have any other questions or comments, drop by my talk page or email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers! Ocaasit &#124; c 17:28, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

hello richard lawrence
why does my information on that article dosent deserve to be on that page.....why is it being constantly edited.....?

i havent been spreding ???lies???....and what iam writing is specified with page numbers and a link...which is true....then why???/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.227.55 (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

and sorry for speaking truth about alan greenspan who admires or follows ayn rand...and i forgot to mention his role about financial crisis in 2008...although no one can avert or edit(neither me nor you) the coming financial crisis in near future...this is some futile effort being placed to hide the tip of ice berg....wait and see

good night and thank you...may creator of the world bless you with knowledge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.227.55 (talk) 16:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * There are two major problems. First, you are adding this into the the middle of the lead section. The lead is supposed to briefly summarize the article, not contain the detailed quotes about his views. Second, your edits are formatted in a way the disrupts the text with unnecessary bolding and whitespace. This is why people are reverting your changes so quickly. If this material belongs in the article anywhere, it would be further down, in the section discussing his political views, and as just a plain sentence without the extra formatting.


 * There is a third, lesser problem, which is that Greenspan's government role was in banking, not diplomacy or the military. So for him to make comments about Iraq is just him stating his own political views, not an admission of motives by someone involved in planning or conducting the war. Since many people have expressed similar views about the war and he has no special experience or knowledge about it, some editors might think it too minor of a point to include. That is the sort of thing that should be discussed at Talk:Alan Greenspan. --RL0919 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

yeah you are right sir....as iam new to writing articles in wiki...

but i dont fault you... some people termed that info as 'spam'..info must be accepted is what i believe whether controversial or not...i found that widely over net i thought it was good to be written here...thats all

i was a bit uncomfortable for that...

that discomfort was reflected while commenting to you

(---i dont know about talk page and i could comment on wiki so i didnt comment 'them' thats why i was bit angry on that matter while talking to you sorry for that forgive me if that hurts you..... ---)

i thought you were supporting a.g. but you told that his role was in banking(you are not supporting him thats so good ...thats what i feel...i apologize for in appropriate commenting on your page)

though i dont like him...i mustnt try to make him appear bad for people visiting this page

...what i understand is, what you did was appropriate and right....wrong lies with me......thanks for the guidance....please reply after reading this... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.217.174 (talk) 14:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

...forgot some thing(this is just info i want to tell but not quarrelling comment as it appears so)...

1)as far i know greenspan government is what you mentioned  [but FED is private as far as i know]..and he belongs to private institution not government..and as far as i know

2)http://news.antiwar.com/2011/10/25/billions-lost-in-secret-federal-reserve-funding-of-iraq-war/

all info that i know says FED funded iraq war (and all wars to say and all controversial activities from 9/11 oocured..)...which confirms A.G. role in iraq war...which contradicts your statement...

3) this is not political statement they all planned and are delaying usa collapse(and they are doing together, fulfilling their respective roles to delay or stop collpase...and filling minds of people with trash like WAR AGAINST TERRORISM ), and they are not much caring about trade deficit >4 billion$ per day...and as i wrote 1.2 million+ died(only in iraq for somebody's selfishness) this makes feel bad...and reflecting in every statement i make

...please dont say you dont know these things this is what i think every "american citizen" MUST KNOW....!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.216.217.174 (talk) 15:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The Federal Reserve System is a government operation, not private. The article on Structure of the Federal Reserve System explains it. One of the functions of the Fed is to provide banking services for the federal government. In that role it provides funds for various government activities, including the military. That does not mean its board members are involved in planning or running war efforts. If you get money from a bank to buy a car, that doesn't mean that they decide where you drive. I don't approve of everything the Fed does or that Greenspan did while he was there, but trying to pin the Iraq war on the Fed is too much. As for what Greenspan said about the war and oil, this is clearly a personal political statement. He says it as part of an argument for reducing dependence on oil, involving increased gasoline taxes, etc. This opinion of his may or may not be significant enough to mention in the Wikipedia article about him, but it isn't some sort of shocking admission by somebody deeply involved in starting the war. It is a commonplace political opinion shared by thousands of people. --RL0919 (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

yeah i agree with that..it doesnot deserve to be mentioned in lead section as you said and i said that in 2nd message for you(i send 3 messages for you..this is 4th)...you havent said anything whether you felt bad as i was rude and you accepted apologizies?/..so i will end this message propaganda — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.222.165 (talk) 17:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Fellowship of Reason
Dear Mr. Lawrence:

As the founder of the Fellowship of Reason, I am interested in your nomination for deletion of the FOR wiki entry.

I am well aware of the objection of some Objectivists to the suggestion that our philosophy, Eudaimonism, has roots in Objectivism. I did not create the original entry, so I cannot claim responsibility for that reference. In my most recent edit, I have attempted to remove all references to Objectivism and I have no objection to there being no reference to Objectivism in the FOR wiki entry.

I hope that with the removal of the references to Objectivism that you, as operator of the Objectism Resource Center, and as a Wiki editor will withdraw your objection to the FOR entry.

Thank you.

Martin Cowen

Martin Cowen 17:44, 21 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlcowen (talk • contribs) 17:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I think you have misunderstood my concern about the article. I don't care about whether FOR claims roots in Objectivism. I happened to come across the page because it linked to the article on Ayn Rand, but I have no objections to such a link. My concern is that Wikipedia has standards about what should be the subject of an article, specifically, the notability guidelines. The guideline at Notability (organizations and companies) is of particular relevance. To be notable, there must be published coverage of the organization by independent reliable sources (news organizations, books, etc.). As far as I can tell, FOR has not attracted that type of coverage. The article was created before such guidelines existed, so it has "flown under the radar" for a long time, but if it can't meet the criteria then it shouldn't be kept around. If there is coverage by independent reliable sources that I don't know about, then that's another story, but it didn't look good when I searched for it. --RL0919 (talk) 19:13, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Gustav Fasa
Hey, i saw you had deleted this article as an expired PROD. I find that very strange because i did add a source. --KzKrann (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The requirement is that a reliable source (per the WP standards on that) be included in the article. The website in the citation did not show any indication of being a reliable source. If you want the article restored so it can go through a full Articles for Deletion discussion, I can do that, but the end result is very likely to be deletion again unless there are additional sources available. --RL0919 (talk) 15:47, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Let it be. --KzKrann (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Ayn Rand
Nothing controversial about edits. Rand supported state initiation of force. Rand's economic and political philosophy share no differences from the philosophers mentioned. Please allow me 5-10 minutes to add the citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.5.102 (talk) 03:22, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Edits that multiple other people have reverted are ipso facto controversial. Also, you are packing details into the lead section of articles that would be more appropriate in later sections. See also the comments I just left on your talk page. --RL0919 (talk) 03:26, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

They're simply not controversial. Anarchists, who are part of libertarian movement, are by definition opposed to Objectivism. Period. I'm adding it to the article, not changing anything. it was absent and should be added. If a retarded person comes on here and disagrees with me, that doesn't mean what I'm saying is controversial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.5.102 (talk) 04:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The culprit is blocked. Drmies (talk) 04:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Unfair Revision
I would like to state that Stay Schemin' was in fact a single done by the Russian-American rapper Ayn Rand. I can cite my countless sources on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.88.103 (talk) 22:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

About my contributions to the G.A. Wells article
No hard feelings. I felt your comments were on the level, and, as I explained in all seriousness, I feel that I have been influenced by R. Joseph Hoffmann's attitude. He is a prima donna in this field, knows Wells better than anybody else in the English-American world, and finds anybody who's not up to his level of expertise unworthy of his attention. But he is not at the level of Wells when it comes to in-depth knowledge of German scholarship. In spite of Hoffmann's offputing attitude, I felt, now that Wells is 86, it would be fair to present a pretty accurate image of his work to the public, which has remained largely ignorant of his complex work.

Instead of posting my additions piecemeal, gradually, as I tried to do from Oct. 7 to Oct. 31, I think it is preferable to develop my version of the article completely, until it is a completed product, and only then post it as a complete article.

This way, I shall avoid being exposed to recurring attacks and corrections requiring lengthy defenses on the TALK page, a process that I find exhausting and detrimental to the spirit of free engagement with the subject. This way I shall avoid the hurly-burly of the gradual process of Wikipedia editing.

Also, most important, whatever the reception it receives from your team, I shall be able to save a clean copy of my final complete version, before it is tampered with by unsatisfied readers. Skipping the torturous revision of each of my gradual contributions will be a huge gain in time and peace of mind, for me and everybody else.

This is why I withdrew all my written contributions since Oct. 7, which are strictly my additions, since I wish to reserve all those additions from Oct. 7 to Oct. 31, 2012  to incorporate them in the complete text of the full version I am planning to finalize. I noticed that you have already used some of my writing for the revision of the lead paragraph, whereas I had been cautious to restored all the original text of Oct. 7, as I found it before I added anything.

This clean copy, the original of my final posting, will be available for the experts in this field, who I know will be much less interested in the popularizing editing done by your team to package a Wikipedia article for consumption by the general public, who is not interested in all the fine details of a scholarly presentation. Saving this final version is valuable to a small crowd of better informed scholars, which will thus survive, whatever fate my posting text meets with at the hands of all those volunteer editors.

This whole process of completion and finalization will take quite a while, since I intent to involve a few experts in the project. I recognize that the idea of trying to post an in-depth scholarly article on Wikipedia is rather suspect. However I have read some Wikipedia articles in areas where I am knowledgeable which were pretty up to snuff. Others were lamentable, larded with errors, and I can understand Hoffmann's reaction. --ROO BOOKAROO (talk) 18:59, 1 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Good luck on your drafting; I hope the final version is an excellent article. No doubt that there are many articles on Wikipedia that are not excellent. The crowd-sourcing approach is great at producing tremendous breadth of coverage -- a traditional encyclopedia might not have an article on Wells at all -- but achieving quality is difficult.


 * With regard to the text you already added and then removed, I hope you understand that all content you place on Wikipedia is "CC-BY-SA" licensed as part of the site's terms of use. This means anyone can re-use it at any time, as long as the history is preserved showing that you contributed it in an earlier revision. So some bits you wrote previously may be revived (by me or someone else) and put back into the article. The good news is that this allows for the article to be incrementally better sooner, without you having to tend it personally. --RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Sleeper Agent
On July 27, 2011 you finalized an edit war on this entry. I am curious why? not why it was incorrect or nonsensical but why would you care about such a stupid subject? and then to escalate it? how did you even know it was revised? and given it was written to pass all the 'automated' filters why were you declared the winner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Detemad (talk • contribs) 06:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw your edit to a discussion about Wikipedia bureaucrats, in which you specifically said "See sleeper agents." This led me to look at the article on sleeper agents, where I saw your previous contribution to it, which I reverted. I don't know what you mean by "escalate" or "declared the winner". --RL0919 (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

TFD Infobox settlement
You have been involved with Templates for deletion/Log/2009 September 13. Would like your feedback at Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 December 18 NVanMinh (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)