User talk:Ruthfulbarbarity

SqueakBox 03:43, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You
For the warm welcome, and words of advice/practical tips.

I've actually used this website for years, and have made some contributions to it, before deciding to finally register, in the past.

Ruthfulbarbarity 06:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks
Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by admins or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

 * I don't have a problem refraining from what you describe as "personal attacks," but I would feel more comfortable in the knowledge that there were other admins who are monitoring the behavior of that user, who-from all appearances-is simply here to vandalize the PW article, cause conflict on the talk page dealing with that article, and serve as an impediment to improving the discussion surrounding Protes

t Warrior.


 * Granted, those might all be construed as "personal attacks" under this policy, so I won't repeat them. However, I don't think they are inaccurate, especially if you check that user's history of "contributions."

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can understand how you feel, but as always, you have to remember that the legitimate editors must hold themselves to a higher standard than those who are here to compromise the integrity of the project. :) --Kuzaar-T-C- 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I know.


 * It's just slightly annoying having to deal with the same disgruntled person, and the same baseless, churlish complaints, who follows you to multiple websites.


 * It's as if the Black Israelites, instead of confining their gibberish to a small quadrant of Times Square, decided to accost people as they moved around midtown Mahattan.


 * In any case, I understand what you're trying to accomplish, and appreciate the advice.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for using userboxes I made.
I created the Anti-ACLU and Anti-UN userboxes. It's nice to see them being used somewhere besides my page. :-) Lawyer2b 03:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow.

Good job.

In any case, you're welcome.

Now I just have to see if I can align them properly.

The page is a bit of a mess as it is.

Ruthfulbarbarity 04:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hello. I have noticed that you have recently added a number of external links to the Azmi Bishara article that do not appear to have been written by or directly about the subject. Additionally, most of the articles appeared to be tendentious or polemic sources, and as such are not appropriate to link to externally. See WP:EL for external linking guidelines. I have reverted to an older version in the meantime and suggest that if you want any of these to be included, you screen for neutral point of view in the links and ensure that they conform to the EL guidelines above. --Kuzaar-T-C- 18:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

How is the International Committee For The Defense of Azmi Bishara not a tendentious/polemic source?

And if it is, why didn't you remove that link as well, or at least add one that criticized the people coming to his defense?

Bishara has been accused, credibly, of engaging in acts that constitute treason, has met with officials from countries that are in a state of war with Israel, and has defended the actions of organizations that murder innocent Israeli citizens, and attack members of the Israeli military.

There are even allegations that he is acting as an agent of foreign powers, e.g. his trips to Syria, where he has denounced the Jewish State, even though he serves as a member of the Knesset with political immunity for any seditious remarks.

Don't you think it's odd that there's almost no critical material about such a controversial figure included in that article?

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no issue with critical material being added. My problem is with external links being added that are not up to guidelines. I'm certain you can find a newspaper with a website that has openly criticized him. Blogs have never been and will never be appropriate external links for public figures unless those figures are from the blog community. If there are allegations, as you said, that have come from a reliable source as described in WP:RS, then I can only encourage you to add them. However, I would like to remind you that it is never appropriate for Wikipedia to advocate one side or another in a debate, that its duty is to frame the debate as a whole, and finally that undue weight should not be given to a position held by a minority. All of these rules are outlined at Wikipedia's page on neutral point of view. You seem to have an interest in several politically controversial topics, so I would be encouraged if you went through them. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:57, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by a "minority?"


 * Are you implying that a majority of the Knesset is in favor of obliterating the Jewish State?


 * Since most members are not Arabs, I don't see how you could make that assertion.


 * Or are you stating that a majority of Israeli Arabs are in favor of Israel's extermination?


 * I don't see why they are entitled to have their point of view represented, but the other three-quarters of the Israeli population is not.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to know why you are requesting that I beg off politically controversial subjects, especially when there are so many others-of a distinctly different bent-who are not able to refrain from inserting their opinions into the body of articles.


 * I have no intention of doing so, although I'll respect your request not to post any links to blogs in the future.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to keep working the politically controversial subjects. You have a right to and honestly just because he encourages you not to does not mean anything.  --Getaway 01:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What I say is irrelevant, and what you say is irrelevant. What matters is the NPOV guidelines, which are NOT optional and apply to all users. Editing articles in which you have a personal interest is discouraged by guidelines, according to community consensus, not just me. The fact that I encourage this user to take one particular action means less than the fact that consensus does the same. So no, while this user has a right to edit whatever, that does not mean that my opinion on the matter is any less valid than yours, Getaway. --Kuzaar-T-C- 13:40, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out on your talk page, you should reframe from discouraging new editors to stop that do not agree with you. NO WHERE do I encourage this new editor or any new editor to break the Wikipedia rules, but I DO encourage them to just keep on editing, despite your attempts to make them stop.  Also, I never, ever stated that my opinion is worth more than yours.  Where do you get that??  Please point that out to me.  I would like to see it.  Ruthful, keep on keeping on and don't let Kuzaar, the self-appointed czar of Wikipedia, discourage you from editing. --Getaway 14:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As per my response on the page, I am by no means telling Ruthful to stop editing. By the same logic as used on the guideline page, WP:BAI, I am saying that editing articles regarding political subjects in which you have a strong interest in makes it very easy to make edits which might be construed as POV or adding commentary. By saying "Disregard what Kuzaar says, it doesn't matter", you imply that the community consensus policies that I advocate are not applicable to the situation and can be disregarded. This is not correct- consensus is a vital cornerstone as to determining appropriate conduct in the Wikipedia project and should not be disregarded. --Kuzaar-T-C- 14:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No. I did not "imply" that. You just took it that way. --Getaway 15:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, for all of this noise about "blogs" there were only a few links that I posted which would fall under that rubric.


 * I can't go back and check-since you deleted them-but I do remember at least two of them specifically, which were not weblogs.


 * One being a weekly column from Al-Ahram-the single largest English-language daily in Egypt-and the other from the Middle East Forum, one of the most respected monitors of Arabic media and political trends in the country.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That does not change the fact that all but one or two of the external links were inappropriate under the WP:EL guidelines in that they serve only to expound a specific point of view, contain unverified original research or opinion, and of course there's the prohibition of blogs, which made up no fewer than half of the links that you did add. Additionally, the reason I cautioned you against editing controversial articles is that first, it appears that you have a personal interest or opinion on the subject (which is similarly cautioned against in some of Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines), and second, that because of the first reason, it is very easy to slip into adding opinion and commentary to the article, which is a fairly serious risk. Because of your response and your insistence that it was appropriate to add those links to the article, I can only surmise that you are still not familiar with the external linking/NPOV guidelines. Becoming familiar with them will help you to make significant contributions to the project without requiring so much review. Thank you, and happy editing, --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:Civil
Hey Ruthful,

You've done some good editing, but you should be careful about saying things like "At least not by anyone with an ounce of credibility or intellectual honesty." That could be construed as incivil discourse, and may be a borderline personal attack. In general, I find it most productive in these heated debates to stick to the arguments, as the other party probably won't become more willing to compromise once they are referred to that way, even if you think that is an accurate description. At the end of the day, you just want to get your point across, no? If you have any questions about this or any other issue on Wikipedia, feel free to ask me. Happy editing,  Tewfik Talk 03:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

User:NBGPWS edits on Protest Warrior
I believe User:NBGPWS's edits to be in violation of at least three policies in the last two days, namely, WP:AGF, WP:3RR, and WP:Civility. I am working very hard to treat him firmly but respectfully so as to communicate the seriousness with which his actions are viewed. I would like to ask you to do the same. Please do not respond to him with incivility or in any other way that violates policy. That way, if he continues it will be much easier to have him banned from editing that article. Thank you. Lawyer2b 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem doing that.


 * In fact, engaging him constructively seems to be a lost cause, so I'll just ignore the dispute for the time being.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
 * A commendable attitude. I've made it my cause to see that policies are enforced to protect the neutrality of articles so I plan to either persuade him to stop or document his edits and bring them to an administrator's attention.  It would be nice to be able to discuss things privately via email.  On the left hand side of everyone's user page is a link to send an email through wikipedia but you have to configure it through your preferences. If you want to correspond via email send me one using that link on my userpage.   By the way, your correct usage of the word "pore" in the talk page was most impressive.  Lawyer2b 21:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a wise strategy for the time being.


 * I just enabled my e-mail, so you should be able to send me a message.


 * Ruthfulbarbarity 21:21, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Just saw your plea over at Lawyer2b. I am in a fierce and heated debate with a conservative POV warrior who uses wikipolicy as a weapon right now. I have debated some of the fiercest POV warriors on wikipedia and reached a consensus. I would first suggest the mediation cabal. Not knowing your situation myself, I won't give you any advice beyond this. If you need any help, let me know. I often archive my comments, even a day after I recieve them, after responding to them (you have to respond to them, otherwise another user can file a grievance, see: Talk_pages). You can't delete warning messages, but you can delete everything else (after you respond). I question whether this user's warning messages are official messages, to be on the safe side, I would archive them, and not delete them--out of sight out of mind right? See my box to see how I handle those who don't know wikipolicy on my talk page, and how I archive my messages. User talk:Travb

Signed: Travb (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the suggestions.


 * I've tried to refrain from responding to the instigation of NBG-having encountered him in other venues I've never found it to be a pleasant nor productive experience-but I suppose deleting those templates-even if I construed them to be vandalism-was the wrong approach.


 * I'll see what mediation is possible in this situation.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

hey, buddy.
we just agreed on something. Not to be mean or anything, but could you just let sleeping dogs lie? dposse 02:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that.


 * It would be pointless to edit my comments now.


 * In any case, I'm glad that this (tangential) issue has to be put to rest.

Ruthfulbarbarity 02:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Hopefully put to rest. Just try not to spark the argument up again when we have reached an agreement, ok? dposse 02:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Vote on renaming title
In the Israel-Lebanon conflict page we are having a vote on renaming the title from Israel-Lebanon conflict to Israel-Lebanon War. Hope you vote for Israel-Lebanon War :)


 * Well, it doesn't really matter-as far as I'm concerned-since there are much more egregious problems with the article in question.


 * That being said, I won't object to any name change.

Ruthfulbarbarity 19:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Liberty Post
Hello, I have recently listed the article Liberty Post for deletion. You can participate in the discussion here.


 * Thank you for notifying me that you have placed an afd tag on one of my articles, although I would have appreciated it if you had brought your objection to my attention on the talk page prior to making such a rash judgment.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Notability (web)
I thought you might want to become familiar with the notability requirements of websites to be included in Wikipedia.

Criteria for web content Web specific-content is notable if it meets any one of the following criteria: The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.
 * 1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
 * 2) * This criterion excludes:
 * 3) ** Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
 * 4) ** Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, the times at which such content is updated or made available, a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site or content descriptions in internet directories or online stores.
 * 5) * This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations.
 * 6) The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
 * 7) The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.

Final Warning
This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent vandalism will not be tolerated. The next time you vandalize a page, you will maybe be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Final Warning

NBGPWS 10:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL.


 * Stop pretending to be someone.


 * I'm going to be very blunt here.


 * Neocon, cut the crap.


 * You're going to be blocked if you keep this up, which-knowing your personality-you probably will.


 * Why not quit while you're behind?

Ruthfulbarbarity 11:20, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Another warning to RB
WARNING: you are acting in an uncivil manner. Remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. I will be reporting your continuing insults and personal attacks. You have been admonished for your personal attacks by Wiki admins on mulitiple occasions. Expect another warning. Stop now.

NBGPWS 18:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Report all you want, you raving lunatic.


 * Look, stop this crap.


 * Stop the harassing messages, stop fiddling with the Protest Warrior articles.


 * You've already attracted the unwelcome attention of several other editors here, so I suggest you stop making a nuisance of yourself, or leave Wikipedia altogether.

Ruthfulbarbarity 22:38, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with offensive content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. -- ~PinkDeoxys~ 23:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * The comments are not legitimate.


 * They were templates used by a recurring troll who has repeatedly vandalized the Protest Warrior talk page-and the article connected to it-and who has been using this website as a platform to launch his invective against an organization against which he bears some inexplicable grievance.


 * He has spammed those pages with irrelevant, tendentious links, and has viscerally attacked everyone trying to make a positive contribution to the Protest Warrior article.


 * If you search his history of "contributions" you'll realize that he does not have any valid complaints.

Ruthfulbarbarity 23:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * [[Image:Stop hand.svg|left|30px]] WARNING: you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remember to remain civil at all times, and don't resort to making personal attacks. Thanks for your cooperation.


 * NBGPWS 05:44, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning on deletions
WARNING: Please do not remove legitimate messages from your talk page. Talk pages exist as a record of legitimate communication, and in any case, comments are available through the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. Thanks for your coooperation!

NBGPWS 05:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Warning to you
STOP IT!

Immediately.

I have not engaged you in over a day, and do not plan on communicating with you in any way, shape, or form in the future. The next time you place anything on my talk page I will be referring your actions to administrative authorities. I suggest that you cease and desist immediately. Ruthfulbarbarity 11:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Try reporting him to Administrator intervention against vandalism in order to resolve the dispute. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 20:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I refer to your comments of 14 August. I will continue to note your incivil behavior whenever and wherever you attack me - on my page OR yours. :NBGPWS 11:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Administrator intervention against vandalism won't work, a user can post warning messages on another user's wikipage, that is not vandalism. I would suggest getting an Advocate from the Association of Members' Advocates. Travb (talk) 23:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I appreciate the advice, and will look into it. --Ruthfulbarbarity 00:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * We'd hate for you to get discouraged from editing wikipedia, just because of some asshole. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know unwarranted warning tags are in fact vandalism, if you really feel they are being posted as vandalism they report it as such. Or you can post it at the general admin alert board so you can better explain your position. -- zero faults   ' '' 00:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * User:Zer0faults knows wikipolicy better than anyone I have ever met on wikipedia. I would bet that he is right. My mistake. Travb (talk) 01:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I have saved this dif since its a wonderful compliment and shows you realize how knowledgable of Wiki policy I am. I put a lot of work into learning the rules before I participate. -- zero faults   ' '' 09:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You, sir, are a role model in that regard. :-) Lawyer2b 22:15, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes etc.
I read all your userboxes (well, ok, not all of them) and checked out some of your contribs and you seem like a really good guy. I hope you don't mind if I borrow a few of those boxes. I'm definitely with you on the inclusion of "stance" userboxes. Too bad about your vandal/troll problem; hope you get that sorted out. It's important to remember: if you are being targeted, it probably means you are being effective. Best wishes, TheKaplan 05:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I honestly don't blame you.


 * I would imagine that plowing through 200+ userboxes would be a bit of a chore.


 * In any case, they're not my userboxes so much as userboxes that I transcribed from the standard gallery, or from other user pages.


 * I suppose I should have added the "userbox thief" template to the obscene number of boxes already in existence on that page.


 * Heh.


 * The exceptions are the federalist, anti-illegals and New York Blood Center boxes.


 * It's funny, because there is actually an organ donor template, but I haven't found a regular one for blood donors, which you would think would be more prevalent among Wikipedians..


 * Anyway, I appreciate the compliments.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

This much seems evident.
Woodshed 07:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

True.

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

KLF
I note that you have begun to revise the KLF article. The first day's contribution is exactly the sort of thing I envisioned when I posted the NPOV notice. Well done so far and I hope that you can complete the task without interference from fanatic partisans ... on either side.

Partisans always want to push their agendas, forgetting that Wikipedia is an on-line encyclopedia, and not a recruiting hand-out. As I said, you are off to a good start with your revision. Good luck. B00P 08:00, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree.


 * I just had a look at the PKK (Kurdish Workers' Party) article, which also has a POV template attached to it.


 * I'm not sure, but I think the article related to the MEK (NCRI) is the same, with partisans from opposite sides trying to muddle what should be a clear, coherent, factual narrative about that group's history and turning the article into one prolonged, digressive edit war.


 * I'm trying to find more information about this specific Sikh organization, on Global Security, the CFR website, as well as some online resources from a Sikh perspective.

Ruthfulbarbarity 18:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Shelley Sekula-Gibbs
I thought you might be interested in this comment that I posted in response to yours:
 * As a follow-up the above comment. There are fifty city council members (aldermen) on the Chicago City Council and every single one of them have a Wikipedia article about them.  Chicago is the third largest city and Houston is the fourth largest city.  Also, there is no way all fifty of them should have their own Wikipedia article.  Please read some them. For example, I'm sure this person is a good person, but what qualifies this Chicago alderman with a Wikipedia article, other than simply being on the Chicago City Council? See John Pope (alderman). Based upon this article, I respectfully disagree that simply being on a city council gets you in Wikipedia. Sekula-Gibbs would be the first Houston city council member with her own Wikipedia article and there are a couple of others who probably should be covered also, but ALL of the Chicago aldermen?? I don't think so.--Getaway 19:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting point.


 * I didn't know that about the entries on Chicago aldermen.


 * It does seem odd that all of them would have an individual article devoted to them, rather than having them merged into one or several larger articles.


 * The issue I raised earlier in the afd discussion about the NYC Council-which has several prominent members, including former officeholders, who have no article devoted to them-is also worth noting.


 * My general opinion is that there are a lot of individuals who have Wikipedia articles that shouldn't, and some who quite clearly deserve Wikipedia articles-such as the city councilman/state senator I alluded to-but who don't yet have them.


 * Personally, I think some editors are much too hasty in recommending deletion for articles that exhibit prima facie cases for inclusion, e.g. the Sekula-Gibbs article.


 * A random Google search would have demonstrated to the person recommending deletion-on the basis of notability-that Sekula-Gibbs is in fact a moderately notable figure, at the very least.


 * I think this problem is compounded somewhat by people who either delete out of process, or because they are not as familiar with the subject matter as some other Wikipedia users might be.


 * For example, someone who follows domestic political developments would most likely be very familiar with a figure like Gibbs-at least within the past few months-whereas someone who is unfamiliar with congressional politics would have no idea who she is, and therefore recommend the deletion of her article based upon his or her own unfamiliarity with the figure in question.


 * In any case, I appreciate your work.

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Your refusal to use edit summaries
RB, please explain these edits on the Protest Warrior entry, and why you, unlike others,  feel you do not need to inform others of WHY you are making wholesale changes to the article, and using what justifications of WP. The edit summary box is there for a REASON. I am looking into the ramifications of your refusal to use it.

(cur) (last) 23:14, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) (→Motivation)(NO SUMMARY) (cur) (last) 23:12, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) (→Methodology)(NO SUMMARY) (cur) (last) 23:10, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) m (→Website)(NO SUMMARY) (cur) (last) 23:08, 23 August 2006 Ruthfulbarbarity (Talk | contribs) m (→Past operations)(NO SUMMARY)

"Always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s).

NBGPWS 02:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * One of them was putting a verification tag on an unsourced, unverified assertion, i.e. most Protest Warriors disbelieve in the idea of global warming, while the other was removing a statement that was also unverified, re: the assertion that Protest Warriors impersonate participants in gay pride parades in order to discredit them.


 * The others were minor edits, i.e. grammar, syntax, spelling, etc., IIRC.


 * I'm pretty sure I declared that they were minor edits before I made them.

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

NBGPWS
Ruthfulbarbarity, what would you think about filing a Request for Comment about NBGPWS's behavior? Given that he's now reverting typo corrections because the summary wasn't used, I think he's out of control and has gone too far. --Neverborn 04:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree.


 * It would seem appropriate-in light of his recent behavior-for someone who is an administrator to refer his actions to the proper entities here.


 * I don't know whether it's a case for arbcom or not, but his behavior has become intolerable.


 * There's no other way to put it.

Ruthfulbarbarity 05:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Will you gather diffs and that sort of thing? I can help, perhaps. I was thinking an RfC: Requests_for_comment --Neverborn 06:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems like a logical next step.


 * He has been warned by over half a dozen editors-including several administrators-been flagged for possibly having a sock puppet account, and blocked for violating the 3RR.


 * Yet he still persists in trolling.


 * I'll see what I can do, although actually sorting his violations chronologically seems like something that other editors might be better suited for.


 * Lawyer2b did a pretty good job of that in the cabal NeoCons initiated, for some inexplicable reason.

Ruthfulbarbarity 07:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What was inexplicable? Why I did it or why I put it there? Lawyer2b 17:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC) P.S. Feel free to add to it.


 * No, I was referring to NBG's obsession with the Protest Warrior website.


 * Sorry for the confusion.

Ruthfulbarbarity 18:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Wiki-marxist garble
This is a request for immediate help from Kmaguir1. If you have time, I'd like you to examine the Bell Hooks article and talk page. It's a scholarly article about a controversial writer, someone who drew the ire of a conservative commentator. They wanted me to go get the quote from her book, and I did that. But now, they're arguing it's not notable. As a follower of Wikipedia, you will know that of all the meaningless academic trivia included on her page, that what they wanted to exclude was really ridiculous: that she says as an opening to her book, Killing Rage, "I am writing this essay sitting beside an anonymous white male that I long to murder". This may in itself be notable, but David Horowitz wrote about it in 100 Dangerous Professors, and it was written about on front page mag, and all the citations are given on the page. I would appreciate your help--I'm contending with some very difficult Marxists who are attached to her work, and think that they're defending the liberal cause, but really, they're just keeping out material that is very easily notable.-Kmaguir1 08:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Greetings. In the interest of disclosure, I'd like to inform you of a conduct RfC on Kmaguir1. It's here: Requests_for_comment/Kmaguir1. If you have time and are so inclined, feel free to provide comments there. Meanwhile, if you go to the bell hooks page, please do join in the discussion. If you read the Talk page and look at my and others' edit histories, you'll see that the picture is not quite as Kmaguir1 paints it. (I have no idea who the Marxists are he's referring to, and I've also edited his text for improvement, and left it in the article, vs. what he's saying here.)


 * Bottom line: welcome to bell hooks, be aware of the RfC, and feel free to join it. Cheers,--Anthony Krupp 17:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I made a few minor, technical revisions to the section entitled "Cultural Conservative Criticism," and added a link to a critical piece authored by Jamie Glazov.


 * Other than that, I don't plan on contributing much to the debate over that particular article-although I would suggest that the contention that the only people who view her academic work as racist or controversial are "cultural conservatives" is misleading, to say the least-or adding/subtracting from its overall content.


 * It does have an adulatory-almost hagiographic-tone that I haven't seen since the Che Guevara article, and even that particular Wiki was more thoroughly balanced, IMO.

Ruthfulbarbarity 20:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Indenting your signature
Hi. I've noticed that you indent your paragraphs just right on talk pages, but don't do the same with your signature. This can make it a little difficult to follow the thread of conversation at times, so would you mind indenting them to the same level as the paragraphs above? Thank you :) &mdash;Xyrael / 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that.


 * I never noticed before. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Warning about editing other users comments
This is an official WP warning template ((notyours))

You were wrong....

I noticed that you edited someone else's comment at at [[]] for clarity, spelling or grammar. As a rule, refrain from editing others' comments without their permission. Though it may appear helpful to correct typing errors, grammar, etc., please do not go out of your way to bring talk pages to publishing standards, since it is not terribly productive and will tend to irritate the users whose comments you are correcting. For more details, see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thanks,

Again.

Don't EVER edit my comments

Again.

NBGPWS 05:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Get over it. Ruthfulbarbarity 14:23, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Request for a vote
Hi Ruthful,

Thanks for creating the Richard Brookhiser page. I don't know if you have any interest in whether or not the Category:American conservatives page continues to exist, but it's currently under threat of being eliminated. I think it's something useful for anyone who wants to learn more about conservatism. Anyway, whatever your opinion, if you have one I hope you'll go to that category page and follow the link to vote on whether or not to delete it. Again, thanks for the Brookhiser page.Noroton 22:09, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Signorile
For what it's worth, the journalist you wrote up at Michael Signorile already has an article at Michelangelo Signorile, and he's never, ever referred to as simply "Michael". Your article's been redirected to the existing one; feel free to expand that one if necessary rather than writing an alternate one at a name he doesn't use. Bearcat 04:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Although I would add that others have referred to him by that shorthand, although it appears that you are correct, in the sense that he has never used that diminutive in the byline for any publications he has written for, and doesn't refer to himself in that manner. Ruthfulbarbarity 20:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

political gossip
Please do not add inaccurate political gossip.

You will be reported to the authorities and we will recommend that your editing privileges are withdrawn.


 * Sign your comments, Necons. Ruthfulbarbarity 17:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Political categories
I notice that you edit/create articles on NY Assembly members (and maybe other policticans). Can I recommend that you add a few more categories. These seem like a good start, (obviously changing the names and the birth year.)

Just a thought, Best Jdclevenger 15:21, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Userboxes
Replied to you on userbox discussion page. Ian ¹³ /t  20:24, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the assistance. Ruthfulbarbarity 21:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As if you needed encouragement...
"My grandfathers and grandmothers spoke [Scottish] Gaelic."

— OtherDave 04:19, 8 October 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL.


 * It's actually quite possible, seeing as how my paternal ancestors came from somewhere in Ireland, although most of them probably spoke the Irish variety.


 * In fact, I still have distant relatives-supposedly-that live somewhere in rural Ireland, and the odd cousin or two who learned how to speak it for purely aesthetic purposes.


 * Still, I think I'll refrain from the gratuitous userboxen additions for the time being.


 * :) Ruthfulbarbarity 04:39, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Stephenson
You actually agreed with NBGPWS? It's the sign of the apocalypse ! --Tbeatty 22:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL.


 * In the most limited way possible.


 * I actually agree that Stephenson attained minor notability in his life-time.


 * I realize that Wikipedia doesn't accept exclusively Web-based notability claims in a lot of instances, which I happen to disagree with in many circumstances.


 * This being one. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion wanted
Hi, just wanted to know if you could offer an opinion on a request for deletion on an article that you looked at once before. I think it's a historically significant interview, because it's one of the few (if only) examples where Clinton has gone on record about his administration's performance on al Queda...

Thanks..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2006_Chris_Wallace_interview_of_Bill_Clinton

No Personal Attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. BenBurch 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It wasn't a personal attack.


 * It was a generic-rather restrained, considering your previous behavior-observation, which most people would probably agree with.


 * Don't attempt to utilize my user page in order to post frivolous or unmerited warnings.


 * That's a violation of Wikipedia guidelines and could get you in hot water if you're not careful.


 * You have the same rights, and commensurate responsibilities, as any other Wikipedia editor.


 * No more, no less, and you are expected to abide by the same rules and regulations.


 * Just remember that. Ruthfulbarbarity 20:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk:NBGPWS
He's being monitored so let's not antagonize him any. If he keeps up with his hate speech, I will extend his block to indefinite.--MONGO 05:16, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough.


 * It's just frustrating that so much time is consumed monitoring the behavior of one user who seems to delight in serving as a nuisance to other members of the Wikipedia community.


 * In any case, I appreciate the diligence of you and other Wikipedians in trying to resolve this issue. Ruthfulbarbarity 05:20, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's keep this off N's page. Here's a rundown of your edits on N's talk page. I emphasize "on" because you have repeatedly been asked to stay "off" it.
 * Here is N asking you not to post on his page, because you have been harassing and baiting him.
 * Here is you baiting him (last line, in response to comment having nothing to do with him)
 * Here is you baiting him, with irony style points
 * Here is you baiting him
 * Here is you baiting him, in accordance with WP:you can taunt your blocked opponent if you salute WP policy while doing so.
 * Here is me skipping a bunch more baiting because I can't spend all morning on this.
 * Here is N asking you not to post harassment and baiting on his page, yet again
 * Here is MONGO telling you not to post on that page again.
 * Here is you acknowledging that to MONGO
 * Here is MONGO instructing people not to bait him
 * Here is you baiting him on that page
 * Here is me asking you not to bait him after the above baiting
 * Here is you saying, on that page, you were merely "correct misconceptions"
 * Here is me pointing you to the diff showing only baiting
 * Here is you posting there yet again in defiance of MONGO's request, this time simply repeating again that you were "correcting misconceptions" which you plainly were not.

You are doing every bit as much as N, if not more, to keep this thing going. Post there one more time, and I'll be posting you on ANI. Capiche? Derex 20:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am sure threatening other editors is the way to diffuse the situation. --Nuclear Zer0 23:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That's not a threat. That's information. Derex 23:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Point well-taken.


 * I'll allow others-who don't have the exasperating, frustrating history of dealing with his behavior in other venues-deal with this. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:28, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, I have no interest in engaging the aforementioned individual-either here or on any other forum-I'm merely raising the question of why he can "ban" other editors from replying to him on his user page.


 * It's possible that this is Wikipedia policy, but I don't see it being raised in response to other repeatedly blocked, problem users.


 * For the sake of peace I'll ignore him. I'm just curious as to why the provocateur-in this case, Neocons, gets to determine policy. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:33, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not policy. It's courtesy. Going out of your way to provoke someone, and that is what you were doing, is not helpful. It does enter actionable territory when an admin has expressly asked you not to do so. I do appreciate your good faith in backing off though. Derex 23:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you.


 * I'll try to respect that courtesy.


 * If it hadn't been for unrelated edit wars and afd discussions involving that user I probably wouldn't have even bothered responding to him again. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Lets just stay off his page for now...please. No good can come from direct dialogue on each others pages..keep discussions in article space for the time being. Thanks.--MONGO 03:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright. Ruthfulbarbarity 15:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re George Harrison
Just wanted to let you know that I have modified the language you deemed to be "loaded"; hopefully acceptably, while maintaing the basic truth re the jury attendance at the party in question.

Having looked over your user boxes re your ethnic/geographical background, I hope you are being fully impartial in the matter. Btw, you have two somewhat contradictory userboxes (Roman Catholic, lapsed Catholic), which I recommed be considered for updating.

Yours sincerely,

AsburyPark 00:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you.


 * I don't mind including details about that post-acquittal gathering-if it actually took place and you can come up with the relevant citations and sources to prove it-but I'd prefer to keep the subjective and speculative assertions, i.e. he was acquitted for Reason X, to a minimum. Ruthfulbarbarity 04:34, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

AfD that might be of interest to you
Liberty Post 2nd AfD LP is inarguably a notable forum! - F.A.A.F.A. 08:21, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please refer to me by my handle FAAFA. People unfamiliar with my 'history' or my previous FULL user name could think that "Neocons" indicates an endorsement of Neoconservatism - which couldn't be further from the truth. Thanks for your cooperation. Sorry Freepers want to delete 'your' article. Another politically motivated AfD, IMHO. (salutation redacted)- F.A.A.F.A. 23:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Since you broached the subject, please stop referring to me as CP. I don't know where you are getting the P from. My handle is one word, and if one WERE to try to shorten it to two letters, it would be CS. But I know it's just your little private way of insulting me without outright insulting me, so please stop it. And don't expect everyone to instantly warm up to your ham-handed attempts at cordiality. I dropped my guard for you, and gave you a chance, which worked out ok for about two days. Then you apparently perceived it as a sign of weakness on my part, and you fucked me. Don't ever mistake my willingness to compromise and be cordial as a sign of weakness. I'm here for the long haul, and I have the memory of an elephant. - Crockspot 17:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Stop spamming my user page with your customary nonsense.


 * Consider this a warning. Ruthfulbarbarity 03:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Look what happens when I try to be cordial. Some people! Start referring to me by my correct username as of NOW - F.A.A.F.A. 20:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC) 06:40, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cordial? You're kidding right?. Dman727 08:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. Sign your posts, -FAAFA.


 * 2. Consider this to be more material in your rfc. Don't say you weren't warned. Ruthfulbarbarity 16:01, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Use my correct name. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Four tildes after each comment posted.


 * This information shouldn't be too difficult to digest, especially for someone who has been: registered with Wikipedia for several months.


 * And you're not helping your argument by continually repeating the very actions that drew your rfc in the first place. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:45, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, don't edit any of my comments...ever.


 * Unless it's a minor edit-or you want to correct some genuine mischaracterization-I suggest that you cease and desist from doing so immediately. Ruthfulbarbarity 22:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * FAAFA has asked he not be called a neocon...so I guess I have fulfilled my admin requirement for the day...Happy Thanksgiving--MONGO 04:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh.


 * Happy Thanksgiving.


 * Ruthfulbarbarity 15:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * NAAFA has told me that while he stopped referring to you and others by some slangy username, you and others have continued to do so...this must stop. If this continues then I recommend all parties take the case from the NAAFA Rfc and shoot it over to arbcom for final resolution...there everyone can post their evidence and let the arbitrators find some sort of resolution. I have been looking over the comments on the NAAFA Rfc and there seems to be no compromise there between all parties involved...so if everyone can't work together, then arbitration is in order.--MONGO 21:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with that assessment. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, that's not a descriptive term on my part.


 * His original name on Wikipedia was NBGPWS, i.e. "NeoconsBeGoneProtestWarriorSux."


 * "Neocons" is the shorthand that he replied to on other sites, before he was summarily banned from them.


 * But if he wants to be described by his current online pseudonym-I still don't quite understand why he felt the need to create an alternative user name, but I suppose that's beside the point-then I won't object to doing so. Ruthfulbarbarity 23:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Ruthful, I thought you might be interested to learn that in retaliation for my stated interest in enforcing WP:NPOV, and thereby preventing the article about Free Republic from being the hit piece they obviously wanted, F.A.A.F.A. and the Wiki member he supports, defends and serves in all matters Wiki, BenBurch, have started a sockpuppet investigation against me. It's been going on for seven days now. No request for a CheckUser yet; this accusation is being used solely for the purpose of interrogating me. -- BryanFromPalatine 04:48, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Jeremy Hammond
Thanks for your support to Keep Jeremy Hammond and for your edits. I think the article is looking much better. I think I need to take back saying "hackers and parody protesters might be difficult." Edivorce 19:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Al Gore III
Just wanted to call your attention to a discussion on an article for deletion. You can participate here: Articles for deletion/Al Gore III (6th nomination).--Getaway 20:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Ken Jowitt
My pleasure, and I hope you enjoyed the film! Jokestress 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Very much so.

I can't say I was expecting a comedy, but I was pleasantly surprised.

Ruthfulbarbarity 03:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Eldridge Cleaver
I know you added a citation for him being a convert to Christianity from Islam, but can you find a source that he ever was muslim?--Sefringle 18:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that he necessarily was a Muslim.


 * If he was, then I don't think it was of the NOI variety, although I could be mistaken.


 * He was a very eccentric, colorful figure, so it wouldn't surprise me. Ruthfulbarbarity 19:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

History News Network
Hi! I want to thank you for adding the article for the History News Network. I am wondering how to categorize the site and am unsure if it is considered a think tank.

By the way, I would also like to thank you for your political stances. My family still grieves over the 1979 Iranian Revolution and strongly supports democracy in Iran so that we can resume our contacts with relatives and visit without the fear of a death warrant. I also support the peaceful reunification of Cyprus, since the Republic of Cyprus is pluralist, bilingual, and provides a freer society for citizens than the North which has been exclusive. It is for similar reasons that I support India's right to Kashmir and Israel's retention of Jerusalem. Please let me know about the above. --Shamir1 21:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if you'd characterize it as a think tank in the same manner as Brookings, Hoover, Rand, etc., but the entry itself probably should be categorized under several education, history and online fields. Ruthfulbarbarity 00:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey!
From your userboxes...do you watch BS! (not watching stuff that are BS)? =)  Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 08:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

BS?

I take it that's short for something?

Ruthfulbarbarity 01:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Howie Hawkins
I have added a "" template to the article Howie Hawkins, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. GreenJoe 01:23, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia New York Meet-Up
Howdy! Please come to the First Annual New York Wikipedian Central Park Picnic. R.S.V.P. @ Meetup/NYC --David Shankbone 14:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject U2 invitation

AfD nomination of Too Hip For The Room
I've nominated Too Hip For The Room, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Too Hip For The Room satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Too Hip For The Room and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Too Hip For The Room during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Videmus Omnia 06:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Bad Religion
Hello. Would you be interested in being part of the Bad Religion WikiProject? If the answer is yes, then click here. I'm also looking for other Wikipedians who are Bad Religion fans (or fans of punk rock) who could join as well. Alex 21:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

New York City Meetup
The agenda for the next meetup includes the formation of a Wikimedia New York City local chapter. Hope to see you there! --Pharos 19:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Randall Flagg
I'm trying to get Randall Flagg's article to either GA or FA status. I've put a lot of effort in the article in the last couple of weeks, expanding and reworking various sections along with adding sources and external information such as quotes and analysis. I put it up for peer review at Peer review/Randall Flagg. Any suggestions you have would be welcome.--CyberGhostface 18:32, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The Buffalo Bills Userbox
Whenever You get the time can you put the Buffalo Bills userbox on my page pleas and thankyou. The K.O. King (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

You're invited!
...to the next New York City Meetup!

In the morning, there are exciting plans for a behind-the-scenes guided tour of the American Museum of Natural History.

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to discussing meta:Wikimedia New York City issues (see the last meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Buffalo Bills and the Superbowl
Just out of curiosity do you think the Bills will ever go to the Superbowl and if so when(in your opinion)? Also, in the Buffalo vs. Giants Superbowl game do you think the Bills should have won? I do. Send a message on my talk page when you get this.The K.O. King (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you please answer my questions? The K.O. King (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you ignoring me? The K.O. King (talk) 18:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

O.K. it is taking you a long time to answer my question. Can you please answer me? Pretty, pretty please. The K.O. King (talk) 02:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for answering my question. I just have one more (for now) who do you think is the team of the 90's Buffalo or The Cowboys? Remember, even though the Cowboys won 2 Super Bowls Buffalo usually beat them during regular. Talk to you later. The K.O. King (talk) 22:32, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list
There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it!  Cbrown1023   talk   21:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, and have salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

Well also make preparations for our exciting Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, a free content photography contest for Columbia University students planned for Friday March 28 (about 2 weeks after our meeting).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

You're also invited to subscribe to the public Wikimedia New York City mailing list, which is a great way to receive timely updates. This has been an automated delivery because you were on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 03:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Spam in Richard Brodsky
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Richard Brodsky, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Richard Brodsky is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Richard Brodsky, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 16:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts). This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Dark Tower: Article of Focus
You are listed as a member of The Dark Tower Wikiproject. We have recently added an article of focus department, and if you'd like to nominate an article, feel free. Go to the talk page for additional information. --MwNNrules (talk) 18:42, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Second nomination is up. --MwNNrules (talk) 07:31, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Second Annual WikiNYC Picnic
Greetings! You are invited to attend the second annual New York picnic on August 24! This year, it will be taking place in the Long Meadow of Prospect Park in Brooklyn. If you plan on coming, please sign up and be sure to bring something! Please be sure to come! You have received this automated delivery because your name was on the invite list. BrownBot (talk) 20:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
WHAT Wikis Take Manhattan is a scavenger hunt and free content photography contest aimed at illustrating Wikipedia and StreetsWiki articles covering sites and street features in Manhattan and across the five boroughs of New York City. The event is based on last year's Wikipedia Takes Manhattan, and has evolved to include StreetsWiki this year as well.

LAST YEAR'S EVENT


 * Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Spring 2008 (a description of the results, and the uploading party)
 * Commons:Wikipedia Takes Manhattan/Gallery (our cool gallery)

WINNINGS? Prizes include a dinner for three with Wikipedia creator Jimmy Wales at Pure Food & Wine, gift certificates to Bicycle Habitiat and the LimeWire Store, and more!

WHEN The hunt will take place Saturday, September 27th from 1:00pm to 6:30pm, followed by prizes and celebration.

WHO All Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians are invited to participate in team of up to three (no special knowledge is required at all, just a digital camera and a love of the city). Bring a friend (or two)!

REGISTER The proper place to register your team is here. It's also perfectly possible to register on the day of when you get there, but it will be slightly easier for us if you register beforehand.

WHERE Participants can begin the hunt from either of two locations: one at Columbia University (at the sundial on college walk) and one at The Open Planning Project's West Village office. Everyone will end at The Open Planning Project:


 * Wikis Take Manhattan page at The Open Planning Project


 * 349 W. 12th St. #3
 * Between Greenwich & Washington Streets
 * By the 14th St./8th Ave. ACE/L stop

FOR UPDATES

Check out:


 * Wikis Take Manhattan main website

This will have a posting if the event is delayed due to weather or other exigency.

Thanks,
 * Pharos

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Dark Tower WP discussion
Greetings Dark Tower WikiProject member, I would like to invite you to palaver about a possible expansion of the Dark Tower Project to include all Stephen King related items. I feel that the large amount of projects related to the author warrants his own Project—but as this one already exists—hesitate to begin a new one. Please feel free to leave comments of any kind and be assured that The Dark Tower will be held in the highest regard within the new King Project. Long days and pleasant nights.  Black  ngold29   02:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bills 2008 Season
Hey, remember me? I just wanted to say Buffalo is doing GREAT!!! I also want your opinion on something...If Treant Edwards wasn't injured in the Cardinals game do you think they would be 5-0? I blame J.P. Losman. Please answer as soon as possible. Buffalo Rules! The K.O. King (talk) 21:55, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You are invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, finalize and approve bylaws, interact with representatives from the Software Freedom Law Center, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the June meeting's minutes and the September meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikis Take Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wikipedia Loves Art! bonanza, being planned with the Brooklyn Museum for February.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

RE: Bills
The Bills are now 6-5. How much of a chance do they have to make to the playoffs? And one last question (for now) what do you think of the new QB Trent Edwards? The K.O. King (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

You're invited!
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, look at our approval by the Chapters Committee, develop ideas for chapter projects at museums and libraries throughout our region, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the November meeting's minutes and the December mini-meetup's minutes).

We'll make preparations for our exciting museum photography Wikipedia Loves Art! February bonanza (on Flickr, on Facebook) with Shelley from the Brooklyn Museum and Alex from the Metropolitan Museum of Art.

We'll also be collecting folks to join our little Wikipedia Takes the Subway adventure which will be held the day after the meeting.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you
The article you created: Adam Kuban may be deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:
 * Articles for deletion/Adam Kuban.

The faster you respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved.

Finding sources which mention the topic of your article is the very best way to avoid an article being deleted Findsources3:
 * Find sources for Adam Kuban: google news recent, google news old, google books, google scholar, NYT recent, NYT old, a9, msbooks, msacademic ...You can then cite these results in the Article for deletion discussion.

Also, there are several tools and helpful editors on Wikipedia who can help you:
 * 1) List the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. You can get help listing your page on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
 * 2) You can request a mentor to help explain all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond to you before responding on the article for deletion page.
 * 3) When trying to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you. Here is a list acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
 * 4) You can vote to merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 01:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: You're invited!
Join us the evenings of Friday February 6 and Saturday February 7 around Wikipedia Loves Art! museum photography events at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Brooklyn Museum.

There will also be a special business meeting on Saturday dedicated to discussing Wikimedia New York City issues with guests from the Wikimedia Foundation.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:52, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

your userbox
your userboxes contradict each other. taiwan indepdence supporters are AGAINST the Republic of China. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsarfi (talk • contribs) 04:21, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The Republic of China is Taiwan, for your information.

Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 08:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

NO
Another 7-9 season for the Bills. And now they have T.O. Now, don't get me wrong he's a great wide reciever but his attitude is bad and he brings down the team's morale. How do you think they will do this coming up season? Reply when you have time. The K.O. King (talk) 01:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want to ask a few (unimportant) questions. Who are your top 5 favortite Buffalo Bills players of all time? Mine are...

1. Andre Reed 2. Jim Kelly 3. Thurman Thomas 4. Marshawn Lynch 5. Trent Edwards

And what do you think of Trent Edwards? And by the way, who were you rooting for in the latest Super Bowl? I was rooting for the Cardinals because they had my favorite quaterback of all time Kurt Warner. Personally I think the Steeleser cheated (everytime Warner threw for a first down there was an imidiate penality flag on the Cardinals). Anyway, please reply when you get the time. The K.O. King (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, establish a membership process for the chapter, review the upcoming Wiki-Conference New York 2009 (planned for ~100 people at NYU this summer) and future projects like Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You're invited...
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference New York, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Takes Manhattan and Wikipedia at the Library, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

2009
Trent Edwards and T.O. make a pretty good team looking at Buffalo's schedule I believe they can go at least 10-6 if they play at their fullest potential. They were able to outplay the New England Patriots. How well do you think the Bills will do this year? The K.O. King (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikis Take Manhattan
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

T.O.
I have noticed that the Buffalo Bills have not been using T.O. in the way that they should. He is a deep TD threat and they havn't taken advantage of that. If the Bills start using him he won't be back next year (and he is Buffalo's greatest weapon). Who do you think would be a better starter Ryan Fitzpatrick or Trent Edwards? Write me back. The K.O. King (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You're invited!
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 03:44, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Merge
HI! I just suggested that Jewsweek be merged to Benyamin Cohen. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Ruthfulbarbarity! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 4 of the articles that you created  are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the list:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Helen Foster (politician) -
 * 2) Thomas Kirwan -
 * 3) Vivian Cook -
 * 4) Craig Shirley -

Wikipedia Day NYC
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 9th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Sunday January 24, 2010 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:13, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Sunday, March 21
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikipedia Day NYC, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia at the Library and Lights Camera Wiki, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects, for example User:ScienceApologist will present on "climate change, alternative medicine, UFOs and Transcendental Meditation" (see the November meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back. And if the weather is good, we'll have a star party with the telescopes on the roof of Pupin Hall!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

NYC Wikipedia Meetup Saturday, May 22
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wikimedia Chapters Meeting 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wiki-Conference NYC and Wikipedia Cultural Embassy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the March meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Wiki-Conference NYC (2nd annual)
Our 2nd annual Wiki-Conference NYC has been confirmed for the weekend of August 28-29 at New York University.

There's still plenty of time to join a panel, or to propose a lightning talk or an open space session. Register for the Wiki-Conference here. And sign up here for on-wiki notification. All are invited! This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia NYC Meetup Sat Oct 16
In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, review the recent Wiki-Conference NYC 2010, plan for the next stages of projects like Wikipedia Ambassador Program and Wikipedia Academy, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the May meeting's minutes).

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and generally enjoy ourselves and kick back.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 16:18, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

NYC Meetup: Saturday, December 4
Our next Wikipedia NYC Meetup is this weekend on Saturday Dec 4 at Brooklyn Museum during their awesome First Saturdays program, starting at 5 PM.

A particular highlight for the wiki crowd will be 'Seductive Subversion: Women Pop Artists, 1958–1968', and the accompanying "WikiPop" project, with specially-created Wikipedia articles on the artists displayed on iPads in the gallery.

This will be a museum touring and partying meetup, so no excuses about being a shy newbie this time. Bring a friend too!

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

To keep up-to-date on local events, you can also join our mailing list. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:American rattlesnake.png
Thanks for uploading File:American rattlesnake.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 04:06, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:American rattlesnake.png
 Thanks for uploading File:American rattlesnake.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:American rattlesnake.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:American rattlesnake.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — G FOLEY   F OUR  — 16:27, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

File:American rattlesnake.png missing description details
Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as File:American rattlesnake.png is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors to make better use of the image, and it will be more informative for readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Spumoni Gardens


The article Spumoni Gardens has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * A7--no credible claim of significance or importance

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Epeefleche (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You're invited to the New York Wiknic!


This message is being sent to inform you of a Wikipedia picnic that is being held in your area next Saturday, June 25. From 1 to 8 PM or any time in between, join your fellow volunteers for a get together at Norman's Landscape ( directions ) in Manhattan's Central Park.

Take along your friends (newbies permitted), your family and other free culture enthusiasts! You may also want to pack a blanket, some water or perhaps even a frisbee.

If you can, share what you're bringing at the discussion page.

Also, please remember that this is the picnic that anyone can edit so bring enough food to share!

To subscribe to future events, follow the mailing list or add your username to the invitation list. BrownBot (talk) 19:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC Oct 22
You are invited to Wikipedia:The Musical in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and lectures that will be held on Saturday, October 22, 2011, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and here !--Pharos (talk) 05:00, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: January 2012
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px; padding-bottom:7px;"> <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:100%; background-color:transparent; border:none; color:#666; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; text-align:center;"> January 2012

<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; ">ARTICLE REPORT <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> 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. -

<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; ">PROJECT NEWS

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Project Scope Debated

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> 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.

<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:190%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; ">Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum?

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 85%;"> 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.

<div style="clear:both; width:100%; border-bottom:3px double #999; border-top:3px double #bbb; padding:3px;">

Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC this Saturday Dec 1
You are invited to Wikipedia Goes to the Movies in NYC, an editathon, Wikipedia meet-up and workshops focused on film and the performing arts that will be held on Saturday, December 1, 2012, at the New York Public Library for the Performing Arts (at Lincoln Center), as part of the Wikipedia Loves Libraries events being held across the USA.

All are welcome, sign up on the wiki and at meetup.com!--Pharos (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Jewish World Review for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jewish World Review 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/Jewish World Review 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 template from the top of the article. Herp Derp (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Celebration and Mini-Conference in NYC Saturday Feb 23
You are invited to celebrate Wikipedia Day and the 12th anniversary (!) of the founding of the site at Wikipedia Day NYC on Saturday February 23, 2013 at New York University; sign up for Wikipedia Day NYC here, or at bit.ly/wikidaynyu. Newcomers are very welcome! Bring your friends and colleagues!

We especially encourage folks to add your 5-minute lightning talks to our roster, and otherwise join in the "open space" experience!--Pharos (talk) 03:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Meetup NYC this Sunday April 14
Hi Ruthfulbarbarity! You're invited to our next meeting for Wikipedia Meetup NYC on Sunday April 14 -this weekend- at Symposium Greek Restaurant @ 544 W 113th St (in the back room), on the Upper West Side in the Columbia University area.

Please sign up, and add your ideas to the agenda for Sunday. Thanks!

Delivered on behalf of User:Pharos, 18:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Upcoming Saturday events - March 1: Harlem History Editathon and March 8: NYU Law Editathon
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

Saturday June 21: Wiki Loves Pride
(You can unsubscribe from future notifications for NYC-area events by removing your name from this list.)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of John J. Miller (journalist) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article John J. Miller (journalist) 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/John J. Miller (journalist) 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. PeterTheFourth (talk) 03:08, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Cynthia Cotts for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Cynthia Cotts 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/Cynthia Cotts 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. Coretheapple (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The Right Stuff June 2018
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px; padding-bottom:6px;"> <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:100%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; text-align:center;"> June 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; "> FROM THE EDITOR

<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; ">The Right Stuff Returns

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> 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) - <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; "> ARBITRATION 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; ">Russian Agents Editing at American Politics?

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

<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; "> IN THE MEDIA

<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; ">Breitbart Versus Wikipedia

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> 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) - <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; ">Liberty and Trump and Avi, Oh my!

<div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size: 90%;"> 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
<div style="font-family:Wedding Text, Linotext, Old English Text MT, serif; font-size:58px; line-height:69px; padding-bottom:6px;"> <div style="font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif; font-size:100%; background-color:transparent; border:none; margin-left:auto; margin-right:auto; text-align:center;"> 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: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Shane Paul O'Doherty
Hello, Ruthfulbarbarity. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Shane Paul O'Doherty, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 16:02, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Shane Paul O'Doherty


Hello, Ruthfulbarbarity. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Shane Paul O'Doherty.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 17:54, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Thomas Jipping for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Thomas Jipping 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/Thomas Jipping until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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. Snowycats (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Peter J. Abbate Jr.
Please can you add references to this article? 'External links' just means suggestions for further reading, so this article is in danger of being deleted as an unreferenced biography of a living person. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 17:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You can delete it if you like. He's a 3 decade-long member of the NYS Assembly, but if you think he's non-notable, feel free to delete it. I'm not really an active Wikipedian any longer, so I don't have a great emotional investment in retaining the articles I've created.

Ruthfulbarbarity (talk) 16:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Henry F. Gerecke moved to draftspace
An article you recently created, Henry F. Gerecke, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " " before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Celestina007 (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Henry F. Gerecke (April 27)
<div style="border: solid 1px #FCC; background-color: #F8EEBC; padding: 0.5em 1em; color: #000; margin: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Eumat114 were:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Henry F. Gerecke and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Henry F. Gerecke, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Henry_F._Gerecke Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eumat114&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:Afc_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Henry_F._Gerecke reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 03:39, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Henry F. Gerecke has a new comment
<div style="border:solid 1px #9accf6;background:#f1f9ff;padding:1em;padding-top:0.5em;padding-bottom:1em;color:black;margin-bottom: 1.5em;width: 100%;"> I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Henry F. Gerecke. Thanks! Eumat114 formerly The Lord of Math (Message) 03:41, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Henry F. Gerecke


Hello, Ruthfulbarbarity. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Henry F. Gerecke".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:55, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jennifer Cole


The article Jennifer Cole has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP:GNG, WP:ENT."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. KH-1 (talk) 06:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Grant Ujifusa


The article Grant Ujifusa has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "no clear notability, WP:NOTMEMORIAL"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 09:01, 23 September 2022 (UTC)