User talk:Thurmant

Welcome!
Hello, Thurmant, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! – Lionel (talk) 04:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Whistleblower protection in the United States
I left a comment on the talk page of the article. I do not see a COI with the citation. Of course, I am only one opinion and Wikipedia works on consensus. I would suggest leaving it open for comments for a week or so and then if no one raises an objection then go ahead and move it into the article (or just leave me a message and I will move it into the article for you). Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
DES (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Filibuster reform
Would you mind taking a look at the CRS report on filibuster reform that I just added and comparing it to the text that you worked on previously? I don't think things quite match up, and I would defer to the CRS report. II | (t - c) 17:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your message, I'll have another look at what I wrote compared to the report. Thurmant (talk) 23:24, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi ImperfectlyInformed, sorry it took me so long to get to this but I've updated the January 2013 filibuster reform section of the Filibuster in the United States Senate article based on the CRS report you pointed me towards. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia American legislation project
Hi Thurmant, I saw your comments on the talk page for Heritage Action. I'm part of a project of Wikipedians in DC (and elsewhere) that are trying to get better coverage of notable American federal legislation on Wikipedia. Our project is this: WikiProject United States Federal Government Legislative Data. We plan on covering anything that passes in the House or Senate, even if it never becomes law (so that people can get neutral information about potential laws before they are enacted). I've already edited Heritage Action's page once to link to an article that Heritage Action supports, and I plan to do it again in the future, if you want to keep an eye out for mistakes. I'd also like to invite you to join our project and help expand coverage of notable legislation, if you're interesting. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Common Core_State_Standards_Initiative". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 19:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Greetings
I saw your post at WikiProject Politics. You should probably post at WP:COIN instead! I'm sorry communication around here is fragmented. Tech folks are working a new system. We'll see how that goes! Best regards. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) when u sign ur reply, thx 10:43, 16 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Just to update that I've added your changes to the article without modification. In the future you may get a faster response by using the edit request template here .  This template will cause your edit to appear on a list for review.  As above, the WP:COIN board works too.  Thanks!  Sperril (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I guess I'd have to figure out a way for you to pay me anyways
I've never done such a thing. Though who knows if you'd be interested. I suppose "marketing" myself more politely would help... I've paid people through PayPal/cell phone numbers before. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 16:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * As I explained on the Jim DeMint talk page it would be inappropriate for me to pay you to receive your feedback on my proposed revision. This is not something I am interested in doing. I'll look elsewhere for editors to help review my draft. Thanks! Thurmant (talk) 18:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well the main point I'm trying to get at is how I interpret "Work with us and we'll work with you" in the essay Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. I apologize if I have come off as hostile. I've just been a bit astonished at some of what has been proposed/suggested. Best. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. ) while signing a reply, thx 11:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Daily Signal has been accepted
 The Daily Signal, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Onel5969 (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask 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_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=User_talk:Thurmant help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.


 * Nice job at avoiding the COI issue. Happy editing. Onel5969 (talk) 23:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

James Jay Carafano
Thank you for disclosing your COI about the article about James Jay Carafano. My best regards, Geraldshields11 (talk) 19:06, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Right Stuff June 2018
  June 2018

 FROM THE EDITOR

The Right Stuff Returns

 By

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

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

Russian Agents Editing at American Politics?

 By

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

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

 IN THE MEDIA

Breitbart Versus Wikipedia

 By

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

Liberty and Trump and Avi, Oh my!

 By

There are several open discussions at the Project:

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

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

The Right Stuff: July 2018
 <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)