User talk:UberCryxic/Archive 5

Catholic church article
My concerns as always remain the same. Undue weight is an issue that needs to be addressed here, we ought to be looking at the Church from the perspective of the 2000 years in which she has been in existance. What are the important features that one ought to apprehend about the Church in order to understand how she works, and how she is distinguished from the other Churches. I appreciate your request for comments, but I've been very busy as of late, and have not contributed.

It is a difficult article to edit, because people strongly disagree with the teachings of the Church. The article must reproduce faithfully what the Church actually teaches without assessing whether these claims are, or are not true. Arguments that, X claims this to be true, ergo we should say that in the article is not relevant. What does the Church teach? If the Church teaches that there are invisible pink dinosaurs with which Christopher Columbus used to conquer the New World, then the article should say so.

WRT to the abuse cases, this belongs more properly in the article devoted to the discussion of such cases, not the Catholic church article. For this reason, I believe it ought to be excised. Thank you for your time. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)
The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My first A-class
CFM International CFM56. You might enjoy the read, its got a French Connection and plenty of international intrigue. -SidewinderX (talk) 02:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied -SidewinderX (talk) 03:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied-SidewinderX (talk) 12:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Lib Dems
Thank you for changing the Lib Dems to centre-left, I've been arguing that for a while. As a warning it will probably be reverted by some obstinate people with an axe to grind.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 07:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that the party is centrist and center-left but the other people make very good points that need more discussion and fleshing out. Until we reach consensus there is no need to start an edit war.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 08:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the edit war is becoming ridiculous. I don't agree that they're entirely center-left and have proposed a compromise solution where "liberal" is simply used and centre and centre-left are in the position section in the info-box with centre being first and in bold.--Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 17:34, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be too much trouble to include quotes from sources that are not available, or only in limited form, on Google Books? Ward, Whiteley and Rallings for instance? I did this with the both the Colomar and Fieldhouse/Russell books even though they were both available in full preview. Unless people have the books, it's impossible otherwise to assess if they say what the text is asserting. Haldraper (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have hard copies of Ward, Whiteley or Rallings . Why do you think I would be looking for them on Google Books or asking you to take the time to quote from them if i did? Haldraper (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)
The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

commended
Sorry about my misreading of "commended" for "commented". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't sure if you preferred a reply here or were watching my talk page, so I'm putting my reply both places.

I agree. Marcus Aurelius praised liberty.

I don't agree that the ancient world lacked idiologies: consider epicurianism, cynicism, and stoicism, to mention just three. But that's beside the point, of course. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)


 * "Conservatism is the negation of idiology," is an opinion, not a definition. Unlike mathematics, where I can define words to mean anything I want them to mean, in common discourse we need to use the metalanguage as defined by dictionaries.  For English, as you know, the standard is the OED.  And the OED defines conservatism -- I don't have it here in front of me but something like preference for the status quo or the status quo ante.  To try to discuss politics without an agreement on the meaning of words is like trying to do physics without an agreement on the units of measurement.  "The correct value of g is 32!"  "No, the correct value of g is 9.8!"  A lot of political discussions are like that. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it is a deduction you have made, not what the sources I've read say. After all, conservatives need some method of choosing whether to support the current status quo, or to long for the "good old days". But, in any case, we need to report what major writers have said, not our own ideas. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, but H. Stuart Hughes isn't Chateaubriand or Kirk. Did C or K say the same thing? Rick Norwood (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Featured Article
I would love to see Liberalism as a featured article, though if it ever appeared on the front page it would attract every nut job in the known universe.

My own political beliefs really should not matter, since articles should depend on sources, not beliefs, but, for the record I'm a pragmatist. I believe in whatever works. As a politician, I make a good mathematician. I support Obama. He won me over when, in one of his books, he said he believed in science, in evolution, and in the reality of climate change. I think he's a pragmatist, too, and it makes me mad as hell when the Rupert Murdoch media paint him as an extreme socialist.

My motto, if I have one, is "Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain."

Sure, I'll help you make Liberalism a featured article.

Rick Norwood (talk) 23:52, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I said I'd help, and I will. Tell me what you would like me to do. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've been following what you've been doing, but held off on commenting until your part was finished. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not ignore your instructions on references. I student came in to ask a question, and I had to stop editing while I was pondering if Marcus Aurelius should be Aurelius, Marcus or maybe Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius. Should Dante be Alegheri, Dante or just Dante? Should Jabba the Hut be Hut, Jabba the? Anyway, I may have more time on the weekend. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to tell me when you respond on the talk page. I check that page every day. (Except the second week in March, when I'll be in Boca Raton for a math conference.) Rick Norwood (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "done". Nothing on Wikipedia is ever done, but I'm going to try to do as much as I can. I will not be offended if you step in to help. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case
You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Sockpuppet investigations/UberCryxic for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Both The Four Deuces and UberCryxic are good editors. I was sorry to see a feud, and glad the case is closed. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

french german enmity
hi, you wrote, "the war of the fourth coalition happened in 1806...so it's completely irrelevant to this part of the lead...". seems you think the french-german enmity started in 1870 because of france was defeated right? you're wrong. it started in 1806 when napoleon kicked the prussians asses at jena auerstatdt and the other battles. check the outcome, france defeated prussia at each battle. the result of this was the Treaties of Tilsit and the occupation of prussia by france. that started all because of germany being defeated. Cliché Online (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Social liberalism
I did not reverse your edit because I disagreed with its content, but because it was unsourced. When you add text to articles you should provide sources. It is not necessary to provide multiple sources, instead just provide one good source. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I restored my edit because I do not think that Continental European usage or statements by the Liberal International constitute "global perspective". The meaning I cite is not only American but also Canadian (both English and French), British, and Australasian. In all of these instances I have never seen "social liberalism" in the article's sense used by anyone other than political scientists. Global perspective properly so-called should recognize diversity of meanings of a term, not privilege one meaning over another. GreggW (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2010

How is citing political scientists a disparagement of them? As to your point about the ideology of social liberalism, the article on social conservatism treats it strictly as concerned with questions of civil and political rights like the social liberalism I refer to. It may be news to you, but encyclopedia articles can deal with more than one meaning of a term. GreggW (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2010

Social liberalism is only "completely different" because you refuse to admit the usage of the term applied as I have said to issues of civil and political rights. And while political scientists may "overwhelmingly" understand the term as signifying a socio-economic ideology I have read none who reject its usage in the other sense. In fact one major figure, Michael Freeden whom I should think you'd recognize, would agree with me that political terms can have more than one meaning. Like most if not all English-language political scientists he rarely uses "social liberalism" in the article's sense except when he speaks historically. GreggW (talk) 16:50, 5 March 2010

Strange, earlier versions of this article didn't have a problem with admitting more than one meaning: http://en.allexperts.com/e/s/so/social_liberalism.htm. Too bad about what has happened since: http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/the_web/article6930546.ece Add one more. GreggW (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2010

Catholic Church
Just to welcome you properly to the page. Contrary to my light-hearted remarks before, you really should stick around, it can be a lot of fun, if a little heated at times. Be prepared to get into arguments with hardline Catholic editors who think John Paul II wasn't a valid Pope, Benedict XVI is a dangerous liberal etc. and will label any attempt to add balance to their hagiographic prose as "anti-Catholic POV". Haldraper (talk) 20:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work digging up those sources on Catholic stats, keep it coming! Haldraper (talk) 21:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Pull a Lib Dem". Like it. Just to get you up to speed with who you're up against, you might want to have a look at the reflist. A large percentage of them, maybe 90% in the History section, are from a small number of Church sources: Bokenkotter, a parish priest in Cincinnati, Eamon Duffy, a member of the Pontifical Historical Comission, McGonigle and Vidmar, both Dominican priests, and CARA (http://cara.georgetown.edu/aboutcara.htm), from where the stats in the demographics section come. Mention this in relation to WP:INDEPENDENT or WP:NPOV and you will get: "they are recognised scholars in their field, their books are published by [their own Catholic] University presses and have been quoted by other scholars and in newspapers, you're just trying to exclude them because you're anti-Catholic." Find what you think is a reputable academic saying something contrary to what they want the article to say and you can bet your last penny they will drag up some "bad review" of something that person's written that "unfortunately" means their entire output is suspect and can't be used. Haldraper (talk) 09:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism
The sidebar seems fine now. Here is a link to the edit I made to collapse the sidebar. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)
The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:27, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Liberalism
It seems clear to me that the article is not going to be approved, and should be withdrawn and rewritten with the comments it's gotten in mind. I also suggest that The Four Deuces should be asked to be a major contributor to the rewrite. What do you think? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not rushing you. That's just what I see in my chrystal ball. I also get the impression that making many changes in a nominated article annoys the judges. Do we really want to do that? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me know what I can do to help. Certainly, I plan to read all the comments, and then go over the article with a fine tooth comb. Though why anybody would want to comb their fine teeth I'll never know. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

History of liberalism
Are you sure you are not adding content to the wrong article? Ucucha 14:02, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on Liberalism
I will start a new thread here for clarity, although we can move this to the article talk if that makes more sense. Here are some thoughts on the article.


 * I will start organizing my thoughts for you. That might take a couple days, as I would prefer to share all my comments at once. If you don't hear from me, that means I'm working on it.
 * The GA review backlog is between 2 and 3 months. I think it is important to get that done and an opportunity to get some solid feedback. I think it would behoove you to list it at WP:GAN but then invite someone really good to do it. I would start with User:Malleus Fatuorum, as he is a brilliant editor, hangs out at GAN, I suspect is interested in liberal politics, and is known for being blunt to the point of painful. I don't know if he will do it, but if so, he's your guy. I have other thoughts if he declines.
 * I will start reaching out today to folks on the Philosophy and Politics projects. You should reach out to some of those folks, too. I would suggest significant contributors to any of the related articles in the Liberalism navbox, or any of their reviewers, as useful contributors to a peer review.
 * I will also reach out to some philosophical minds who are not on Wikipedia but do know their stuff. That should be very interesting.
 * Peer review 2 is closed but the bot has not cleaned up the page yet. Go ahead and open a new review if it will let you.
 * Finally, if you are going to be making a lot of changes while the reviews are going on, you might want to hive the working version off to user space. Instability would be a quick fail at GA, and will annoy people trying to do a peer review.

--Nasty Housecat (talk) 17:52, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. SandyGeorgia knows better than me. Yes, let's keep the talk here. I'm watching. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

John Maynard Keynes
Concerning this conversation on my talk page. I agree with your reasoning. However, per the MOS, the lead should summarize the body of the article; topics should not be introduced into the lead if they are not in the body. Currently, there is nothing in the article about Keynes' impact on modern liberalism. Perhaps you could add write a paragraph or two on this topic? I think adding it to the legacy section would be appropriate. Thanks, LK (talk) 10:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * That's great. Thanks for the quick response! LK (talk) 04:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church
Try it if you want; I hope it works. Just to be clear, I'm not giving you or anyone a pass to edit war or edit disruptively. Tom Harrison Talk 02:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * One day? You're not getting off that easy. Three hours off is the most you can have... Tom Harrison Talk 02:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I meant maximum block time, with the humorous implication it would be a vacation - keep forgetting to use those humor tags. Probably shouldn't joke about blocks, but I'm assuming you'll keep it under control and it won't be necessary. Really, I'd probably just politely ask you to stop if it looked like it was going badly. Tom Harrison Talk 03:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

24 hours is standard for a first 3rr violation, but as far as I know there isn't a minimum block length. Blocks are preventative rather than punitive, and so it seems to me the shortest block should be used that can reasonably be expected to work. Often it gives me the contributor's attention; then if he will agree to stop I unblock. Tom Harrison Talk 03:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

THANK YOU. Karanacs (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying to fix this page, it is long overdue!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:13, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi UberCryxic, just left message for you at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Catholic_Church#My_plans Best wishes. Haldraper (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see your edits, but you make some rather puzzling omissions. Why does your version say nothing about the opposition of the Catholic church to abortion, and to homosexuality, while retaining their opposition to artificial birth control? Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:24, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Uber, I appreciate what you are trying to do, but the change you have proposed I simply can't vote for it. In all fairness, I have to vote based on what you've proposed, not on what may or may not happen down the road. Had you included these things in the first place, I'd probably vote for it. Right now, I feel that your change makes the article much weaker, and that's simply unacceptable given all the hard work that has gone into Catholic church to get it to the point prior to your proposed edit. I understand that the article does need to be trimmed, just that you've trimmed out essential information that needs to be there. Benkenobi18 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

There are too many errors that would immediately have to be corrected. I understand that the page needs to be trimmed down, but the cost, losing GA status and all the work involved to get your edit up to the standards that the article currentlyBenkenobi18 (talk) 18:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

John Birch Society
I do not understand why you consider these sources to be reliable for the John Birch Society, when academic sources like the Routledge companion to the far right, the Southern Poverty Law Center and law enforcement distinguish between the far right and less extreme groups in the radical right. In addition to being poor scholarship, my concern is that it trivializes the concept of the far right. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Caution
Hi UberCryxic. I think you ought to wait a few days before implementing your version. The straw poll has not been open very long, and it would be best to give it some more time to solidify the support. I think Tom had recommended 5 or 6 days? (It was on the article talk page.) Karanacs (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I just read Tom's posts at ANI and the article talk page, and I think you are misinterpreting. He appears to be declaring the straw poll invalid because Nancy and Xandar are blocked, not declaring that any set of arguments has prevailed.  I suspect your changes will be reverted immediately when Xandar's block expires; it would probably be best to wait until after they come back and continue the poll. Karanacs (talk) 22:51, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've commented on talk. We may assume Xandar's and Nancy's vote; but even so they are a minority. If they can produce genuine consensus for anything they would change back, fine.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Doubling
Good faith seemed obvious. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:04, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That should be interesting. Fortunately (?), I will have limited WP time the next few days. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been on this article for a week; I've been on it a few months; Karanacs for a long time - ask her. From your mouth to God's ear... but He's often deaf, especially when it comes to the misbehavior of individuals. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church
First of all, it may be of note to you that Wikipedia is not a democracy (thank goodness, very mediocre system). Straw polls by flyby users are not binding. A consensus is reached through the dicussion of rationale. Several users, including my self and Benkenobi18 have raised issues with some of the bold, POV innovations, that you have placed into the article. As well as the haphazzard cutting of important parts, which suggests an unfamiliarity (outside of masonic caricatures) in regards to the subject of the article. You have yet to fully address these yet grave concerns and so WP:BRD must be followed. You were bold, I reverted, now discuss on the talk with myself and Benekenobi in the relevent sections to try and gain a consensus. - Yorkshirian (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are editing warring. What is worse, is that you're putting your hands over your ears and pretending that WP:BRD policy doesn't have to be followed. According to the talkpage of Tom Harrison, you think working on the article of the Catholic Church is a "battle" to be "won" (presumably "winning" means a hatched-job from the polemical talkpage comments).


 * But no sorry, there are many open grave issues raised on the talk, including by myself and Benkenobi18, which you have yet to properly address first. I agree with you on some of the sytlistic points and am not against cutting the article down (we certainly need a smaller article). I disagree strongly with many of the POV and uninformed cuts you are making, as do other users. You're going to have to actually learn about the Church first and dicuss before appointing yourself as "glorious chairman" of what is relevent to the Catholic Church. I suggest entering the open discussions on the talk and try to gain a consensus, particularly answer each of the points raised in regards to Church history by Benkenobi18 and myself. - Yorkshirian (talk) 00:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

CC
Hi UC, would you mind posting to the centralized page so that everyone can follow? Otherwise we'll all lose track. Cheers, SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs

Social liberalism
I restored an earlier version because the changes no longer reflected the sources. If you want to put in the Jonah Goldberg view that Churchill was a leftist, just make sure that the text reflects the sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Churchill was a progressive - in 1904. ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

again...
I didn't, that was yorkshirian, I support the inclusion of the term Far-Right with the appropriate style and referencing which i agree was correctly followed in the lead (even though I would personally disagree). You can't tell me what I can and cannot edit, especially when you recently made the descision to include the word "extremist" in the lead without consensus or even citation. DharmaDreamer (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I've replied on the talk page, seems like we're close to closing the debate finally.DharmaDreamer (talk) 19:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Politically motivated, far-left, POV
Your innovation is in violation of the WP:NPOV policy (recurring theme?) and the WP:EXTREMIST policy. You are once again attempting to mould Wikipedia to try and fit in with your personal ideology, when you have no consensus. I can easily find sources which describe the United States Government as "extremist", Obama a "communist" and George W Bush a "fascist", yet this would be a violation of our NPOV policy. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Diff, Yorkshirian? I'm not sure exactly which edits you dispute and just want some clarity.  Thanks. Perhaps we could take this to the article talk? Karanacs (talk) 20:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Different article, not about the Church. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

A quick Google search reveals 195,000 results for "Obama is an extremist", 1,270,000 for "Obama is a communist" and 3,830,000 for "Obama is a racist". If you think that these phrases can't be found in the mainstream media or any published source (ie - newspaper, television media or books) then you're in for a shock. The point I'm trying to get across is, such rhetroic is not NPOV and does not belong in the mainspace of project which has objectivity as its central policy. Wikipedia is not bias in favour of bourgeoisie egalitarian politics, the NPOV policy has no exceptions. The hatchet-job won't stand. - Yorkshirian (talk) 20:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * So what you're saying is, we can ignore mainstream sources, if you disagree with their content and you're even crying "neutrality" when it comes to Obama now. But anything beyond Enlightenment fundamentalism—that which is outside of what you consider the doctrine of progress and enlightenment—is heretical and thus its open season, we can just discard neutrality? No, doesn't work that way. I am not seriously suggesting that we change the article on Obama to say that he is a racist and a communist (even though thousands of mainstream media references asserting this can easily be found), what I am trying to demonstrate and show is that, the same standard of absolute neutrality on Wikipedia is non negotiable and extends to all articles, across the board, regardless of whether or not you personally like their views. - Yorkshirian (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

BNP
The far right terminology was not my idea. I found it when I came to the article, and I would ask that you go back and place it there yourself since I'm not in the mood for an  edit war. UBER ( talk ) 21:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you don't like them have you considered getting yourself a blog. Off2riorob (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have time for your red herrings. You changed a controversial part of the article that I never touched, and then you accused me for creating the mess. Yorkshirian was the one who removed 'far-right' from the lead and it deserves to go back in until we come to some sort of consensus in the talk page. UBER  ( talk ) 21:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Give over, if you don't like them get a blog, you don't like them do you ? wikipedia needs for respect an educational article please consider that aspect of policy. I don't like things but I want wikipedia to represent them from an NPOV position for educational purposes for children's education. Off2riorob (talk) 21:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion of them is absolutely irrelevant, but I'm flattered that you're asking for it anyway! Those that do matter (you know, those people called political scientists) have various ways they describe the party, however, and their characterizations need to be prominently displayed in the lead. UBER  ( talk ) 21:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your personal opinion of them affects your editing and makes it destructive. I am not flattering you at all, far from it. Off2riorob (talk) 21:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok rob, since you want to drag me into the mud and have a nice heart-to-heart chat: what is your personal opinion of them? I'm waiting on pins and needles. UBER ( talk ) 21:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC) Stop edit warring and leave that well-accepted sentence in the lead. Do not make this any more difficult than it already is. UBER ( talk ) 21:49, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this a project you are doing for school? Off2riorob (talk) 21:57, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop wasting my time and see this. UBER ( talk ) 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I work on issues beyond my personal bias, please consider similar editing, the wikipedia will be the winner. 22:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Duly noted. UBER  ( talk ) 22:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

3RR note
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing at BNP. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Extreme cliams
Please take this as a final warning, your repeated assertion and additions to the BLP article claiming that they are white supremacists is an extreme position and not the type of addition that is worthy of entry into the lede of the article, possibly not at all, but that is another issue, please do insert it again. Off2riorob (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

First of all, stop threatening me. If you're hoping to intimidate me by dropping those bombshells in my talk page, you're  pursuing the wrong path. You removed a reference from a reputable scholar calling the party white  supremacist. I will find more references from said scholars, since you requested them, and will also include them in the lead sentence. Please do not tamper with them in the future. UBER ( talk ) 23:20, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I also forgot to mention: WP:BLP pertains, per its name, to biographies. And it also doesn't matter if the people in the party don't call themselves white supremacists. Wikipedia prefers reliable secondary sources to potentially deceptive primary ones. UBER ( talk ) 23:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I have asked you here and there in edit summaries, but you don;t appear to have understood..so ..

'''Please do not post on my talkpage again, thanks. ''' Off2riorob (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

BNP article
Well techincally changing a comma to a full stop is changing the content, but that's quite petty. I didn't change the substance of the content, simply reqorded it to avoid going contrary to WP:LABEL, it still maintains the claim that they are far right and nationalist, maybe you mistook yorkshirians removal of the white supremacy claim and thought it was me? Actually looking at my edit i did add the content of "though the party disputes this" but you only just claimed on my talk page you'd be fine with it? and i included a ciation DharmaDreamer (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Lol you complain about my spelling then have to quickly change your message. The British National Party are nationalist. Fact. Neither the BNP, nor their opponents and as far as I'm aware anyone at all dispute this. There is universal consensus. Far Right however is a label that is disputed. As to you suggesting that6 I revert yorkshirians edit. I've been lured into that one before, Pushing me over the 3rr barrier while leaving the other guy below it. Anyway I haven't suggested it with you but would you consider Mediation? (Either Cabal or Formal mediation) The last people I had the bnp dsipute with simply refused mediation claiming there was consensus ignoring 1/3 of the people in discusion. Maybe if they had agreed we wouldn't even be in this situation. Im sure the others would agree to it, what do you think? DharmaDreamer (talk) 00:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Calling it a day
I think people underestimate mediation but oh well. I think what we have now is acceptable and I'd support it After 2 weeks of edit warring I'm not gogin to nitpick, what we have now should be acceptable to both sides i think. DharmaDreamer (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Including fascism in the infobox was subject to a long edit war if i remember rightly. I don't think its fair for fascism to be included in its ideology as in reality it clearly isn't, however that fact that it has often been to compared to fasicm should be ntoed in the article if it isn't already but I dont think the lead is appropriate, Racism is a definate no-no. If you read WP:LABEL. Racism is the example they give. I don't know how much you follow the party. I see you're from the USA so I doubt you have daily news updates on them, (correct me if im wrong) but even their opponents wouldn't call them white supremacists. DharmaDreamer (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I always assumed on wikipedia, the purpose of citations was for evidence, people often critises wikipedia for being unreliable so I thought the reason was as a defence for people making stuff up. Therefore a citation should be used to prove a fact. A scholars view should be given due wight and be metioned whereever possible, but even scholars have bias and what they say cannot be passed of as facts, merely evidence supporting a claim. On another more personal note, I was just looking over your userboxs and saw you supported affirmative action. Just out of curiosity why is this, I won't flame you or anything I have just never really understood that point of view. DharmaDreamer (talk) 00:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an area where WP:RS conflicts with NPOV, and there are ways of reworking to ensure that both are satisfied. Would you condone the phrase "The Ku Klux Klan is a racist organisation" with all relevent academic referenced etc? I've already seen concern with one of the editors, preston i think yorkshirian had concerns with. I'll review the others tomorrow morning when i've had some sleep. The BNP are not white supremacists, (POV but one widly held) so certinaly shouldn't get much weight. A mention I have no concern with but labelings and libeling issues can still come from it. DharmaDreamer (talk) 00:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

This shows how you misunderstand, I mean don't get me wrong, I would say that the KKK is a racist organisation but you've just said you agree with the statement that is used as the example on WP:Words to Avoid LABEL '''Such terms, even when accurate, often convey to readers an implied viewpoint: that of outsiders looking in and labeling as they see it. The fact that a term is accepted "outside" but not "inside" is a good indicator that it may not be neutral''' Far right is a term accepted on the outside but not on the inside. I'm just following guidelines which you are ignoring. not only the guildline, but the exact example you disagree with. DharmaDreamer (talk) 01:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Exatly why I proposed mediation, sleep on the idea at least, GoodNight Uber. DharmaDreamer (talk) 01:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC) It's not about what you include i'm against, it the style with which you write it. That KKK example on WP:LABEL, the two prhases mean exactly the same thing but one is presented POV and one NPOV, I've said I'd accept Far Right, and even the unincluded Extreme term, provided you write it in a NPOV manner, White Supremacy I'd disagree with entirly however, but thats another matter. DharmaDreamer (talk) 01:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not think it is necessary to say "identified by political scientists". And since they are already called "far right", extremist may be redundant.  The RfC was over moderating their "extreme views".  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Catholic_Church
I have proposed that the current GAR is closed and that EyeSerene and I open a new GAR. Would you have any objection to the proposal?  SilkTork  *YES! 17:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Military history of France FAR initiated
nominated Military history of France for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Johnbod (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Lib Dems
In fact other editors agreed that the Liberal Democrats were not left-wing. You have a Manichaen view of the world - red flag-waving leftists and right-wing fascists but most people do not belong to either group. Ironically the BNP supporters have a similiar view. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:46, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * P.S. I provided a source on social liberalism, please read the talk pages. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You said, "you seem to be in categorical denial when it comes to identifying any strand of liberalism as belonging either to the left or to some part of the left". Well liberalism is not left-wing, capitalism is not left-wing, imperialism is not left-wing.  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, Sam Blacketer, Snowded and Hal Draper agreed the Liberal Democrats were centrist, while you, Sparrowhawk and Fences thought they were center-left. Timrollpickering questioned your understanding of left-right. Parties that oppose both big business and big labor are normally seen as centrist - opposed to both left and right.  Mind you, you live in a part of the world where views that are considered moderate in the rest of world are seen as far left.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Where we live does affect how we view the political spectrum. If the only significant parties where you live present two versions of liberalism then you might view them as left and right, while people in other countries might reserve these terms for socialists and conservatives.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:43, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

(out) Why did you place the comment "but you're not sourcing your own version of the lead....how can you remove clearly referenced material???" The lead you replaced was fully sourced unlike your replacement which is original research. Also, are you aware that more than one question mark is grammatically incorrect??? The Four Deuces (talk) 01:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you say my lead is not sourced? It is sourced - please name anything that is not.  However, your lead contains at least one unsourced sentence, it does not reflect the sources and is synthesis.  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:00, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The lead I wrote is fully sourced. Here is a link to a summary of the original source.  If you do not agree with the lead then you should provide another source.  You may not agree with De Ruggiero or Richardson, but you cannot substitute your own views.  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:21, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You may find it "scary" that I would use The History of European Liberalism as a source, but the source you provide (Richardson) uses this same book as a major source for early social liberal theory. The other source you provide, Social policy, says, "Social liberals were not out to ensure complete social equality, but to secure a national minimum for every citizen...."  (It also assumed a dependent status for women.)  But it is better to use the source relied in this book, Ideology and Social Welfare, "The reluctant collectivists", (George and Wilding, 1985).  I think in this article and others it is important to identify good sources then accurately reflect what they say.  You may believe that social liberalism is egalitarian, but the impetus was freedom (hence "positive freedom"), which is why traditional English Conservatives were willing to accept the policies.  I really do not know why you are using the terms OR and weasal.  Nothing in the lead I wrote was original research.  Every single sentenced was sourced and there were no weasal words.  I will look at your new version and comment later.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they used the term freedom, not liberty. Rick Norwood's objection to the earlier lead was using jargon, but it should mention freedom.  If you remember that lead, it called social liberalism a "reformulation of 19th century liberalism".  Perhapw we could add an introductory sentence.  The Four Deuces (talk) 17:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Uber, thought you might find this interesting: This Lib Dem Myth. Haldraper (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Stop edit warring/trolling
On the Catholic Church article, you're doing it again. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong, Haldraper undid the trim down I did yesterday morning in the history section, to give undue weight to relations between Church and Third Reich, which are far from the most notable point from the era. Haldraper has no "consensus" since he hasn't even discussed it, just reverted it because it wasn't anti-Catholic. The section specifically on the titles of the Pope, was agreed on by Majoreditor on the talk as well (even Septentrionalis admits "mention of Catholic useage should be unobjectionable"). - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is absolutely no section on the talk to explain his medling. - Yorkshirian (talk) 03:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Party
I would like to work with you on this page but you should really take things to discussion if you want to initiate major changes. You were incredibly antagonistic and at times rude to others when we were editing the Liberal Democrat article and I hope that you're not going to do the same thing on this page. I'm fine calling the party center-left but it also has large centrist elements and is not a solely center-left party. I think it parallels the Lib Dems in that respect as well. The discussion page, and archives for the page, discuss this topic at great length. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 03:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I would certainly be open to calling them a "centrist to center-left political party" minus "modern liberal" since modern liberal still implies the party is entirely on the left. Both the Democratic and Republican parties are liberal in the sense of largely free markets, democracy, free speech, freedom of the press etc. but Modern liberalism in the United States and Social liberalism wouldn't be entirely appropriate to link to. I think ideological labels have largely been avoided on either party page in the lead because of the possibility of extremely contentious arguments and edit wars. I think if we put "centrist to center-left" that it should be towards the end of the first paragraph like the Republican Party page. Sparrowhawk64 (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!
Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Military history of France during World War II
Military history of France during World War II seems to be in poor repair these days. I'm working on a different article at the moment, but wonder if you might be interested in partnering for a good re-write of this article at some point in the future. At the moment, the article is extremely long (>150 Kbytes, longer than comparable articles for the U.S., U.K., and Germany), suffers from poor organization of material, is in bad need of copyediting after a recent cycle of edits, and allocates disproportionate attention to some matters while barely mentioning others. It is too bad, because I find this a significant topic and its Wikipedia article should be in better shape. Let me know if you're interested in a collaborative endeavor at some point. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * May sounds good, I have a lot on my plate at the moment. Thanks! Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikiproject Albania
I think that you can really help improve Wikiproject Albania with your huge experience in wikipedia .-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 11:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree and I really thank you for joining it. Jam i nderuar! --sulmues (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Ideologically driven reversal of edits
''This will be my last message on your talk page for now. What you are doing is misinterpreting reputable sources (as in traditional marriage) or ignoring them entirely (as in Liberal Democrats, which are clearly identified as centrist or center-left by numerous political scientists). On top of the page I advised above, I would also take a look at WP:RS, which informs you about properly sourcing content. Have a good day.UBER (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)''

There can be no misinterpreting of a definition that is written in clear English, nor of its restatement of objective fact. I posted the quote on the discussion page. You shouldn't lecture anyone on proper sourcing if you are using an appeal to authority ("numerous political scientists") to prove your assertion. 63.228.0.154 (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Please stop your disruptive editing. Do not continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Traditional marriage and Same-sex marriage. Thank you for your cooperation. 63.228.0.154 (talk) 23:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Traditional marriage
You are editing this "article" based upon your personal, political opinions - and I quote you directly: "Per this article, it's American right-wing propaganda". That is a political bias, and interferes with the objective, factual definition of traditional marriage - that being one of between a man and a women. You have evidenced your own direct violation of the often-quoted NPOV rule. You are in violation of that rule. It is you who fail to practice the rules you are sanctimoniously lecturing me about. YOU are refusing to follow your own rules. You are a damned hypocrite. 63.228.0.154 (talk) 02:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Tasbian
FYI, please see Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church research?
Hi UberCryxic, per this, I'm going to start doing research in earnest for this article. I was never willing to do much before because it's too hard fighting Nancy. Now I'm ticked, so I'm going to get books and out-research the pants off her. Can you help - either on the history section or beliefs? We need to get moving and get this article in shape before Bad Things happen to it. Karanacs (talk) 03:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Progress Party (Norway)
Progress Party facist?, i think you are wrong in your claim. Seeing that i'm a member of the Socialist Left Party of Norway i'm just bringing a neutral point of view into the discussion. The writer of the article (Gabagool) will probably remove it anyhow. --TIAYN (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've replied to your comment on the Progress Party talk page. --TIAYN (talk) 18:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No its bullshit. If you are not a sociopath, you should have taken the hint from the endless stream of correcting your bias on your talk page here long ago. -TheG (talk) 19:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to edit the mere copyedits, but please do this in a separate edit. It is also obviously somewhat hard to provide non-Norwegian sources for the subject in question. (Btw, do you really have to make a new edit for removing each mere punctuation mark? Please make larger edits or else you are unnecessarily messing up the article's edit history.) -TheG (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing Liberalism and History of Liberalism
Salam, I have just read these article and I'm going to review them. I think you've done nice attempt but they should improve. I'm busy in real life thus I tell my suggestions one by one. In addition, I'm not a native speaker, thus I ask another reviewer to check it whenever the ather problems have been solved.-- Seyyed(t-c) 11:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Revert on liberalism in America, please explain
I was wondering why you reverted my edit in the Modern liberalism in the United States article. The information presented was nearly 5 years old and talking about "recent" events from that time. I updated it showing that newer polls (that were sourced) showed that the trends from that time have reversed themselves. You gave no reason for reverting. I'm going to assume good faith and state that it wasn't partisanship, but I would like an explaination or I will revert back to my updated edit. Thanks. Rapier1 (talk) 21:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC
I agree that the situation is far from ideal, but Nancy has a right to post an RfC, and those of us who asked her at least to wait were not able to persuade her otherwise. The usual thing with an article RfC is that the version that gains consensus is inserted (subject to it being policy-compliant), so I'd urge you not to boycott it but to make your case, and hope that good sense will prevail in whatever direction it takes us. Also bear in mind that consensus isn't decided by numbers alone, but by argument. At the end of the RfC, unless the outcome is obvious, what will probably happen is that a number of experienced, uninvolved editors and admins will have to decide what the consensus is. As I said, far from ideal, but it's not clear what else can be done. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 00:21, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, bear in mind that you can say whatever you want in your own section&mdash;you don't have to buy into the description of the dispute as posted by others. You can post a section that says, "this RfC is a complete waste of time" if you want, and if people agree they'll endorse it. Not that I'm suggesting you do that, mind you. My point is just that the person who initiates the RfC doesn't get to control its direction. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 00:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Uber, could I ask you please to remove this post of yours? It's a form of canvassing, and it's the kind of thing I've been asking Nancy not to do. It would be great if both sides could lead by example. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 16:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I see you've edited since I requested this, but didn't refactor your post. Could I ask you please to reconsider that? We can't ask Nancy not to canvass if we're going to allow other people to do it, and asking editors to boycott the RfC boils down to canvassing because it's something that could affect the RfC's outcome and legitimacy. I'm reluctant to refactor it for you because there are parts of it that are arguably okay, so I'd prefer if you could do it yourself. Cheers, SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 20:47, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Uber, I agree with SlimVirgin. There is canvassing, IMO and also personal attacks, such as the following: "What Nancy is doing with this RFC is gaming the policies and the processes of Wikipedia precisely so she can undermine and destroy them". Would you please remove this post? Sunray (talk) 01:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for removing it, Uber. SlimVirgin  TALK  contribs 03:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Just so you know, your last edit with popups seemed to have a bit of an error, it added some extra text. I've seen this happen before but I don't quite remember what the solution for it was. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 05:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, I just thought you'd like to know :) r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Rick checking in
I just wanted you to know that I haven't gone away. I'm following your work on Liberalism, and occasionally added a small bit or reverted a vandal, but mostly I've tried to get out of your way. If, however, you want to assign me a task, I'll be happy to work on something. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Rollback
Uber, I'd normally be happy to add rollback rights, but if I were to do it for one of the parties in the CC dispute, someone would doubtless claim that it signaled a lack of neutrality. I'm sure just about any admin would add them for you, but if no one has done it by the time this dispute is resolved, please ask me again. SlimVirgin TALK  contribs 16:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Party
Arzel (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Catlick page
I always feel stupid replying on my own talk page...I completely understand what you're saying regarding that template. However, this happens to be Holy Week and ironically you would never know this from any versions of that article over the past 4 years, but it is the most important week in the Church calendar. Do I anticipate droves of holy Catholics looking up the wiki page as a result? Not really. Yet, there will be other users rightfully confused by what is there and what is lacking. Hence, Nancy and Xandar want to post NPOV tags, etc. I just want folks to realize when they hit the page this week, that the article is not "set in stone" and if anything it will reduce the "tag warring". I'd have no problem taking the template down next Monday, just think there should be something in place alerting readers that the page is undergoing some work and is more or less in a state of flux. That template seems to satisfy 95% of the criteria without as you said being "controversial".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Signature
Hi UberCyxic! I saw your signature on AN/I. I don't know if you are aware of him, but there is also User:UBeR, and your current signature invites a mixup. Would you mind changing it a bit to avoid that risk? Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yellow is a colour associated with a number of liberal parties
Yellow is a colour associated with a number of liberal parties, that is why it is being used, blue is for conservatism. Blue is rare for liberals, blue is used by Democratic Party in the US which is liberal and the Liberal Party of Australia (even though it is effectively a conservative party), but blue is associated with conservatism in the United Kingdom, Canada, as well as a number of other conservative parties such as the Kuomintang of the Republic of China, the Serbian Radical Party and others.--R-41 (talk) 01:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You may view yellow as ugly, but that is your opinion. The yellow is meant to make the template distinct from other templates. Blue is officially associated with conservatism in the United Kingdom and Canada and many other conservative parties in the world also use blue. Perhaps the shade of yellow could be changed?--R-41 (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

GA reviews
Hi, Notice to my last comments on History of liberalism. -- Seyyed(t-c) 04:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest working on history first, due to the fact that history section of the main on article can be improved easier in this way.-- Seyyed(t-c) 04:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me, I was too busy this weak and have little time to participate. Please be patient, Reviewing is time consuming process. One of those reviewers who is a native speaker should review the first criteria(Is it reasonably well written?) and clearly notify that it is accepted. I will add my comments as soon as possible.-- Seyyed(t-c) 07:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have failed the nomination for History of liberalism as the reviewer appears to have given up and no progress has been made on the citations needed. Please renominate at GAN when the issues have been fixed. The queues there are relatively short and a new reviewer will take on the nomination. –– Jezhotwells (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism/IP Address
Hi UberCryxic, I'm using this computer on a shared IP address (65.246.161.26), and I have a user account. I just recieved this message when I logged on to the computer, but I am not the one vandalizing Wikipedia, however I don't know who it is, so I don't know how to stop it. My question is, if this keeps going on and the IP address gets blocked, will I be unable to use wikipedia from this computer even if I'm on under my account? Xylogirl07 (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Albania: From TF under Europe to Wikiproject
You might want to see this discussion that I started and give your opinion. Thank you for your contributions to the Albania Wikiproject! --sulmues talk contributions 11:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Science
Science "In general, science is not the mathematical description of nature. An observation of bird migratory patterns can qualify as science without involving any mathematics. You can discuss your proposed changes in the talk page of the article if you so wish.UBER (talk) 20:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)"

In general it is, whether or not you realize it, and growing up in Los Alamos (admittedly surrounded by physicists, not library scientists) I often heard this definition used. Humans have observed migratory bird migratory patterns for tens of thousands of years, but the observation of bird migratory patterns is not a scientific observation without reference to methods (statistics and coordinates) that have in the last two hundred years become part of the body of mathematics. Science embodies mathematics. Voronwae (talk) 21:32, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)
The March 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:47, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

IAR
I was actually in the process of making a comment on the talk page when you messaged me. I still think they are center-left however. Would you agree to change the Repub article to say they are 'far-right' from a world standpoint? I am simply editing from the aspect of an American; if that is wrong, tell me. Also, I never knew IAR was that controversial to be used. :)

Off-topic :I would like to know what you used IAR on; that seems kind of interesting. :)

 TN  05  00:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Mediation Case
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Genesis Creation Myth has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Genesis Creation Myth and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, Weaponbb7 (talk)

I think your an honest editor but frankly the only reason there was no RFC was due to the fact the previous RFC was a stalemate thus mediation occured.Weaponbb7 (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review of liberalism
Hi, I wrote some new comments. All of them relate to history section, thus you can use them to improve History of liberalism as well.-- Seyyed(t-c) 02:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * When you say most country did something and don't specify your source, that's your personal judgment and against WP:OR. For example, the source of Most nations that emerged from the Great Depression did so with deficit spending and strong intervention from the state is not clear.
 * In addition, I don't want bother you. If you disagree with my review I can ask another reviewer to come and check the article. However please don't remove my tags.-- Seyyed(t-c) 07:08, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

FAR for Military history of France
Hi UberCryxic, I've left some comments at Featured article review/Military history of France/archive1. Please take a look when you get a chance. Please accept my apologies if they are not the type of comments required on a FAR, as I've not really had much input with these yet, but felt the review needed a bit more participation. Anyway, see you around. Cheers. — AustralianRupert (talk) 05:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Number of Catholics
Hi Uber, I share your wariness at taking the Vatican's estimate of the number of Catholics as 1.666 bn at face value, however it's from the same source as all the other figures quoted on the page, the Pontifical Yearbook, including all the ones in the Membership section. Haldraper (talk) 08:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Script use
Do you see the script error? Gimmetrow 02:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Please do not remove "citation needed" tag in Liberalism article!
Points your attention to the fact that citation is ALWAYS needed for all fact-statements, regardless of whether they're controversial or not. Please do not remove "citation needed" tags when no citation is provided, as you did in this edit. Thank you, Maysara (talk) 04:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : L (April 2010)
The April 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 20:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Lib Dems
Hi Uber, what do you make of the Lib Dem/Conservative coalition? Alot of my liberal friends who voted for them specifically to keep the Conservatives out of government are guilt-stricken. I voted Labour so have a clear conscience :-) Haldraper (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI:Battle of Austerlitz
Greetings UberCryxic! I was browsing through Battle of Austerlitz just now and noticed a broken citation link, namely, No. 42 (Austerlitz videogame). I wouldn't even dream of touching it since it is way outside my sphere of knowledge, but it looks like it might be time for it to be updated. Waygugin (talk) 10:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback at WP Albania
--  S undefined ulmues (talk) 15:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Notice
Hi. Your input on the length of the Catholic Church article would be welcome at Talk:Catholic Church. —  Jeff G. ツ  21:32, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Project
You may want to review this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albania. Take care. --  S ulmues (talk) 22:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LIII (July 2010)
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Progress Party (Norway)
You may be interested in participating in improvements to Progress Party (Norway), based on the latest GA review that I have commenced here: Talk:Progress Party (Norway)/GA2. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The Milhist election has started!
The Military history WikiProject coordinator election has started. You are cordially invited to help pick fourteen new coordinators from a pool of twenty candidates. This time round, the term has increased from six to twelve months so it is doubly important that you have your say! Please cast your vote here no later than 23:59 (UTC) on Tuesday, 28 September 2010.

With many thanks in advance for your participation from the coordinator team,  Roger Davies  talk 19:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Church
Hello UberCryxic, Can you please point me to your version of this article? Thanks.Malke 2010 (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Volume LVIX, January 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 16:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LX, February 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Michael Jackson - Early life and The Jackson 5 (1958–1975)
Joe Jackson (manager)I am by no means a music buff. I found your edit in Michael Jackon's article saying that his father was a member of the R&B group The Falcons. Was Joseph Walter Jackson a member of The Falcons or of The Ford Falcons? Are they the same band? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gandrayda (talk • contribs) 18:59, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXI, March 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXII, April 2011
To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIII, May 2011
To begin or stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:42, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

UOJComm (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Brigade des Forces Spéciales Terre logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Brigade des Forces Spéciales Terre logo.jpg. 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 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).

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. Skier Dude ( talk ) 05:40, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Knowledge Network: Invitation to participate in our closed beta
Hello!

My name is Gabriel, and I represent a startup company called Planeto (http://planeto.com).

We are currently developing a new type of community we call the Planeto Knowledge Network.

We all have knowledge and interests in various forms, of different topics and areas. We might even be experts at something. Our Knowledge Network is an attempt to gather and connect people who have a passion, and would love to share that passion by communicating their insights and knowledge with other people with similar interests.

I noticed your activity on the Liberalism topic here on Wikipedia, and thought you might be a nice candidate to join the invite-only beta and manage a domain of knowledge regarding Liberalism, which you seem quite proficient in!

Sounds appealing? Send me a mail to gabriel@planeto.com and I'll invite you to our closed beta!

Have a nice day :)

Zedekiel (talk) 08:21, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:55, 28 November 2011 (UTC)