Hubbardc
Welcome!
editHello, Hubbardc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.
There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Teahouse, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{help me}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
- Starting an article
- Your first article
- Biographies of living persons
- How to write a great article
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Help pages
- Tutorial
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
March 2015
edit
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. The material you removed here was RS-cited; also, you incorrectly called it vandalism in your edit summary. Epeefleche (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- This citation is from a source that is unreliable for encyclopedic content. Additionally, the language in this citation is not appropriate for encyclopedic content. Perhaps this should be discussed in the article's talk page, but a source in the introductory part of a Wikipedia article that says someone is a "straight up asshole" is absolutely not appropriate.--→Hubbardc→Talk to me!→ 03:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Hubbardc
- Why is it "unreliable"? What indicia of an RS does it fail to have? And you can't just "assert" a phrase is not encyclopedic. We have hundreds of articles with that phrase, including many in the title of the article. If it appears in an RS, it is appropriate. You can't impose your own POV over that of what the RSs say, to delete either laudatory language or the opposite. We follow the RSs. Not individual editor POV. (BTW, if that offends your POV, you will certainly not be happy about all the images on wikipedia of that part of the anatomy).
- This citation is from a source that is unreliable for encyclopedic content. Additionally, the language in this citation is not appropriate for encyclopedic content. Perhaps this should be discussed in the article's talk page, but a source in the introductory part of a Wikipedia article that says someone is a "straight up asshole" is absolutely not appropriate.--→Hubbardc→Talk to me!→ 03:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Hubbardc
- Plus, it is completely inappropriate for you to have deleted it with the edit summary "vandalism." Epeefleche (talk) 04:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please continue this discussion in Talk:Justin Amash. Mother Jones is not a reliable, nonpartisan source. I must admit, the "vandalism" comment in hindsight was not appropriate. That said, this does not justify the inclusion of a pundit calling someone an "asshole" on the front page of a Member of Congress's article. →Hubbardc→Talk to me!→ 04:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Hubbardc
- Tx for your comment about your use of the word vandalism. As to your other point -- it is not the comment of a pundit. That's a misrepresentation. It's a reflection by a reporter -- as clearly stated -- of what "some in the GOP establishment just straight up say". And there is support for that, reflected in a number of other RSs. Epeefleche (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
- Please continue this discussion in Talk:Justin Amash. Mother Jones is not a reliable, nonpartisan source. I must admit, the "vandalism" comment in hindsight was not appropriate. That said, this does not justify the inclusion of a pundit calling someone an "asshole" on the front page of a Member of Congress's article. →Hubbardc→Talk to me!→ 04:14, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Hubbardc
The Right Stuff June 2018
edit
By Lionelt
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)By Lionelt
After a series of unfortunate events largely self-created, bureaucrat and admin Andrevan 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 Winkelvi and the notorious MONGO.
Editors who faced Enforcement action include SPECIFICO (no action), Factchecker atyourservice (three month topic ban ARBAPDS), Netoholic (no action) and Anythingyouwant (indef topic ban ARBAPDS). (Discuss this story)By Lionelt
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)By Lionelt
- 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
edit By Lionelt
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)By Lionelt
Margaret Thatcher is the first article promoted at the new WikiProject Conservatism A-Class review. Congratulations to Neveselbert. 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)By Lionelt
Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos
 | Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. There is more info on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org. |
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: 09:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)