User talk:Dezidor

Lidove Noviny[edit]

Please contribute to the discussion page of Lidove Noviny, since I challenged your statements.--Desyman44 (talk) 13:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009[edit]

Thank you for making a report about 207.216.204.119 (talk · contribs · block log) on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you! Toddst1 (talk) 22:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Dezidor! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 951 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

Milan Nakonečný - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ballot Paper Order[edit]

Dezidor just a note to remind you that when editing election boxes for the 2010 UK election it is Wikipedia policy to place all candidates in the order they appear on the ballot paper, that is to say alphabetically by surname. Thank you - Galloglass 20:31, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw many boxes sorted by party name. I have no intention to solve it. Can you give me link to that Wikipedia policy. --Dezidor (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV Sorting by party would of course place the same party at the top of the box all the time, which would fall foul of several policies, not least that of bias. - Galloglass 05:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believed that you mean some special policy. Sorting by candidate surname also place some candidates at the top of the box all the time. And what is more in proportional voting systems you have only names of the parties (or coalitions). I have no intention to start revert war but when I add one candidate nobody could force me to sort another candidates by different order. --Dezidor (talk) 08:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies[edit]

Sorry about that Dezidor. I was reverting several that were just blog links and assumed the 3 wigan seats were simply blogs references as the first 4 were that the editor had used. I did'nt check (as I should have done) as the previous revert editor is normally spot on. When I did check some minutes later I reverted my own edit on Wigan constituency to restore your own. I should also have removed the message here but due to the lateness of the hour, forgot all about it. Once again apologies. - Galloglass 09:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Versions[edit]

We're all responsible for our own edits. [1] This material was discussed at length-do we want to restart those threads afresh? If so let's bring it here. Will Beback talk 10:30, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's an explanation on the article talk page, I'll re-instate the edit. Will Beback talk 15:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your edit. Note that you may only restore edits by banned users if you independent reasons for making them. WP:BAN. Please do not make mass restorations of this banned user's edits. If there are specific parts of the article that you'd like to see changed, please use the talk page. Will Beback talk 21:42, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not your ownership. Editors don't need to ask you to make edits or have your personal approval. I explainted reason for my edit in edit summary. --Dezidor (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A banned editors thinks the article belongs to him and keeps reverting back to his preferred version. By abetting him you are being unhelpful. Wikipedia has a dispute resolution process and community governance. If you think the user should be unbanned you are welcome to ask for an appeal. As for this material, the talk page is open if you wish to discuss individual passages. They have all been discussed before at length, and the only voices in support of the banned user's material were his socks. But I will be happy to discuss them all over again with you, one by one, if you really think they are better. Will Beback talk 09:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I was not reverting your minor edit, but rather the major edit made by the banned user right before you. You're right that the extra spaces are unnecessary, but they're also invisible. Due to the way Wikipedia renders a page, deleting them did not alter the article's appearance. Will Beback talk 11:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NatDemUK[edit]

Do you really think that "My views must be heard or else we will be doomed. I hate the liberals who shove degeneracy down our throats such as political correctness, multiculturalism, homosexuality and pornography. It is destroying Western Europe." is the posting of an editor who is here to conform to Wikipedia policy? They were blocked because they could not do so; I locked the talkpage because we aren't here as a platform for advocacy. See also WP:USERPAGE and WP:SOAP. Thankyou, Black Kite (t) (c) 17:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Wikipedia has conservative, liberal, socialist, anarchist, communist and other editors. Are white nationalists worse or better? No reason for long term ban for declaring personal opinions that does not vandalize articles. --Dezidor (talk) 17:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no. Esposing even extreme views is allowed here, but attacking other people (i.e. in the above, referring to multiculturalism and homosexuality as "degenerancy") is not allowed. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:42, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you banned long time editor for one comment at his talk page that you personally don't like. Attacking other people is not allowed? NatDemUK wrote that he don't like multiculturalism, pornography, political correctness and homosexuality. See list of users who wrote that they are against communism. I know also about many users who publicly declared that they are against racism, George Bush....... Will you ban them? It looks like double standard. --Dezidor (talk) 18:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't understand the difference between being "against" something, and calling other people "degenerate" then I can't help you, I'm afraid. Black Kite (t) (c) 19:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He wrote that he his againt degeneracy of Western Europe that includes political correctness, multiculturalism, homosexuality and pornography. If you can't come to realize your double standard then I can't help you, I'm afraid. --Dezidor (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I thought it was the case that you didn't understand the basic concept of Wikipedia. You can have the last word now. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understanded concept of Wikipedia and I see abuse of power, double standards and politically motivated blocks by admins like you. --Dezidor (talk) 13:37, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGF, NPA[edit]

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 17:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup templates[edit]

Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "{{Unreferenced}}", "{{Fact}}" and , "{{Fact}}" etc., are best not "subst"ed . See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 11:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

CSD nomination declined for Malinowski[edit]

Hi Dezidor, I've declined your CSD nomination of Malinowski because you didn't give a valid WP:CSD criteria (which can be found at the linked page). With the rationale you gave, I think it would have been better to go through WP:AFD or WP:PROD. Anyway, I'll convert it to a disambiguation page per the search results I have gotten. Please add any I've missed :). Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 23:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Converting to disambiguation page was perfect solution. I added interwiki. --Dezidor (talk) 08:06, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heller[edit]

I would like to comply with the Wiki regulations. Can you please let me know which is the best way of editing the following. I belive this is the factual reflection of what is happening. Which is: Financial anomalies have been discovered, adequate amount of proof indicates that embezzlement happened, police is investigating.

"Ágnes Heller is currenly under police investigation in connection with the financial fraud that had been uncovered in the Philosophy Department of the Academy of Hungarian Sciences. She is being accused of being responsible for misusing public funds and under intense media pressure to come clean.[2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BPNews (talk • contribs) 09:59, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds factual correct and unbiased. --Dezidor (talk) 18:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some minor problems. First of all, it is not her alone, but several other people who are being investigated. Second, it should be mentioned that it is the work of Budai, member of the government, whose job is exactly to find financial frauds under the previous government. Third, the philosophers made clear in countless publications what they did, how they spent the moneys, just to mention two, see the articles in Magyar Narancs. Fourth, there are a large number of supporting open letters from professors of New School for Social Research, Laszlo Tengelyi, the American Philosophical Association Eastern Division, several external and honorary member of the Hungarian Academy. So BPNews seems to be biased, incorrect, and outright lying . 193.224.79.8 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suppporting letters from the same sort people like Heller prove that the information is notable. It is not just legal quetion (finacial fraud yes/no) but also political problem. The previous goverment gave lot of money to people who share and promote its political views and current goverment tries to find financial frauds under the previous government. Both looks controversial. --Dezidor (talk) 09:57, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zaujatost na en.wiki[edit]

Je tu běžné, že někteří editoři soustavně zasírají text článků o konzervativních a bělošských politických skupinách "zdroji" jako Searchlight, Southern Poverty Law Center, Anti-Defamation League atd., ale naopak urputně odmazávají kritiku těchto skupin nebo jde jen excesy, které jsem zrovna viděl? Dvojí metr v případech Family Research Council a American Renaissance na straně jedné vs. Southern Poverty Law Center a Searchlight na straně druhé mi přijde doslova šokující. --89.176.102.35 (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tenhle druh systematické zaujatosti je na en.wiki zcela běžný. Pár lidí proti tomu nic nezmůže, zvláště když některé editory za zcela legitimní napravování této zaujatosti postupně zablokují. --Dezidor (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re Types of rape article, gang rape section[edit]

Hi, I have reverted your addition regarding a newspaper report on the proportion of gang rapes carried out by ethnic minorities in the United Kingdom. The article is directed toward types of rape only. There was a very recent discussion relating to this issue on the talkpage, which you may wish to comment upon. Just to let you know, the person whose very similar edits prompted the talkpage discussion was very soon after blocked indefinitely for edit warring against consensus. It would be better for you to discuss your edits rather than reverting back. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not deny the existence of that type. I just provided further characteristics of this type. It is notable information as well as information about possibility of being unemployed. The fact that people like Jpgordon block long time editors indefinitely without previous shorter bloks is sad but not surprising. --Dezidor (talk) 23:08, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested that you be blocked[edit]

Please see this ANI thread. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for sock puppetry/block evasion with the account Giornorosso. Multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you believe that this block was in error, and would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here ~~~~}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. NW (Talk) 02:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you serious? I am not connected with Giornorosso. Try checkuser. --Dezidor (talk) 13:52, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it was just by chance that you attempted to POV push the exact same information in the exact same article in a span of just a few days. You're free to appeal the block using the template above. NW (Talk) 13:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was informed about him at Commons so I checked his edits at en.wiki. See this: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Libyan_Uprising.svg#User:Giornorosso_is_a_primary_if_not_fully_vandalism_only_account Unblock me and try checkuser. I edit Wikipedia about 5 or 6 years and I am not connected with him. --Dezidor (talk) 14:01, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Dezidor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I was falsely accused of being sockuppet of Giornorosso. I am not to connected with him. I edit Wikipedia from 2006, have thousands of edits at various Wikimedia projects (including thousands of photos at Commons) and I am not sockpuppet of new editor and he is obviously not sockpuppet of me. I read about him at Commons and I know that he works at Czech Wikipedia so I checked his edits at en.wiki. NuclearWarfare should apologise me. I asked for checkuser control at Czech Wikipedia. --Dezidor (talk) 15:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I am still concerned with some of your edits, but as it appears that my original premise was incorrect, I of course will lift the block. Please accept my apologies. NW (Talk) 23:54, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Giornorosso or no Giornorosso, I'd like to know what was going on here:

You edit Criticism of Wikipedia at 18:07 [3]
You then create User:Marererew at 18:10
As Marererew, you edit the same article at 18:12, apparently as vandalism: [4]
Similarly, we find Brown v. Board of Educationas well as Communist Party of Czechoslovakia with both you and User:Milan M. on Feb 23-24, minutes apart on the same IP. [5][6][7][8]

I'll leave it to reviewing admins to determine whether these are helpful. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit that claim that I am Giornorosso is false accusation.

Yes, sometimes I forgot to login or I am logout automatically. I am not connected with Marererew, I showed my edits to my roomates and friends, but I hope that they did vandalize my edits when I am out of my computer. Single vandalism by somebody else (I don´t know if it is not another false claim) can not be reason for indefinite block without previous warning. Milan M. (cs:User:Ausonius at Commons and Czech Wikipedia) is my family member. We speak about Wikipedia and we edit from the same computer sometimes when he visits me. We had our private rule not to vote in same AfD at Czech Wikipedia. It is not secret, but I am shocked that you affects our privacy publicly in this way. Proof: I upoaded some his photos openly at Commons on his request (see this File:Arabský plnokrevník (11).jpg for example (here he confirmed that he is the author after he changed his name at Commons) and we are differen people becase I am to young to take this photo: File:Kokršpaněl a kapr.jpg. His edits here and on Czech Wikipedia are useful, not vandalism. Information about ban of Communist Party of Czechoslovakia in 1938 is correct. This edit is also correct because Second Czechoslovak Republic was also pre WWII.

--Dezidor (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is confirmed that I am not connected with Giornorosso by checkuser. It was false claim. --Dezidor (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Dezidor is a long-term contributor and a former administrator of the Czech Wikipedia and I don't see any proof that would connect him with vandals like Giornorosso or Marererew. Moreover, the checkuser results that are mentioned above denied any connection between him and Giornorosso. I believe that the accusation of Dezidor is false and that it would be appropriate to unblock him, unless any indisputable proofs are given here. --Mercy (talk) 22:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does a checkuser on the Czech Wikipedia necessarily say anything about connection between accounts on the English Wikipedia? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:42, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@NuclearWarfare: I accept you apologies. Sorry if I wrote some of my sentences in angry tone. What is more my experience from Czech Wikipedia is that editor (all editors expect vandal-only accounts) can´t be block indefinitely without previous short term blocks. See block log of this user for example. --Dezidor (talk) 00:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the same is true in general on the English Wikipedia, we generally take a stricter approach to sockpuppetry, and although this was not a factor here, violations of the biographies of living persons policy. NW (Talk) 00:26, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article for deletion debate[edit]

The article Young Conservatives of Texas has been nominated for deletion at AfD. Your input as to whether or not this article meets Notability standards is invited. Thank you. Carrite (talk) 16:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wp:right[edit]

Hi Dezidor! Wanted to thank you for all the hard work you're doing at wp:right. There's a discussion about the project scope you may find interesting here. Lionel (talk) 04:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conservatism Collaboration[edit]

Dez, I'd like to personally invite you to nominate an article for the first ever Conservatism Collaboration! I thought of you because on 2/23/11 you put Václav Klaus on the Todo list, Klaus would make a great nom. The Conservatism Collaboration is a phenomenal opportunity to meet other editors, learn new editing techniques and even enlist aid for some of your own projects. Nominate your article here. Lionel (talk) 04:26, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion regarding blocked user Giornorosso[edit]

I mention your editing in this ANI thread. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:52, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Klaus[edit]

Hi Dez! Wanted to bring this [9] removal to your attention.– Lionel ^(talk) 13:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is related to content disputes at Czech Wikipedia. --Dezidor (talk) 18:31, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Stuff: September 2011[edit]

September 2011

FROM THE EDITOR

An Historic Milestone

By Lionelt

Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.

The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."

WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"

PROJECT NEWS

New Style Guide Unveiled

By Lionelt

A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.

I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.

ARTICLE REPORT

3,000th Article Tagged

By Lionelt

On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.

The Right Stuff: October 2011[edit]

October 2011

INTERVIEW

An Interview with Dank

By Lionelt

The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.

Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.

Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.

Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.

If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.

DISCUSSION REPORT

Abortion Case Plods Along

By Lionelt

The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page.

Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.

PROJECT NEWS

Article Incubator Launched

By Lionelt

Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.

WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.

We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.

The Right Stuff: November 2011[edit]

August 2018

PROJECT NEWS

WikiProject Conservatism faces the ultimate test

By Lionelt

On October 7, WikiProject Conservatism was nominated for deletion by member Binksternet. He based his rationale on what he described as an undefinable scope, stating that the project is "at its root undesirable". Of the 40 participants in the discussion, some agreed that the scope was problematic; however, they felt it did not justify deletion of the project. A number of participants suggested moving the project to "WikiProject American conservatism". The overwhelming sentiment was expressed by Guerillero who wrote: "A project is a group of people. This particular group does great work in their topic area[,] why prevent them from doing this[?]" In the end there was negligible opposition to the project and the result of the discussion was "Keep". The proceedings of the deletion discussion were picked up by The Signpost, calling the unfolding drama "the first MfD of its kind". The Signpost observed that attempting to delete an active project was unprecedented. The story itself became a source of controversy which played out at the Discuss This Story section, and also at the author's talk page.

Two days after the project was nominated, the Conservatism Portal was also nominated for deletion as "too US-biased". There was no support for deletion amongst the 10 participants, with one suggestion to rename the portal.

In other news, a new portal focusing on conservatism has been created at WikiSource. Wikisource is an online library of free content publications with 254,051 accessible texts. One highlight of the portal's content is Reflections on the Revolution in France by Edmund Burke.

October saw a 6.4% increase in new members, bringing the total membership to 58. Seven of the eight new members joined after October 12; the deletion discussions may have played a role in the membership spike. Mwhite148 is a member of the UK Conservative Party. Stating that he is not a conservative, Kleinzach noted his "lifetime interest in British, European and international politics." Let's all make an effort to welcome the new members with an outpouring of Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

DISCUSSION REPORT

Timeline of conservatism is moved

By Lionelt

Timeline of conservatism, a Top-importance list, was nominated for deletion on October 3. The nominator stated that since conservatism in an "ambiguous concept", the timeline suffers from original research. There were a number of "Delete", as well as "Keep" votes. The closing administrator reasoned that consensus dictated that the list be renamed. The current title is Timeline of modern American conservatism.

The Right Stuff: January 2012[edit]

January 2012

ARTICLE REPORT

Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism

By Lionelt

On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.

Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline.

PROJECT NEWS

Project Scope Debated

By Lionelt

Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.

Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.

Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

DISCUSSION REPORT

Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum?

By Lionelt

Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.

The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.

Mulatto[edit]

I'm not going to template you, but edits like this are not acceptable. It's hard to believe that you don't already know this, but don't do it again. Dave Dial (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was in See also section and it was perfectly legitimate edit. Humanzee a hypothetical human hybrid that is not interracial but interspecies. --Dezidor (talk) 15:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the category Humanzee to the article Mulatto, as you did again today, implies that the union of a black person with a white person is equivalent to the union of an ape with a human being. That is egregiously racist and, as Dave Dial pointed out years ago, unacceptable. You have been warned twice now not to do it. I am watching the page, and if you try it again, I will take appropriate public action. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:37, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

implies that the union of a black person with a white person is equivalent to the union of an ape with a human being . Why do you personally feel that? It is not "equivalent article" but related article. That edit was perfectly legitimate. I was not Adding the category Humanzee to the article as you erroneously wrote but adding related article. I did not add any category in that edit. --Dezidor (talk) 16:58, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed change to Consensus for a unified approach to bias categories at Category:Antisemitism[edit]

Due to your involvement in the 2011 CFD that decided on a unified approach to bias categories, you may be interested in a current proposal to change that approach with regard to the Category:Antisemitism. Dlv999 (talk) 15:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Dezidor/Simon Mol[edit]

User:Dezidor/Simon Mol, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Dezidor/Simon Mol and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Dezidor/Simon Mol during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 11:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Freedom of Speech[edit]

Hello! Dezidor,

There is a WikiProject about Freedom of speech, called WikiProject Freedom of speech. If you're interested, here are some easy things you can do:

List yourself as a participant in the WikiProject, by adding your username here: List of participants.
Add userbox {{User Freedom of speech}} to your userpage, which lists you as a member of the WikiProject.
Tag relevant talk pages of articles and other relevant pages using {{WikiProject Freedom of speech}}.
Join in discussion at project talkpage.
Notify other editors you think might be interested in Freedom of speech to join the WikiProject.

Thank you for your interest in Freedom of speech, -- — Cirt (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2015 (UTC).[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Dezidor. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Right Stuff June 2018[edit]

June 2018

FROM THE EDITOR

The Right Stuff Returns

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 Watch (Discuss this story)

ARBITRATION REPORT

Russian Agents Editing at American Politics?

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)

IN THE MEDIA

Breitbart Versus Wikipedia

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)

DISCUSSION REPORT

Liberty and Trump and Avi, Oh my!

By Lionelt

President Donald Trump Speaks at Liberty University Commencement Ceremony

There are several open discussions at the Project:

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

Recently closed discussions include Anti-abortion movements which was not renamed, and an RFC at Trump–Russia dossier. (Discuss this story)

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

The Right Stuff: July 2018[edit]

July 2018

DISCUSSION REPORT

WikiProject Conservatism Comes Under Fire

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 Watch (Discuss this story)

ARTICLES REPORT

Margaret Thatcher Makes History Again

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)

RECENT RESEARCH

Research About AN/I

By Lionelt

Reprinted in part from the April 26, 2018 issue of The Signpost; written by Zarasophos

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.

Delivered: 09:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Dezidor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message[edit]

Hello, Dezidor. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]