User talk:Liberal Classic

Welcome!

Hello, Liberal Classic, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Prolog 09:15, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my page. --Nlu (talk) 15:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Liberal Classic 15:12, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Hi Liberal Classic, Sorry for damaging your fave white boy page: Bruce Dickinson. But please don't edit my page anymore in retaliation. I promise to stop, bc I don't want to be banned. But I am still pretyy certain that he produced BOC or Steve Buscemi wouldn't have played him so convincingly on MadTV. signed, User_talk:70.231.230.131

It looks like to me you were removing warnings from your talk page. Liberal Classic 04:49, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt I was removing nasty ill intent from what I feel is a space where people go to find out about me. If someone wrote this on my house I would paint over it, wouldn't you? Meegs said he would ban me if I made a change again that I felt was true. So I won't make that change, bc I don't want to be banned. But to I have carry his scarlet letter? Signed, User_talk:70.231.230.131

The talk page is where people to go find out about you. That's one of the reasons warning messages appear there. From what I understand, user talk pages should be archived not blanked. However, you should consider creating an account instead of editing with an anon IP address. You removed a warning from your talk page with the edit summary saying "Bruce is gay". That's what attracted my attention to it. Liberal Classic 05:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

HELLO[edit]

After reading your bio I thought you would have found more humor in my edit to Michael Chertoff, [1] but I guess your just doing your job. (Unsigned by User:Totallyawesome)

Yep. Liberal Classic 04:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation[edit]

Liberal Classic, per your reasoned comments, I invite you to join this mediation should you be so inclined.Proabivouac 08:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Thank you. Liberal Classic 14:12, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize that VirtualEye's comments do not reflect the views of the community. It is clear that he wishes to violate Wikipedia policy; otherwise, why would he ask for a private Email address? I hope you can make your points heard on the mediation page. Thanks for your opposition of censorship on religious grounds, --Hojimachong^talk _con 04:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they don't. Most of the commments have been reasonable, and this talk page does not seem as bad as some others I've read. I'm not sure exactly what to add to the mediation page. What I think I may do is cobble together the two or three posts I made from the article's talk page, and posting that under a new heading on the mediation page. Liberal Classic 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your input is requested at Talk:Muhammad/Mediation#Suggestion. --Hojimachong^talk _con 01:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

: Have you done any contribution in Muhammad article. Have you added any reference or created any new section. Why people who have no contribution in Muhammad article feel it fair for them to impose a picture on us? Many of them do not know anything about Muhammad too and they cannot answer even basic questions about him. --- ALM 09:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC) : We will easily have a compromise if we remove people who have no contribution in the article or their only contribution is warring on picture. Will you support this or not (being a fair person I hope)? --- ALM 09:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message received. Please consider me withdrawn from mediation. Liberal Classic 01:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALM, this bullying, like so many of your recent actions, is very inappropriate.Proabivouac 03:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know how the results of the mediation turn out. If I am going to be accused to pushing my point of view and lacking in good faith, then I don't see why I should continue in the informal mediation process. Where is the mediator? Liberal Classic 05:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. He hasn't been very involved, certainly compared to the first one.

You seem pretty new to Wikipedia. I can assure you the atmosphere in most areas of Wikipedia is not so hostile as it is on Islam-related articles; please don't let it taint your view of the project as a whole. I'm sorry you had to deal with this.Proabivouac 06:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No apologies are needed. I'm still trying to learn the ins and outs of the culture here. Perhaps you can answer a couple of newbie questions. I looked at the mediation page, and it says "Please sign below if you plan to participate in this mediation." I took this to mean it was an open invitation to participate in informal mediation. That's what the Mediation Cabal is, right? It's an unofficial body, unlike the formal Mediation or Arbitration Committees. Interestingly, I just went to strike my name through from the list of participants, and I noticed ALM's name is already struck. If you look in Archive 6 after the participant list there are some comments. At the end of the comments block he announces that he is quitting the mediation. If he quit the mediation a few weeks ago, why is he still posting comments? If mediation is open and he is free to return at any time, why is he complaining about new people like me joining the discussion? Liberal Classic 06:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ALM's proposal as outlined above was thoroughly struck down on the Talk:Muhammad page. You're perfectly welcome to participate in the mediation. --Hojimachong^talk 06:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not inclined to particpate in a mediation that lacks a mediator. Liberal Classic 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. If he does come back, however, your participation would definitely be appreciated. You are obviously at least somewhat knowledgeable (likely more) in regards to the subject, and are quite eloquent with your arguments. --Hojimachong^talk 07:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Please come back and participate. --- ALM 11:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Autosodomy[edit]

You deleted an article under the WikiProject Sexuality. Please reinstate with reference to existing articles on unlikely practices including fisting, bestiality, and autofellatio DavidYork71 07:27, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I added a nonsense tag to your Autosodomy article. I do not do this out of an attempt to censor Wikipedia. Rather, I think the idea is rather nonsensical. Liberal Classic 07:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I agree. How would a person autosodomize himself? Are you talking about dildos or something? Especially large penises that can curve around? --Strangerer 08:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated a similar article earlier this evening that I believe was speedily deleted. I may need an admin to check the logs to see if this is so. I may be mistaken. In any case, the first version specifically mentioned anal penetration with one's own sexual organs. This would seem to exclude women. I am not a student of anatomy, but this would seem to be a highly unlikely method of sexual gratification. Within the realm of physical possibility, but I do not believe this constitutes a "minority sexual preference" or any such nonsense. Even if, within the great swath of humanity, there are a few people who do this, the practice is hardly notable enough to rate an encyclopedia entry. Furthermore, the author does not cite any sources, establish notability in any way, or offer anything credible. Is this orginal research? 08:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

RfC on Gravitor[edit]

A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Gravitor (talk · contribs). You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Gravitor. -- Lunokhod 13:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I'll take a look. I stumbled onto Gravitor's talk page from watching the recent changes page, and I was somewhat confused by his hostile behavior. I may not have time to comment for a couple of days, but I will add it to my watch. Also, I have added the Apollo hoax/evidence pages to my watch list. Liberal Classic 17:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo[edit]

I don't mean to sound hostile, but the last few weeks have seen some unprecedented levels of hostility on that page. I don't want to go into it, but I feel that there has been some extremely underhand dealing there. My sense is that, with the page protected because of edit wars, proposing an extremely controversial move right now is more likely to have the effect of pouring fuel on the fire than helping to build consensus. Yours, Gravitor 07:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi your input is required at Talk:Muhammad/images#Original_Compromise_found. regards. --- ALM 12:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan Kyle Cochrane[edit]

I've removed the A7 tag you placed on this article as I think winning multiple awards is a claim of importance even if it doesn't establish notability. If you think the article should still be deleted for whatever reason (notability, possible hoax, etc.) I would suggest using either the proposed deletion process or taking it to AfD. I realise that this is a borderline call but I think there is just about enough information in the article for it to not meet the criterion. Regards, Guest9999 (talk) 21:43, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Hello Guest, put the tag back. The article does not contain any documentation, just a link is to the person's company website. It seems like self-promotion to me.

Fair enough, let's see what the reviewing admin thinks; I think there's a good chance they'll delete it. Blatant advertising generally falls under criterion G11. Happy editing, Guest9999 (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a note on to User_talk:Brendanfilm with my concerns. Liberal Classic (talk) 21:56, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rude moderator[edit]

I spent over an hour trying to fix your broken links, and all the thanks I get is snide comments. I won't bother again. DavidPaul2 (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, what? Liberal Classic (talk) 23:37, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reclaim Your Brain[edit]

Hi. The article states that the subject is an Austrian-German film, so it has context. Thank you. --Efe (talk) 08:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laughing Octopus[edit]

It's fair and very important that I apologize too. I am also sorry because I jumped the gun and overreacted here. Usually, whenever I add a new page, some "elite, upper level wikipedian" comes around, tries to act like some god/deity and quicky tries to delete it while I am working on it!! LOL But that's another story.... Enjoy your new year Classic.(LonerXL (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Apology accepted. :) A speedy delete tag was probably not the best thing for it anyway. Have a good new year! Liberal Classic (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Robert M Heller[edit]

Oops! Did I neglect to? Sorry. The Twinkle script to do that sometimes hiccups and leaves out a step. I should've been more attentive there. Thanks for covering me! - Vianello (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Biographies[edit]

Thanks for the question on Kent Stanley.

I agree with your assessment that it is likely an autobiographical entry.

These are the questions that I ask myself when looking at a new biography:

Is it immediately clear that there is no claim of notability/the person is not notable. For example, "John Smith is the coach at my high school." (use speedy deletion tag) or "John Smith is an award-winning high school coach. In 2008, he was voted favorite coach by the students in his school." (prod)
Is it a copyright violation? New editors may cut-and-paste a resume/CV, not knowing about the policy.
Does is follow the policy for biographies of living persons? Very strict on NPOV, reliable sources, and no original research.
Is the person notable? "Notability" is a guideline, so not as straightforward.

In the case of the Kent Stanley article, it is unreferenced. But, not necessarily unsalvageable. You have found a reference, but the level of detail is not supported by the reference. Even if all of the details in the article were verifiable by reliable sources, they don't necessarily belong in the article. The kind of details that should be included depend highly on the individual.

For Stanley, from the source you provided, the possible notable positions he held:

Women's basketball coach at Fresno Pacific University, with five national tournament appearances, and winningest coach for FPU. As FPU is not NCAA Division I and not a recognized powerhouse, simply being the head coach for women's basketball would not likely pass the notability bar. But, his winning streak might.

Head coach at Oklahoma City University with two NAIA National championships and Coach of the Year. This would likely be sufficient for notability.

Simply being the Senior Associate Athletics Director For Development would probably not be sufficient.

In structuring the article, his notable accomplishments should be in the intro.

As written, it seems a bit like a narrative and a bio/resume to get a job.

I suggest that you put a note on the creator's talk page concerning autobiographies ({{uw-autobiography}}), which includes information on conflict of interest, verifiability, and notability. Then, go ahead and re-write with the references you can find.

Good luck. If you would like, I'd be happy to review your edits. — ERcheck (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although my personal pov wrt Tiller's assassination -[edit]

it should go without saying - is that this act was extremely cowardly and wrong; nonetheless, fwiw, wouldn't WPdia's avoidance of soapboxery actually require that we sample the POV(/s) of supporters of the results of this Christianist terror, rather than our including mostly but the chorus of the pro-life mainstream who are deplorers? ↜Just M E here , now 00:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, the Randall Terry quote covers that ground well enough. I am also trying to look at the article as a whole. The pro-life and pro-choice response sections were growing out of control with lots of quotes from people on both sides of the issue. A couple of editors suggested it needed to be trimmed, and I trimmed consolidated both sections into one and stripped out some of the quotes.

I tried to pick quotes that covered the bases. Also, I tried to pick quotes that had a Kansas focus, or were notable in some way in their own right. My opinion is that acquaintances of Tiller and Roeder are not necessarily notable enough to be included in the response section. Operation Rescue and Randall Terry both had a history with Tiller, and they're notable in their own right. The NRLC is the largest pro-life U.S. lobbying group, and of course NOW is notable, as is the POTUS. I also don't think we need the same thing said by multiple groups.

I've already done three deletes on that section today, so I'm up against the 3RR now. If you feel strongly that it should be there and you want to put that quote back in, please feel free. I will let it stand. I don't want to be perceived as trying to own that section and I'm not trying to edit war. My purpose is to keep it from growing wild, as hot-button political entries tend to do. I truly believe the article is better served by that section being concise. I will look at it again tomorrow after I've rested.

Cheers, and thanks for writing! Liberal Classic (talk) 00:36, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PRESERVE I'd be inclined to keep the reference regarding Leach's theological views as notable in explaination of his fellow Christianist's motivations and ideology (along with the views of Roeder's comrade Regina Dinwiddie and the window opened up by Roeder's ex, Lindsey Roeder, to his militant mindset). But, in any case, these sources are just now becoming available so we've plenty of time to figure out the matter's perfect summarization and placement. ↜Just M E here , now 01:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think this sort of stuff belongs in a page about Scott Philip Roeder, not necessarily in the page about George Tiller.

Oh, look. Someone has added a quote from Michelle Malkin. Do we need to put every pundit's opinion in this article? Might as well put Limbaugh and Carville's now, too. Where does it end?

Liberal Classic (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Self Parking System[edit]

This is one of those strange but true gizmos. I removed your prod and added some links. It need a lot of work, but it is real. I think the author was trying to place his invention in false light. Bearian (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. see WP:HANDLE. Bearian (talk) 23:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Ambassador Program in Houston[edit]

Hi! I'm leaving you this message because you're listed as a Wikipedian from Houston. The Wikipedia Ambassador Program is currently looking for Campus Ambassadors from the Houston area, to help with Wikipedia assignments at Texas Southern University. Classes at TSU will be participating in the Public Policy Initiative for the Spring 2011 semester, and the role of Campus Ambassadors will be to provide face-to-face training and support for students on Wikipedia-related skills (how to edit articles, how to add references, etc.). This includes doing in-class presentations, running workshops and labs, possibly holding office hours, and in general providing in-person mentorship for students.

Prior Wikipedia skills are not required for the role, as training will be provided for all Campus Ambassadors (although, of course, being an experienced editor is a plus).

If you are interested in being a Wikipedia Campus Ambassador, or know someone in Houston who might be, please email me or leave a message on my talk page. Thanks!--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Harold Camping[edit]

Thanks for your kudos! I've seen your edits as well, and I'm glad that we are both equally concerned with the neutrality of this highly contentious article. Terms like "failed" are just too POV. It's not a matter of avoiding the obvious, it's a matter of being as neutral and unbiased as possible. Harold is the one who made the prediction, so if he says that it was indeed "spiritually" fulfilled, how can we assert that it wasn't without being biased? Thanks for your hard work on the article. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 23:55, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Liberal Classic. You have new messages at RobertMfromLI's talk page.
Message added 14:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Hi Liberal Classic, I've left you a "wall-o-text" on my Talk Page. ;-) ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 14:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I[edit]

Hi,
This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Viriditas_and_User:Anupam regarding a dispute between other editors, which briefly touches on some of your edits. Feel free to comment on the thread and provide your own perspective on events. bobrayner (talk) 09:49, 3 May 2012 (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) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User:Liberal Classic/Sandbox[edit]

User:Liberal Classic/Sandbox, a page which created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Liberal Classic/Sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Liberal Classic/Sandbox 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. Ricky81682 (talk) 04:54, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RC Patrol-related Proposals in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]