User talk:Kansan/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Kansan. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia from SqueakBox! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and becoming 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 someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Here is a list of useful links that I have compiled:

• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons
• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
• Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
• Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point
• Wikipedia:Attribution
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Assume good faith
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Words to avoid
• Wikipedia:Requests for oversight
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment
• Special:Log/block
• Wikipedia:Requests for mediation
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser
• Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention
• Wikipedia:Avoid the word "vandal"
• Wikipedia:No legal threats
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal

Again, welcome. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:27, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern. However, I would like to point out the undeniable fact that Lorraine Boettner wrote many lies about the Catholic Church in his book: Roman Catholicism and tried to pass them off as fact. He used groundless speculations, 'facts' without citations. Therefore, I think the stronger language is both true and necessary for expressing the truth. Yrgul66 (talk)

It would be best to provide a source for this, given that lying is a strong accusation. CopaceticThought (talk) 06:36, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Thats how its done--Yankees10 22:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Theres tons, if you dont believe me talk to User:Chrisjnelson--Yankees10 23:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for a specific Wikipedia styleguide reference. CopaceticThought (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

A mediation case has been started on this topic. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) for more discussion on this subject. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that things in a particular instance are not a big deal. You seem to have a good attitude about the mediation. However, it is my view that a couple of editors run all over others and do it in an uncivil way, so I appreciate you speaking out. I did not start this mediaiton, but I think it is a good idea and I thank you for your contribution.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide a citation for your addition to the article? Thanks! JKBrooks85 (talk) 18:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanksamuch! JKBrooks85 (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a arbitration regarding Chrijnelson over at WP:Arbitration.Fromos (talk) 19:39, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted you to know that I have added a review to your request on wp:editor review %%-SYKKO-%% (talk to me) 06:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi - thanks. I removed it because there was an ongoing discussion and there appeared to be concensus to get rid of it. Once the section is gone, I think it's less tempting to other editors to add trivia stuff. The trivia stuff is fun, but it usually gets out of control pretty fast. Thanks for keeping an eye on the article. Bob98133 (talk) 13:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety ^talk 04:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Re your message: He was just blocked a moment ago by Tivedshambo. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Though I just revoked his talk page access. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok? Chiton magnificus (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just welcoming you to Wikipedia using a standard welcome template. I'm sorry that you found this upsetting. I was also not happy that you changed what I wrote to make it seem that I had used profanity toward you. CopaceticThought (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Talk page didn't need mfd. I just blanked it and replaced with an appropriate Wikiproject template. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

• Abandoned userspace article drafts, MySpace-like userpages, abandoned project pages (for instance, a Wikiproject with only one or two users, neither of whom have edited in a long time), things like that. There's usually no reason to delete an article talk page unless its corresponding article has been deleted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello, just to let you know (if you don't already!) that articles with no content can be "speedy deleted" and don't need to be PRODed. If they have some content but no context they can also be speedy deleted. See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion for more on the criteria. Apologies if you know all this already, but it's in reference to the article you PRODed - Priscilla miller, which I've now nominated for speedy deletion. It's actually better to wait a little longer before nominating for speedy deletion when there is little content, as someone may be about to add to it, but that's me being hasty, not you. Regards, --BelovedFreak 19:05, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I think so. I really didn't know, but I think it's better for the name of that article to be included type, 'cause it is to banal just to say extensive farming... My solution is Extensive farming → Extensive type of farming and Extensive type of agriculture redirect to Extensive type of farming. Is that OK? --Aleksa Lukic (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be best to keep the current article on extensive farming, as it's a well established name, and to just redirect the newly created page there. However, you could always bring it up on Talk:Extensive farming. Kansan (talk) 20:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

On the page File talk:Wiki.png has started a discussion and voting for the file Wiki.png to be returned to older version. Please get involve in discussion. Thanks, Aleksa Lukic (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

HI I saw your brief comment on the Wikipedia main page discussion area.

Just a point of clarification-- I am referring to the BP (Company) article, and within that article, the section referring to the current oil disaster is the one that keeps getting spun and buried.

So it's not the article about the disaster, it's the section about the disaster on the BP Wikipedia page.

Best,

Sean7phil (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the clarification there. Kansan (talk) 03:16, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

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 Wikipedia: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. 7  07:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

this change why did you accept? It is clearly vandalism. World Cup 2011 has not yet started.--Karyasuman (talk) 11:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I apologize; I thought the edit was legitimate. I will be more careful henceforth. Kansan (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm just wondering though, how do I go about "rephrasing my comment as a civil criticism of the article?" Any ideas? --Yankees76 ^Talk 23:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe just "Please keep the conversations in one place, it's confusing." Even if the other person doesn't "get it", it's probably better to accept it in cases like that where, ultimately, it's not a big deal. Kansan (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

True and I do thank you for the templated warning that really didn't apply to my situation asking me to "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia". Always nice to get a "Welcome to Wikipedia" warning after 4 years of editing. Anyways the warning is duly noted. --Yankees76 ^Talk 23:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

If you've been here for four years, I would expect you to know that personal attacks aren't acceptable here, then. Kansan (talk) 00:43, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Who says I didn't already know? --Yankees76 ^Talk 21:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Friend, please remember to assume good faith on Wikipedia. I didn't call your edit vandalism. If you check the Revision history of Patrick Willis, the original statement was:

"Patrick Willis is regarded by many as the best linebacker in professional football." with a reference.

That was changed to "Patrick Willis is regarded by many as one of the best linebacker in professional football."

And that was vandalized to "Patrick Willis is regarded by many as one of the best players in professional football." --Canstusdis (talk) 07:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

We had a long discussion about this a couple of months ago. I continue to maintain that a flat-out policy of blocking any corporate or corporate-sounding username on sight is extremely short-sighted (save for names that indicate a clear-cut use for promotional purposes, like "Consolidated Amalgamated Marketing Department"). Before we can shout "Conflict of interest!" we need to see what their interests are, and it seemed like "jsrealestate" was not editing articles about JS Real estate. What's more important to us: a user who contributes productively and within policy, or a blocked account with no edits and the name of some concern?

Other reasons for this: people sometimes adopt such names as an ironic or playful gesture (can't some guy named Robert be allowed to have "Bob's Bait Shop" as his username?) or to show support for a sports team (which are, after all, corporations). I feel that section of policy is ill-conceived, poorly worded and I don't enforce it that strictly. Daniel Case (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi kansan, I've taken your comment into consideration and Re-added the whole shut door section per your request. Thanks. 2Peter14 (talk) 18:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason I tagged it was the study it cites, which is from a group with a established history of lobbying for the "john school" concept, prostitution abolitionism, etc. No counterbalancing perspectives are included. I had meant to get back to it and add material for a more balanced perspective, but didn't get to it and forgot about it. I will try and get back to it this month. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 05:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the help at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nava Applebaum. The article is now on the front page as a DYK.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Kansan, did you mean to put this comment in the section dealing with a proposed ban on Tarc or in the parent section dealing with the overall issue? If the later, could you move it to the appropriate section?---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:49, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Mistake on my part. Kansan (talk) 19:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I suspect the contributors to the essay are at least as worthy, but this comment about angry mastodons deserves a cookie, IMO. GiftigerWunsch [TALK]

Thank you very much! Kansan (talk) 19:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! :) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Kansan, I understand why you would say that about Hasheem Thabeet. And it makes perfect sense, but I would like to know what your reason if for deleting everything else that I posted on the page...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnyerere89 (talk • contribs) 15:06, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

The only things I removed from the page were that picture and something talking about him (because there's already somewhere else in the article that talks about him.) Kansan (talk) 15:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your talk page message and your interest in the article. Yes, it is a mess, but it is fixable. I have no idea about the three lists within Roman Catholic, but I think they have to be merged. I suggest that we have some broad chronological areas (e.g. "Before the Protestant Reformation") and then go alphabetical within those. StAnselm (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Well done! I appreciate that you took the time to figure it out and correct it. Cullen328 (talk) 03:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. It can get confusing when very similar IP addresses edit back to back. Kansan (talk) 04:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, the sources I had seen saying that he had filed the paperwork appear to be a bit dated. I'll check again, sorry for the confusion. Soxwon (talk) 17:52, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I imagine he'll change it back at some point, at which point, we can change it back. Kansan (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I'm just letting you know that I have changed your WP:PROD on Kavitha Nagarajanto a WP:BLPPROD template. Please see WP:DELETION and WP:NPP for policy and updates on action to be taken on pages, and if you are still in doubt, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 06:25, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for letting me know! Kansan (talk) 06:28, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

As we say in the South, "Bless yore heart!" Thanks! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 20:47, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi,

It's a bit vague - Wikipedia:SILVERLOCK#User_pages states "User pages and subpages are protected at the user's request if there is evidence of vandalism or disruption." Then it gones on, "User pages may be semi-protected at any time upon request."

Leaves me puzzled! Maybe WP:IAR ;)

Thanks,

The Helpful One 19:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

See this if you're interested in mentoring (or co-mentoring) Jasper. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 01:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey. I asked a question on 28bytes's talk page, and you might be able to answer.Jasper Deng (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

It was today. My bad, I screwed up the date.--Yankees10 19:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

How can I deal with this?Jasper Deng (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

No, thank you, as this is a progressing event and we need info for this article. In my personal opinion, this event deserves a new article.

Sources?Jasper Deng (talk) 03:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

He never used the title Chera in his name read Thurston CATSA Nampoothiri article.

Thank you for the explanation. Kansan (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

For future reference, Thurston is not a great source for anything. He is a widely used source here, I think simply because in many instances his writings are the most accessible and even the most recent. But his is a tertiary work written in 1909, embodying the notions of the British Raj and (often vaguely) using poor studies written sometimes a century or more previously by people with even less understanding/more bias/less exactitude. I have used him myself but I do so reluctantly & point out the problems. Perhaps there should be a "See also" entry for all articles that rely substantially on CATSI, with at least one entry referring people to Salt mine <g> . - Sitush (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

See my talk page.Jasper Deng (talk) 23:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kansan, can you help out with Jasper's request on my talk page? Unfortunately I'm about to leave on vacation for a few days and am not going to be able to help look into the dispute Jasper mentioned before I go. 28bytes (talk) 16:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it but I may not be able to fully get into it for another 4-5 hours due to work. Kansan (talk) 16:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the help. 28bytes (talk) 16:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

See my talk page. I've been invited to join an ANI discussion pertinent to me. I need you or 28bytes' approval though.Jasper Deng (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See the section above by Lionelt, as Eagles247 pointed out. Jasper Deng (talk) 03:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

See my talk page's history. Do you think I did the right thing?Jasper Deng (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your post on my talk page. I accept your apology, and I offer my apology in return, for perhaps responding more aggressively to you than I needed to. I have also put a note about this in the thread at ANI. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

How do I report a user adding unsourced info after repeated warnings?Jasper Deng (talk) 01:17, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

AnneStark (talk) 14:37, 17 May 2011 (UTC) Busy day, got derailed by other projects as I was editing. There are additional citations on the Northern Michigan University article now.

Thanks for your vote. Yes the elitism controversy is very small (in my view) and should not even warrant a wikipedia article. But I'll nominate it another time. Thanks for your input though.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 22:06, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Kansan. Are you mentoring Jasper Deng? If so, could you please tell him that it's not polite to erase things users write to their own talk pages? And, please point him to articles suggesting that most of the time it's better not to take everything personally. Thanks. Kenatipo ^speak! 18:27, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I took that thing personally, and I often do take things personally, but usually I do not.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Please be more specific. What is "that thing" you're referring to? Kenatipo ^speak! 18:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I have been. I've been semi inactive for the last week (real world stuff), but I should be more active again starting today. I haven't had a chance to look at the situation but I'll do so before I comment further. Kansan (talk) 18:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Kansan. Kenatipo ^speak! 19:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry I deleted the reg parnell page but I wanted to start the Reg parnell racing page but I got Redirect all the time so I thought madey if I delete the page i could start that page but that didn't work either but I know how it works now I just have to edit the reg parnell racing page. Kevin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevintjeerdsma1996 (talk • contribs)

Hey I added a TV reference to the wiki article about Frank Kafka and said that "Kafkaesque" was name of an episode breaking bad and you wikijerks auto changed it off! I try to help and I get treated like dirt and all the time I spent too. and how come my comment doesn't have its own edit link huh? Like Reg Rarnell. It's like I'm geting kicked in the face by use guys and I don't even get my own edit? And how come I can't have a wiki article about me? Huh, I mean come on Hitler has a wiki page but I don't? Sure doesn't sound right to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.115.237.154 (talk) 00:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please assist me there. This was unacceptable.

Hi Jasper, in the absence of Kansan, I'll make a comment. Obviously, Kansan can over-rule.

I saw the original edit from Tigerjojo when it happened & did think of reverting it for you. Then I thought, well, it is actually pretty harmless. It might be a troll or it might be someone who is a little upset & blowing off steam. Neither way was it gratuitously rude etc. Had it been on my page then I probably would have replied with a short message along the lines of "Wikipedia needs volunteers for all sorts of areas. It just happens that at the moment I am concentrating on area X but this does not mean that I do not sometimes do stuff in area Y. We are all of us helping to move the project along, in our own ways." But that is just me, working in the belief that sometimes giving an answer actually works, whereas removing the comment (as you did) can irritate them.

You will notice that I have now replied to a further comment from Tigerjojo. I would suggest that you let it stand but, of course, it is your talk page and you are free to do what you want.

As a general note, if you are going to get involved in contentious areas of Wikipedia - involving deletions, anti-vandalism etc - then you are likely to attract aggrieved people. If you cannot deal with this/do not have a thick skin etc then perhaps it is not the best area to concentrate on. - Sitush (talk) 12:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Again I find myself agreeing with Sitush. Jasper, Sitush has written a well-worded admonition to Tigerjojo98 to knock it off; I suggest letting Tigerjojo98 follow that advice or not, without further replies from you. It seems to finally be sinking in to Tigerjojo98 to follow the advice of BRD and discuss his proposed change on the talk page rather than doggedly re-insert disputed material; hopefully this is a sign that he will begin to follow our policies and guidelines. If not, I will drop a note on his talk page. 28bytes (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I see from Tigerjojo's talk page that Kansan did consider it to be a personal attack. I am surprised at this but do not know the history. Much of what I said above still stands, I feel. If you want to really feel the heat of personal attacks then start editing pages concerning Indian castes - my skin is now like that of an elephant! - Sitush (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I did because of the comment in particular where Tigerjojo98 coined the term "wikipest" to refer to Jasper after he had already been asked to chill out. However, I still agree with 28bytes and Sitush here - some areas of Wikipedia are like a hornet's nest and if you step in, you can't be surprised when people get angry. Sometimes you just have to ignore it and move on. Kansan (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Kansan, if you look at any three random biographies, you'll see that the form is "inverted pyramid", starting with current occupation (if alive) and educational information, similar to a resume. I haven't found anything that codifies it, but that seems to be accepted style.

The real issue here is WP:UNDUE. To take a single entry from the body of the article and bring it into the head adds undue weight to the item. For example, why should the Twitter controversy take precedence over the horrendous way he treats his staff, or his parking ticket record? It just doesn't belong there, and leaving it there is prejudicial to the blanace of the entire article, something people have worked very hard to protect. - Jeff — Preceding unsigned comment added by WriterIN (talk • contribs) 04:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I might argue that he's probably received more media coverage for this, combined, than most of anything else he's done in his entire career. You're definitely right to point out WP:UNDUE, but I don't think it's undue, given that it's what he's going to be most well known for outside his district, and that the vast majority of the people coming to the article now are going to be looking for it. I think at least a one or two sentence summary would be reasonable to mention it, and the rest can be covered below. Kansan (talk) 04:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Do me a favor. Ask yourself, "What is the real reason I'm putting this here?" If it's because you hate the guy, get in line. He's created so many opportunities to make himself look bad, we don't have to help. When you step back from it, it just doesn't make sense to put that information up top. You're not the only one. I see inappropriate entries under Private Life and at least one other place I can't recall off hand. It's likely that people are coming to his page to read specifically about the scandal, so we don't need to put references to the schmuck's schmuck where they're not needed. I guess you could call me a conservative, but I'm more of a truthist. NPOV isn't an attitude, it's a way of life. ((grin))--WriterIN (talk) 04:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Kansen I'm User 71.146.31.102, and I DID INDEED make a mistake . I apologize for any inconvenience, I read the date wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.31.102 (talk) 01:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't, I was typing a question at the help desk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.31.102 (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

You may be interested in this AN discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:28bytes#Redirects of sock and banned user talk pages.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Eagles has me in an argument on my talk page. Please help clarify both our wrondoings.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:48, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

...could you take a look at User talk:Jasper Deng? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Will do. Kansan (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're still around... :) sonia♫ 06:44, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi! I just wanted to let you know that we have created an IRC channel for "countering systemic bias one new editor at a time", aka closing the gender gap! Come hang out at #wikimedia-gendergap. I hope you'll join us! (And if you need any IRC help, just let me know!) See you there! SarahStierch (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. I thought you might be interested to contribute to a thread I started at Wikipedia:NPOVN#Political_positions_of... Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

In case you did not respond due to potential canvassing concerns, I posted at the talk page of all five people who commented under Wikipedia:NPOVN#Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul. I am arguing that all Political positions of... articles violate NPOV through a non-neutral article title which does not encourage multiple viewpoints. I am suggesting we move all of these articles to Politics of... articles. This would end the current problem all these articles have: they encourage editors to find only political positions of the said politician (one viewpoint) even if no notable person or organization has commented on that position. If you have a recommendation about how I can move this conversation along, (am I not in the right venue?) please assist. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 02:56, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I apologize; I have been busy IRL in the last few days. I will respond accordingly. Kansan (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Law school outlines, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. S. Rich (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for warning the IP address, but the edit war still goes on. Maybe you could keep an eye on this. --217/83 16:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)