User talk:R-41

The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)

Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.

Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow

In this issue:

• Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
• Research: The most recent DR data
• Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
• Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
• DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
• Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
• Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?

Read the entire first edition of The Olive Branch -->

--The Olive Branch 19:24, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fascism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Providence (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Right-wing socialism for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Right-wing socialism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Right-wing socialism (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. --RJFF (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Hello R-41,

it would be very helpful if you (as the article's main editor) could comment on the above deletion discussion before it expires. Otherwise I am afraid that it will result in no consensus again. Thank you. --RJFF (talk) 11:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for bringing to my attention in how poor shape the right-politics article is/clearing away the rubbish. Byelf2007 (talk) 21 September 2012

political spectrum

The general quote about "right wing" not having a consistent meaning across places and times is pretty much clear - it is not just about one form, it is about the problem in using a general term whihc has had so many disparate forms, thus is quite on point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:27, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

minor advice

When tempted to use strong language about an IP, just type "He is a G-damn fool" until you feel your point is made, then remove all of the sentences before posting <g>. (botrrowed from Mark Twain a bit) Certain words, like "Zionist," "psychotic" and the like, can be "red flags" to some admins, who really loathe seeing anyone use them. And since the IP likely does not care (or even read what you wrote), why waste all your best expletives <g>. Meanwhile - good work on the Fascism article, among others, - it seems to attract the Wikipedia equivalent of "Dust bunnies". Collect (talk) 13:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dora Russell photohraph.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Dora Russell photohraph.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Imperialism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Humanity (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 18

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Left (Germany), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third Way (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Could you please reply to the discussion at ANI.[1] TFD (talk) 07:19, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

• R-41, I have closed the discussion at ANI as requiring no administrative action. There's a slim possibility it may be reopened, perhaps based on a comment by an IP who came out of nowhere. However, the proposal by TFD had no basis for administrative action. I won't comment on the broader accusations by the IP. As for what TFD said, my only comment is that it's recommended that editors use edit summaries when making edits. Personally, I do it ALL the time. In fact, I have my preferences set to warn me if I forget. Although you don't have to do what I do, it is particularly important to use edit summaries when editing controversial articles as many other editors are probably watching your edits, and edit summaries are at least a shorthand indicator of what you're doing. It's a way of collaborating with other editors.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Italian Fascism and German Nazism

Hello R-41,

it is not a proposed deletion, but an ordinary deletion discussion. You can share your thoughts here. But I have also answered your post at Talk:Italian Fascism and German Nazism. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Btw: Please don't take this as a personal criticism, but I have often thought that some of your additions to Wikipedia would better fit into Wikibooks. The articles Italian Fascism and German Nazism, Relationship between fascism and democracy, Right-wing socialism and some of your additions to Fascism are examples that come to my mind. Have you ever thought about getting involved in Wikibooks? I know that Wikipedia is more attractive, because it has so much more contents, editors and readers. But I think it is a real pity that the number of Wikipedia articles is exploding (with lots of titles that normally would not be found in an encyclopedia) and some Wikipedia articles become ultra-long (more than 100 kB, sometimes even 200 kB), while Wikibooks seems to develop rather slowly. In my opinion, Wikipedia has a lot of content that would better fit into Wikibooks, and some of your contributions seem to belong in this category. Maybe Wikipedia articles (that are easily found with search engines and have a great number of readers) could link to corresponding sections of Wikibooks as further reading, and thus attract more readers for Wikibooks. What do you think about it? --RJFF (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Mussolini

Hallo R-41 please see on Talk:Benito Mussolini the reason why I changed your edit, and changed the reference. Bye, Alex2006 (talk) 14:37, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Mussolini again

Hallo R-41
there is an user, whom I think you know, who is inserting a lot on information about Italian war crimes in the Venezia Giulia on the article about Mussolini. I find the info valuable per se, but i think that is way too specific and abundant, since the article is about Mussolini. I asked him to go to the talk page, but with no effect. What can we do? Thanks for your opinion, Alex2006 (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I just opened a thread on Talk:Benito Mussolini. Your opinion is welcomed. Alex2006 (talk) 06:57, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Italy and the Forced Labour Convention, 1930 (No. 29)

The Forced Labour Convention, 1930 came into force on 1 May 1932, but then only for countries that signed up to it beforehand. Italy did not sign up to this convention until 18 Jun 1934, and so was not bound by it until then. The Italian use of forced labour from 1930 to 1931 alleged in the article on the Pacification of Libya would not have been a warcrime even for initial signatories. It would only have been a warcrime for Italy, if the Italian Government had been practicing it after 1 May 1934.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Pp.?

Hello R-41,

is there a certain reason why you always abbreviate "page" (singular) with "Pp."? As far as I know "pp." is the abbreviation of pages, while a single page is abbreviated simply with "p." Or is there a different style of citation? If you would use the Template:Citation, your footnotes would automatically follow the Wikipedia standard style and would be uniform with footnotes added by other users. Just a suggestion. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

You continue doing it. If you cite just a single page, why do you abbreviate it with "Pp."? I am confused. Kind regards. --RJFF (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see. No problem. Take care. --RJFF (talk) 01:38, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Importance ratings of Libyan articles

I think we might have different definitions of the importance scale. I usually use the importance not to denote how much historical significance a particular subject has, but how much maintenance and continual work must be done. Therefore, high profile articles (those prone to vandalism are included in this) and recent events would have a higher importance than more historical articles. This might not be how someone else might view importance, but I feel its a good judge of how often someone has to check out and edit an article. Once the Pacification of Libya article has been written fully and copy edited, I felt that it probably wouldn't need much maintenance to keep it in the same standards. That's my view anyway. Jeancey (talk) 07:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Pls come to a talk

pls see Wikipedia talk:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board#New Democratic Party (Canada).Moxy (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

New Democratic Party

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give New Democratic Party a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into New Democratic Party (disambiguation). This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Do you also intend to fix all the links to a disambiguation page? 117Avenue (talk) 05:39, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears you may also have overlooked WP:FIXDABLINKS, which advises that --

A code of honor for creating disambiguation pages is to fix all resulting mis-directed links.

Before moving an article to a qualified name (in order to create a disambiguation page at the base name, to move an existing disambiguation page to that name, or to redirect that name to a disambiguation page), click on What links here to find all of the incoming links. Repair all of those incoming links to use the new article name.

Your moves left well over 2,000 other Wikipedia articles that contain links to "New Democratic Party" that now need to be reviewed and corrected to lead readers to the correct article. I hope you intend to assist in this effort. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 15:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello, R-41. You have new messages at R'n'B's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Third Realm

Hi R-41:

It appears that you originally created the redirect Third Realm, pointing to Third Reich, and eventually retargeted to Nazi Germany. There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy about whether the redirect might more appropriately point to some page that discusses Gottlob Frege's notion of the "third realm" of objects. You are invited to comment if you like. --Trovatore (talk) 05:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

You (as a Canadian citizen) are being asked for an opinion

Hi R-41, what is your opinion of the proposal described here? Thank you. --DancingPhilosopher ^{my talk} 13:04, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Conservative Party of Canada (1867–1942)/meta/color

A tag has been placed on Template:Conservative Party of Canada (1867–1942)/meta/color requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it must be substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. —Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:23, 27 November 2012 (UTC)