User talk:Instaurare/Archive2

Archives

Archive 1

Previously NYyankees51

You commented on a section of Youreallycan's RfCU, the section being about homophobia. Your LGBT topic ban, broadly construed, should indicate that you do not address questions of homophobia. I submit that you could remove your comment from that section of the RfCU. Binksternet (talk) 04:48, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it's not that broad, but I'll ask. Instaurare (talk) 00:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My wording was Indefinite topic ban from LGBT-related articles (bolding added here for the purposes of clarity). A content-related discussion regarding LGBT issues might, at a stretch, be considered a violation, but a comment in an RfC/U could not. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. Binksternet (talk) 01:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks HJ. Instaurare (talk) 04:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 72 hours for your conduct at Family Research Council and its talk page. Quite apart from the issue of the topic ban, that is precisely the kind of conduct, on precisely the kind of article, that got you indef'd last time and it's only because this is your first offence since your return that the block isn't longer. Editing an article on an organisation that "advocates against LGBT rights, abortion..." is quite clearly within the parameters of your topic ban from both LGBT- and abortion-related articles. Even if it weren't, you should have disengaged and sought advice rather than continuing to argue and edit war, knowing as you should that the article is precisely the kind of article to which the third condition of your unblock applies and thus that you should have exercised caution. If you feel I have acted unfairly, you may of course appeal using the {{unblock}} template, but I suggest you use the time to think of articles you could edit without getting yourself into trouble. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited The Great Raid, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Japanese (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) 12:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain your thinking here? StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:59, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the source cited criticized a specific portion of the budget, not the whole thing; plus, the letter wasn't addressed to Ryan, and came from a USCCB subcommittee not the full USCCB. Instaurare (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see the objection, but I think it can be worked around by changing the passage instead of removing it.

1. We can specify that this portion was criticized.
2. We would need to find a secondary source linking this to Ryan.
3. We can specify that it was the USCCB Committee on Domestic Justice and Human Development.

The middle part requires a little research, but if we find something, the rest is easy enough. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:10, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Try:

http://www.wnycatholic.org/wnycatholicnews/socialservices/tabid/1184/ctl/detail/mid/2614/itemid/1562/usccb-speaks-out-against-house-republican-budget-plan.aspx

http://www.realclearreligion.org/articles/2012/08/13/paul_ryan_taking_on_holy_water.html

http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=14639

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/08/13/paul-ryan-s-catholic-problem.html

For context and links:

http://catholicmoraltheology.com/missing-the-point-on-poverty/

http://www.faithinpubliclife.org/blog/wisconsin-catholic-bishop-contradicts-usccb-to-support-paul-ryan/

Also interesting:

http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?entry_id=5295

Hope that helps. StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good to be editing with you, Instaurare. (My wife thinks she's having a "near-death experience" every time I drive her to work. ). --Kenatipo ^speak! 22:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So does my mom! Instaurare (talk) 03:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D on the legacy of World War II Op-ed: Bomzibar on German military history

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.

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?

--The Olive Branch 19:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Martin O'Malley (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Britain, German, Irish and Montgomery County

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Fahrenheit 9/11 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to R rating

The Great Raid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Thin Red Line

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]