User talk:Old Right

Hello Old Right and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
Follow the Wikipedia:Simplified Ruleset
Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
Remember Wikipedia:Neutral point of view
Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

List of unusual deaths

For future reference, it is usually not a good idea to completely copy and paste an entire article onto a new page, since valuable, Page history is lost. Please see Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page#Notes for more information about this. Additionallly, in this case, List of people who died with tortoises on their heads is the subject of a deletion debate, and was specifically not moved for the time being. -- Netoholic @ 14:19, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Jimmy Carter

I have started a discussion about your recent additions to Jimmy Carter. Before you revert back to your version, please allow time for discussion and lets see if we can include that information in a way that doesn't offend. Edwinstearns 17:30, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Howard Stern

Hi! I'm the guy who erased your contribution at the Howard Stern article. You reintroduced it, and it was re-erased by Xpendersx. I really do think the sentence you added is unsubstantiated and POV. I hate Howard Stern too—I think he's a foolish, misogynistic bigot—but we have an obligation to be neutral and to make reasonably well-supported contributions. Best regards, Hydriotaphia 00:03, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you reverted the change, and it was changed again by User:Leif. Could we talk about the sentence? I believe it is POV. I think instead of engaging in a "revert war" it'd be best to discuss its appropriateness. Thanks, Hydriotaphia 16:13, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

(from User_talk:Leif):

In fact, it is quite possible that he is one of the many celebrities that alienated voters into not voting for Kerry. [1]

I don't think that line is POV at all, it does mention that Stern costing Kerry votes is only possible. After all, as the link proves there is considerable evidence for that. -- Old Right 19:18, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The link you're inserting into the article doesn't prove anything. In fact, it appears that this "franklog" site attributes the difference in number of bush votes between 2000 and 2004 entirely to Stern ("New York: Stern Gained Bush 377,375 Votes", says Frank). If there were a credible argument being made, and/or it was a widely held opinion, maybe this allegation could fit in the article. The crap you linked to won't cut it though. ~leif ☺ _HELO 19:38, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Actually, to give Frank a little more credit, he did later update his blog post: ~leif ☺ _HELO 19:42, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

I guess humorlessness should never surprise me, but I don't see how people like David don't get that, while the numbers above are accurate, the premise that Howard Stern could cause anything to happen related to this election (let alone be the sole cause of Bush gaining electoral ground) was more than a little tongue in cheek. In other words, Stern's a blowhard who has no effect on anything other than possibly the self-esteem of various strippers and midgets across America. This is Old Right's "proof" :)

I must say, I agree with Leif. Old Right, the evidence that even Franklog provides is not, in my opinion, considerable. It doesn't even show that there is a correlation—let alone causation—between where Stern is heard and how many votes Bush got in the two elections. To show even a correlation, you would have to show that where Stern isn't heard, Bush's votes stayed the same or decreased. If you can show that, then we can begin to consider whether the statement should be included in the article. However, since you have linked to a weblog that doesn't do anything of the sort, then I don't think it's appropriate to include the statement or the reference. Further, even if the evidence you linked to did show a correlation, the reference to "one of the many celebrities" would still be POV and unsupported (how do you know that "many" celebrities alienated people?). I'm sincerely sorry if what I say seems harsh, but what you linked to is simply insufficient support for the statement. It is of course "possible" that there is a correlation. But since you have not provided any affirmative evidence for that correlation, the alleged correlation is unsupported and hence does not belong in an encyclopedia. Respectfully, Hydriotaphia 19:53, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Question

There is a remarkable pattern of similarity on VFD between your votes and those of Crevaner and Judson. Can you help me understand why that might be? Thank you. Michael Ward 07:45, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Please join in the discussion about a developer ip check at User_talk:Judson#Question. Thanks. Michael Ward 17:53, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Democrats

Excellent edits. Would be happy if you look over the RFC page on Radicalsubversiv too, it's a draft still but you'll see what I'm getting at. Libertas

List of Social Democrats

Hi, I notice that you and User:Judson work together on VfD. I don't have any particular problem with that, but I was wondering why both of you voted to keep List of Social Democrats? The list was created by one user, who refused to discuss who should be on it instead decided to house it on a separate page. That user currently has a Request for Comment outstanding against them on this issue. The list is grossly inaccurate: Thabo Mbeki is not a social democrat. Why do you feel that the list should be kept? Lacrimosus 22:12, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Decryption matrix

What's a decryption matrix? From the VfD log, you seem to have run into the concept before. Google's not very helpful here. — Matt Crypto 16:30, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

From what I've read on the internet its a common device used in codebreaking. Buy a book on computers if you want to know more. -- Old Right 21:31, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks — believe it or not, I have actually read the odd book or two on cryptography. The difficulty I'm having is that I can't find any real reference to it as a "common device used in codebreaking" The only one I can find on Google is this [2], which I'm not convinced is particularly authoratative (it looks like either a journalistic fudge or kook-speak to me). Most of the other references refer to the normal method of undoing Hill cipher encryption (not cryptanalysis). — Matt Crypto 21:39, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your user page is fun

Have a nice day. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 22:12, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

adding "left wing" to dozens of actors/actresses bio articles?

It seems you are adding "left wing" to the first sentence of numerous celebrities' articles, why? I am not saying that such a thing is necessarily inaccurate by why do you consider it to be repeatedly noteworthy? [3]

Have you seen the List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party and List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party articles? Do you agree that might be a more appropriate place for such info? zen master T 06:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So you are trying to "out" liberals? Such motivation seems rife with POV to me. zen master T 06:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But why include "liberal" in the very first sentence? Most biographical articles are structured such that there is a "Personal life" or some such section where political leanings are more appropriate. If the political life of a celebrity is that relevant then there should be a detailed sub-section created, rather than use the catch all label "liberal" in the introduction. You are using the word "liberal" because to you it has very negative connotations, that is POV. I think wikipedia articles can focus on the details of a celebrity's political leanings and activism within the proper section, but they should not focus on labels, especially when that is the only context provided. zen master T 07:01, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Zen-master's user page:

I was borderline going to call your edits, Old Right, as vandalism when I saw this edit [4] where you replaced "academy award winning" with "left-wing". An actor winning an academy award is 1000 times more relevant than your agenda of labeling left-wingers. Borderline bad-faith editing. Cburnett 08:18, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, [5] of removing "is a distinguished documentarian and" without justification. Next time, I will call it vandalism. Cburnett 08:26, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

I have removed most of your left-wing labels, Old Right, and I expect you won't reestablish them...at least without tact. If you want to label left-wingers, then don't do it the way you did by interjecting it in the intro paragraph and even deleting relevant info (see above about Sarandon and Lee). Additionally, since you failed to provide an edit summary, I had little choice but to conclude you have a one-sided agenda on labeling left-wingers and liberals by making it rather "stealth" (no summaries) and treated it as vandalism. Cburnett 08:42, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

Edit summary

Hello. Please remember to always provide an edit summary. Thanks and happy edits. Hyacinth 08:17, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Michael Powell

I'm curious what your source was for the graphic description of his injuries—I haven't seen anything that detailed. Thanks! Postdlf 15:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Republican party article

Hi Old Right, I notice you feel that opposition to abortion should be qualified in the Republican party article. I believe the party platform is against abortion in general, although I could be omitting caveats for the health of the mother, rape, and those special cases. I didn't think that was the case, but I figured you might be able to clarify (maybe even with a citation). Thanks, TIMBO (T A L K) 21:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, page 84 of the 2004 platform includes this:

As a country, we must keep our pledge to the first guarantee of the Declaration of Independence. That is why we say the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and we endorse legislation to make it clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections apply to unborn children. Our purpose is to have legislative and judicial protection of that right against those who perform abortions.

I think it's pretty clear that the stance is against abortion in general. I hope you won't mind me changing it back. TIMBO (T A L K) 21:59, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello again Old Right. User:Lagavulin seems to think the paragraph you re-added is negative and factually inaccurate. From your user page, I assume you're conservative, and from your last edit I assume you disagree with Lagavulin. Do you have any sources that might clear things up? Thanks, TIMBO (T A L K) 01:04, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, User:Meelar and I have put in a different paragraph focusing on current beliefs, and hopefully we can get some sources on founding philosophies some time soon. I guess it'll have to be a work in progress! Best, TIMBO (T A L K) 01:37, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

Hi, just a note--I reverted your removal of Category:LGBT rights opposition. See Talk:Rick Santorum. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 23:04, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

Adding people to democrat category

I'm not entirely sure if tagging so many people as with the Category:Democrats is necessarily needed. In my opinion, this should be used mainly for notable democrats, not just people who campaigned for Kerry in '04. If this is what you're doing, that's fine; I just wanted to drop this line, so you could mull it over a bit before continuing. After all, the statistics say that about half of all Wikipedia's articles on living Americans would be tagged with this category, which would make it really unwieldy.

Cheers, →Iñgōlemo← ^talk 07:10, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

Same here. There's already List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Democratic Party and List of celebrities with links to the U.S. Republican Party for celebrity entries. Adding notable figures in the Democratic party to the category like politicians is good, but relatively minor celebrities like Amber Tamblyn are less obvious additions. --Jtalledo (talk) 20:38, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/OldRight/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 19:14, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

U.S. presidential election, 2002 (fictional)

Thanks a LOT for adding the electoral vote count, I could find the popular count online but I didn't have the episode on DVD to find the electoral count! Thanks again. Staxringold 15:35, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Robert McCallister (Jack & Bobby) for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Robert McCallister (Jack & Bobby), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert McCallister (Jack & Bobby) until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Redfarmer (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

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) 12:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]