User talk:Prohuman69

Welcome
Hello Prohuman69 and welcome to Wikipedia! I'm AndrewvdBK, one of the many editors of this great website. I've posted this just to give you some useful advice and help you to settle in. You'll find that Wikipedia is much more than just articles and that there are many areas in which you can help out. I hope you enjoy your time on Wikipedia - it can seem very confusing at times, but you'll find that most people are more than willing to help you if you need it. The longer you spend on Wikipedia, the more you'll learn about how it works. If you do need help, you can contact me by leaving a note on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Alternatively, you can add the code  to your user page and someone will come along to offer you assistance.

One last thing - remember to sign all your posts by typing 4 tildes ( ~ ). This automatically inserts your username and the time and date of the post.

Good luck and happy editing! Andrew vdBK ( talk )

"See also"
Please stop cramming "see also" sections full of barely-related links. In many cases, these articles are already linked in the main text, and in others, they are not sufficiently relevant. The "see also" section is not meant to be a repository of every other article a reader could possibly be looking for. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits, as you are doing in Pro-choice. It appears you may be engaged in an edit war. The three-revert rule (3RR) prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. Thank you. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:45, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Dude, you've hit WP:4RR within the last two hours. Three separate editors have reverted you on a very high-visibility page: this isn't a case of ownership or censorship, this is you trying unilaterally to insert your own content into the article. Please revert yourself and start a discussion on the talk page. Failure to do so will get you reported. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree with Roscelese above, please stop the edit war. If you feel the links belong, start a discussion on the article's talk page and talk it over with people, and try and gain consensus. That's how consensus works at Wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

prohuman's own words
"funny, how people who are complaining about me adding relevant links to certain important pages about the areas relating to abortion, where they had not done anything to spread accurate knowledge to stop this so-called culture war--where actually rights are at stake.

but b*tch about a edit war that they started.

you tell me, how in your fragile mind, does the links that i added to the pro-choice site are not relevant to the abortion debate or to anyone wanting to learn what pro-choice is?

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Constructive contributions are appreciated and strongly encouraged, but your recent edit to the userpage of another user may be considered vandalism. In general, it is considered polite to avoid substantially editing others' userpages without their permission. Instead, please bring the matter to their talk page and let them edit their user page themselves if they agree on a need to do so. Please refer to User page for more information on User page etiquette. Thank you. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 23:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning
If I see any kind of personal attack like this, which is in violation of WP:NPA, you will be reported to AIV and ANI for block. -  Neutralhomer •  Talk  • 23:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion versus edit warring
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 36 hours for edit warring, as you did at pro-choice. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Courcelles 23:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC) During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.
 * Your personal attacks against User:Roscelese will not be tolerated. Do it again and the next block will be indef. Courcelles 23:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Block extended to 1 week
Due to your clear block evasion with (whom I just indefinitely blocked), I have reset your block and extended it to 1 week. Be advised that any further evasion of your block will lead to you being indefinitely blocked. Regards, –MuZemike 23:33, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation
In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid concerns that this notice might violate WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page (or either page's respective talk page) since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)