User talk:Sebastienostertag

On Abortion in Michigan
Hello. I see you've been editing the page Abortion in Michigan today. While some of your edits have been acceptable, but I think others have not been. Particularly, I'm skeptical of the use of the Right to Life website being used as a source about the organization. It is better to use secondary sources when talking about such an organization. Also, the page you linked to does not immediately support your claims about the organization. For more information on what makes a good source, review this No original research.

I'm also skeptical of the use of the Great Lakes Justice Center as a source. This seems more like an interest group than a proper source. It doesn't seem to reflect the general legal consensus about Prop3, which explicitly states it allows the state regulate abortion after fetal viability.

You cite the Christian Post, which is acceptable, however, what you cited was an opinion piece. I don't know if this is proper for the point you're making with it.

Finally, you do not cite any sources about the violence claims. In fairness, I think the article, before your edits, did not cite claims of violence either, but this is not an excuse for further uncited information.

It seems you're new to Wikipedia, but I think its important people have a good grasp of what is and is not an acceptable source of information before making substantial edits. RoundSquare (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello, yes I understand. Using more third party sources is a good idea. The Great Lakes Justice center is essentially just as credible as for example the Guttmacher Institute. Prop 3 made it so that abortion can only be regulated by the state after fetal viability provided there isnt a problem with the mental health of the pregnant woman. Legally speaking, the mental health loophole means that there can be no restrictions.
 * For the Christian Post it was just an opinion story to show the changes happening in the anti abortion side.
 * Ill add citations for the violences Sebastienostertag (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello. I have a question about the Great Lakes Justice Center. You say its just as credible as the Guttmacher Institute. I want to ask how this is. Before this discussion I've looked into the Great Lakes Justice Center, and I can't find much on its history, or other, larger organizations referencing it. The Guttmacher Institute, which I also hadn't heard of before, seems to be acknowledged by things such as the BMJ and publishes a peer-reviewed journal. In what ways are they equally credible? RoundSquare (talk) 19:00, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The GLJC has legal experts who give their interpretation on the law and on issues. They are generally on the anti abortion more conservative side of issues, while the Guttmacher Institute is less so a law organization as it is a research organization that is on the pro abortion side. They are both different and tackle things differently. Both are cited by outside organizations. Sebastienostertag (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I find your latest edit on the first sentence of the article to be wrong. You say that “in practice” it allows for abortion until birth. This isn’t supported by your source. The GLJC source was printed before the proposal was elected. It doesn’t talk of how the proposal has been enforced, it speculates on how it will be enforced. A more recent source is necessary to back up this claim.
 * RoundSquare (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll get that source then Sebastienostertag (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

December 2022
Please do not add or change content, as you did at Plymouth-Canton Community Schools, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Tacyarg (talk) 21:25, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Disruptive edits on Abortion in Michigan
Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you.

I looked at more of the edits you've done on Abortion in Michigan and I have to warn you that you are making disruptive edits. This particular edit is a particularly bad example. You claim that Right to Life is a "grassroots organization" with far less resources than pro-abortion organizations, yet the thing you sourced, the Ballotpedia page, does not say anything like that. It does say that they donated less in terms of opposing the ballot proposal, but there has been a lot of undue extrapolation. You also claim they're responsible for several types of laws which, again, the Ballotpedia source does not say anything about. This is just one example. I've outlined others in the previous discussion. You've also continued to use primary sources closely related to these interest groups, as well as cite opinion pieces from Newsweek, which as per Reliable sources/Perennial sources is generally not considered a reliable source of information, opinion piece or not. I've reverted your previous edits because of this. I plan to re-add properly cited additions, such as the additions related to violence. Please, if you are to make claims on Wikipedia in the future, make sure they're backed up by reliable sources. RoundSquare (talk) 22:53, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Ok I'll fix that Sebastienostertag (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

On Right to Life of Michigan
Hello. I found something I wanted to share with you. In some of your recent edits to the Abortion in Michigan article, you've tried to add information about Right to Life of Michigan. Obviously they're an important organization in regard to the topic, however, your edits largely relied on the Right to Life website as citation. This was not good, because as previously mentioned its a primary source, closely associated with the organization. However, I found a secondary source from what I believe to be a reliable, non-partisan source. I recommend you look over this article: https://www.bridgemi.com/michigan-health-watch/how-right-life-has-dominated-michigan-abortion-politics-roe-v-wade. It outlines some of the historical connections between Right to Life and the Michigan Legislature. It mentions some of the accomplishments you brought up before as well, such as the prevention of public funds toward abortion. I think this would be a good way to include important information with proper citation. RoundSquare (talk) 03:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Sebastienostertag (talk) 03:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Another message on Abortion in Michigan
Hello. Your edits have been reverted by User:Mr swordfish, and I feel that it has been done so rightfully. There has been a lot of editing back and forth today. To prevent an edit war, I recommend you start to list suggestions on Talk:Abortion in Michigan instead of putting them directly on the article. Talk pages allow users to gain consensus, to prevent unproductive back-and-forth edits.

I must also remind you that when using sources it is not enough that the source of information is reliable and secondary, but that it contains the claims you argue for. For instance, the BridgeMI article mentions Right to Life being a leading anti-abortion interest group, but it does not mention abortion survivor laws, as you mentioned in a recent edit. Make sure when you're adding information, you have a source to back it up. The same can be said about your edits in regard to total number of abortions, and the racial breakdown of abortion numbers. I wasn't able to find some of the claims you put in the article in the sources you use. RoundSquare (talk) 04:22, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

January 2023
Hello, I'm Ingenuity. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Neonaticide, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. &mdash; Ingenuity (talk &bull; contribs) 03:38, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok thank you! Sebastienostertag (talk) 03:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics
You have recently made edits related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people. This is a standard message to inform you that post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people is a designated contentious topic. This message does not imply that there are any issues with your editing. For more information about the contentious topics system, please see Contentious topics. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:13, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

March 2023
Your recent editing history at American Family Association shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you do not violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:56, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for topic ban violations
I see you have violated your topic ban from abortion quite a few times, as here, here, here, and here. You have been blocked for a week. Any further violation will lead to a longer block. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bishonen &#124; tålk 18:17, 9 March 2023 (UTC).


 * i have appealed. I was merely correcting the page after the state repealed it's abortion law, which now leaves a void. Sebastienostertag (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A void which you were prohibited from correcting because of your topic ban. There is no imperative that you correct articles on Wikipedia, as opposed to your leaving it to other editors to do so. Also, Michigan did not "repeal its abortion law".  The Michigan Senate voted today yesterday to do so, but that is not the state of the law until that legislation is signed into law by Michigan's Governor Whitmer.  General Ization  Talk  18:33, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Once it's signed into law then the Wikipedia page will have to be corrected. I don't understand why I was blocked from editing the abortion pages. Sebastienostertag (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * i know I was topic banned but why I was topic banned I don't understand Sebastienostertag (talk) 18:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The reason you were blocked is stated in the topic above this one: "You have been sanctioned for persistent tendentious editing, including changes of text so that it is no longer supported by the sources given, as here and here, changes in lead sections so that they no longer correspond to the sourced text below, as here, and tendentious wording ("an abortion clinic committing abortions")." It was imperative for you to deal with the topic ban you were warned about before you continued to edit abortion related articles. RoundSquare (talk) 18:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * i was making valid edits and was in some cases correcting innapropriate descriptions. The committed abortions part I understand though the verb was wrong to use. But otherwise I was specifying. Sebastienostertag (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * If you feel that is the case, then you should have appealed your topic ban. The instructions of how to do so were also put in the message explaining that you had been given a topic ban. I recommend you read messages from administrators carefully to avoid such situations in the future. RoundSquare (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It is unclear what you mean above by "I have appealed." Thus far, you have not followed the documented procedures to appeal either your current block or your topic ban. Just saying "I have appealed" does not represent an appeal.  General Ization Talk  18:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Appealing the ban
I am appealing my topic ban on abortion pages. I was making valid specifications and correcting descriptions that misleading. (Unsigned, but this is what Sebastien wrote at the top of the page).


 * I have moved Sebastienostertag's latest edit here. It's not by putting a mention of appeal at the top of the page that you actually appeal the ban, Sebastien. Per my ban notice above (the yellow banner), if you wish to appeal the ban, please read the appeals process. You can first ask me to reconsider the topic ban, giving reasons why I should. I don't think you have really given any reasons yet; you merely say, higher up on this page, that you don't understand why I banned you, and you only acknowledge a poor choice of words ("an abortion clinic committing abortions"). I gave four other examples of tendentious editing, with diffs, in the ban notice. If you think it's not true that you changed text so that it's no longer supported by the sources, and that you changed lead sections so that they no longer correspond to the sourced text below, then you can read the diffs I have provided and explain how you think I'm wrong about them. Please be clear and detailed, and I promise I will read your explanations carefully. If that leads nowhere, you can then appeal at WP:AE or WP:AN, but we'll jump that hurdle when we come to it. Please appeal below. Bishonen &#124; tålk 22:13, 9 March 2023 (UTC).


 * Sorry, the TBAN does not say, "you may not edit in the topic area unless you think you are right." I think that is the crux of the matter, and by continuing to edit in this manner, you have shown the TBAN is needed and that the current block is needed. As an uninvolved admin, I endorse the TBAN and the block. Came here by way of Bishonen's talk where I was seeking an answer to my own problem. Always happy to opine. --  Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Blocked for topic ban violation
Sebastianostertag, I guess you don't understand your topic ban from all pages and discussions related to abortion, since you have today edited the article Abortion in Michigan. The appeals process has been explained to you several times. As I told you last time you violated your topic ban, "Any further violation will lead to a longer block". You have been blocked for a month. You can request unblock from an uninvolved administrator by placing  on this page. Bishonen &#124; tålk 08:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC).

I am retired. You were right i violated the ban. Im sorry
Retired and apologies Sebastienostertag (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)