User talk:WikiManOne/Archive 4

Abortion General Sanctions
Note that that was your 1RR single allowed revert on Lila Rose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. What previous version did I revert to? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 08:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You changed "clinics" to "health centers", NYYankees51 changed it back to "clinics", and you just changed it back to "health centers".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, so one term got changed back. That doesn't make it a revert, I didn't revert it to a previous version, I wrote new prose which happened to use that terminology. Does not make it a revert. The dif shows that it is not just a simple change of the word, it is a more wide-ranging edit that happened to change the word. As such, it does not revert any editor's edit specifically. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 08:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:REVERT clearly states "More broadly, reverting may also refer to any action that in whole or in part reverses the actions of other editors." You reverted something that was in the process of being discussed on the talkpage. It counts. You can self-revert the phrase so it doesn't count, or you can edit other articles for 24 hours. Your choice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That essay also states:

"'On Wikipedia, reverting means undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed sometime previously.'"
 * Would you please direct me to that previous version I reverted to? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 08:52, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, the longer you assume I don't know what I'm talking about, the more likely it is that someone else will revert and you'll lose your chance to self-revert. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you first show me that previous version as the essay you yourself cited said their normally would be? If there is no such version, then why the abnormality being applied here?
 * You're still welcome to show me that previous version from the quote shown above. Besides, how was I supposed to know such a version existed? I wasn't aware of any such conversation on the talk page until after I made the edit. Furthermore, the editor who you are accusing me of reverting has made two reverts under your definition to the article, after acknowledging his knowledge of the 1RR policy. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 08:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And you'll notice I already warned him. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * And you're still not showing me that previous version or explaining why one doesn't exist as your guideline cited said their usually would be. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 08:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for performing a second revert within 24 hours on Lila Rose after having been reminded of the 1RR on Abortion-related articles. 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * diff of second revert: .--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You do realize I took your suggestion and undid the first one? Furthermore, which previous version is that second dif reverting to? I didn't realize someone used that wording before. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 17:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You did violate 1RR on Planned Parenthood - and  were both reverts (partial in the second case) of Haymaker's edits  and, respectively. --B (talk) 18:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Your first difference was before sanctions went into effect and, therefore, do not count. That isn't the article referred to either, where did I make two reverts on the Lila Rose article? I didn't, because as Sarak suggested, I undid the one little word he accused me of reverting as he suggested, so according to him above, I still had one revert on that article. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 18:59, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the first revert shouldn't count. If you're in school and your teacher is handing out donuts to the class and he or she says, "take no more than two per person", does that mean if you had already taken one, you can take two more over top of what you had already taken?  In any event, I think you're missing what the point of the sanction is.  There's no way in the world that this level of detail about Planned Parenthood belongs in the intro to a biography of Lila Rose.  The purpose of 1RR is not to create a new system to game by encouraging you to goad users into reverting by making tendentious edits.  Rather, the purpose is to encourage you to discuss contentious proposals on the talk page.  Whether SarekOfVulcan should have made the block or whether your edits on Lila Rose violated the spirit of 1RR is for someone else to decide.  But I think you're smart enough to realize what you're doing. --B (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Let's see, it shouldn't apply because the new rules weren't in effect yet? Pretty sure that it wasn't specified that would be applied ex post facto. You might not like the edit on Lila Rose, but it was not a revert. I still would like to see the proof of two reverts on the Lila Rose article which was the reason I was blocked. Could someone please provide that? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * For Lila Rose, you removed "clinics" both here and here. The second edit also changed "pro-life" to "anti-abortion".  In any event, introducing coatrack-type content is obviously inappropriate whether it is 1RR or not.  The sanction provides for penalties for BLP violations and edit warring, as well as 1RR.  As for Planned Parenthood, the second edit (which came after the policy went into effect) is the one that violated the rule.  The new sanction was most certainly not an invitation to revert articles immediately after it goes into effect. --B (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the second one is the one that Sarak specifically called my "first" revert, and said it would not count if I changed it from health centers which is what I did in the difference below. I have only edited the article once after that, so by his own definition, previously laid out, it cannot be a 1RR violation. This block specifically cites Lila Rose, not Planned Parenthood, B. Furthermore, you don't look that innocent yourself as for these difs:   ... I disagree with your making the new sanction apply ex post facto, I don't know about you, but I live in America where that's illegal... WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 01:40, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * This block appears to have expired. Kuru   (talk)  18:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

WTF?
Where did I violate general sanctions? I undid my revert last night as you suggested, Sarek. Besides, you're an involved admin and shouldn't be blocking according to the sanctions. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 17:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see that sarek is involved as per WP:INVOLVED actually you are lucky he was lenient with you, only a day, you should be getting week blocks by now. Off2riorob (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * She is involved. She disagreed with me in a content dispute on pro-life. Furthermore, I undid my "revert" which I don't consider a revert as she suggested above so there is no two reverts. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 17:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I would like to say that if someone else takes your block on I would like to see it extended as you are continuing on the runaway train ride towards indefinite restrictions without any change in behavior. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * She is involved per WP:INVOLVED, particularly where it says "Involvement is generally construed very broadly by the community, to include current or past conflicts with an editor (or editors), and disputes on topics, regardless of the nature, age, or outcome of the dispute." I would like to see the differences for BOTH reverts and what previous version they were reverting to. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 17:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Who is "she"? Not only is Sarek a male fictional character, but SarekOfVulcan gives his real name on his user page - Garrett is a man's name.  I don't know about the block, but when you put stuff like this or this into a biography, that has no place on Wikipedia.  You're implying that her dispute with PP is over "reproductive health services", whereas it's really over abortions.  The article doesn't need to be a coatrack about who Planned Parenthood is.  Neutrality demands that we not make a value judgment on abortion, Lila Rose, or Planned Parenthood; it does not demand that any article about abortion opponents be a PSA for Planned Parenthood. --B (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You really should present your diffs if you accuse somone of being involved with you. I had a look and if you are referring to a merge discussion and Sarek voting to oppose and you voting to support, something as usual and simple as that is not what we usually would call involved, and then they reverted you once in this diff after you seem to have ignored the consensus in the move discussion. Sarek is or was involved in the move discussion but he is not involved and unable to take administrative actions against anyone that was ever on the other side of a move discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No comment on the merit of this block, I didn't look into the particulars. That said, I think you should endeavor to change your rhetoric when met with opposition. Your opinion of who is and is not "involved" obviously differs from what the community at large considers involved. To continue invalidating administrative actions based on that will only succeed in making people less sympathetic to your unblock requests. Also, to continue designating obvious males as female (I note you only do this with "involved administrators") is rather annoying. I find it very hard to believe this is still an honest mistake.--Atlan (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ironically, WMO refers to Sarek as "he" in the unblock request Blackmane (talk) 12:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Removal of tag
That makes sense now...the link was not truly evident on Ibrahim's page (SHE is listed though; I was not aware of the affiliation based on the page) when I reverted, nor did a web search bring up a meaningful link.  Spencer T♦ C 19:55, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Really?
Is this really necessary? WP:UP says that polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia are not permitted. Using your user page as a platform for attacking others is not conducive for a positive editing environment. Even the thing about Scott Walker borders on the ridiculous - barring public employees from unionizing is hardly an attack on democracy. --B (talk) 19:42, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think its an attack, I think its an accurate pun on the party's actual positions. Furthermore, even our President has called it an attack on democracy. Other mainstream commentators have as well. Therefore, my comments are entirely accurate. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 23:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The "accuracy" of your poem is not even worth debating. Regardless of your political opinions, the policy is that such polemics are not permitted on user space. --B (talk) 00:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * WMO, can you please consider removing the polemical statements on your talk page? WP:UP states, "Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking ..."  The statement does not have to be an attack on another editor to be in violation.  They are polemical and unrelated to Wikipedia.  Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 04:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

CPCs/Christian
There's currently a discussion going on as to whether or not we should describe CPCs as Christian. I see that you made an edit which removed the statement that they were Christian from the lead; would you care to join in the discussion? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI notification
Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Regards, GiantSnowman 03:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Catholics for Choice, is on article probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages. ''The above is a templated message. Please accept it as a routine friendly notice, not as a claim that there is any problem with your edits. Thank you.'' The Resident Anthropologist (Talk | contribs) 04:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Removal of polemic on this page
Please see the ANI thread for my rationale; basically, you're disrupting the task of writing an encyclopedia, and it needs to stop. If I'm wrong, I'm sure the ANI crowd will let me know. Until then, do not reinstate it, or i will cut to the chase and block you indefinitely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And where on the wikiquette complaints did you see consensus for removal? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 05:11, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I prefer instead to base this decision on the really clear wording of WP:NOT. In addition, I would have been willing to give more slack to someone who is not so focused on disrupting the encyclopedia. --Floquenbeam (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Where exactly did I disrupt the encyclopedia? WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 05:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Every time you've been blocked, it's been for disrupting the encyclopedia. Disruption goes by a number of different names, but it's (edit warring, incivility, etc.) fundamentally all the same sort of behavior. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Ray McGovern
Hey, looks like we're editing the same section at the same time. Just wanna say, slow down there for a moment. I know what you mean about DemocracyNow. I had the same reaction. So I found some other sources. Look at the links to the GW Hatchet, the student newspaper covering the event, mainly for the video they provide. It's clear it was pretty rough. Maybe we don't need to have his quotes in there, but it's apparent that there was an ironic arrest for a protester at a speech critical of other governments' crackdowns on protesters.

--Qwerty0 (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't using videos to decide on our own that it was a "rough" arrest be original research? I was going to question the Hatchet as a source but looking at their article, it appears they have far more credibility than the average student newspaper. I did read the links, there isn't anything in them that says that it was a rough arrest. Seems to be just a guy who was causing a distraction at a speech, asked to stop, refused, then asked to leave, refused, and then taken out by security. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 06:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know, it seems to me the video is a source, part and parcel of an article from the Hatchet. That, plus another video in this Huffington Post article, plus the quotes in that article, plus his testimony in the DemocracyNow interview, starts to add up to a reality reported by several sources that we'd be actively trying to ignore.


 * --Qwerty0 (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Just a note that I left my final comment on the article's talk page. It seems a bit extreme of a position to not acknowledge the allegations of "roughness" and the ironic arrest at a speech about the freedom to protest. And a little misguided to omit facts reported by several sources because of reservations about some of the sources individually.


 * --Qwerty0 (talk) 07:45, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Topic and interaction ban
I have enacted the sanctions I listed at ANI for one month, based on a clear consensus there. You are topic banned from all abortion-related articles, broadly construed. You are also interaction banned from everyone you've been in dispute with on those pages. Similarly, they are to leave you alone too. Let me, or any other admin, know if someone follows you and starts bugging you. Note that a simple spelling correction doesn't count as stalking or harrassing; there actually needs to be an interaction to be a problem. Also note that if someone you've been in dispute with specifically invites you to discuss things with them (for example Magog the Ogre did so in the ANI thread), then I certainly won't hold that against either of you.

The full wording of the sanctions is here:. The only change is that, based on a few comments, I won't jump immediately to an indef block if you stray; I'll start with a 1 week block, to make sure you understand how serious I am about this.

Finally, I encourage you to find one or more people to bounce ideas off of; not to volunteer other people for work, but you might read through the ANI thread, find people who seem more sypathetic, and ask them for advice if you run into difficulty. You're welcome to ask me as well, though I assume you wouldn't value my advice as much. --Floquensock (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

p.s. I've edited your edit notice here. Feel free to remove it if you don't like it there; it's intended to help you, and isn't part of your sanction if you don't like it. --Floquensock (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism
I Noticed someone repeatatly vandalizing the Coastal Carolina University page. I keep undoing the edit, but they keep redoing the vandalism. Can that IP address 74.250.166.232 be blocked or something? Thanks Jjuva13 (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Page Move Reverted
I have reverted your recent page move with respect to the Virginia's 5th congressional district article because that is the same naming format used for all other U.S. congressional district articles. If you still feel that the article's title should be changed, I urge you to discuss it on the article's Talk page before executing another page move. --TommyBoy (talk) 08:49, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:05, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 March 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Margaret Sanger Awards for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Margaret Sanger Awards 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 Articles for deletion/Margaret Sanger Awards 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 good 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. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 10:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 07:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:55, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2011 (UTC)