User talk:Haymaker/archive 6

Talk Page Archives:
Archive 1 (November 2006 – October 2008)
Archive 2 (October 2008 – August 2009)
Archive 3 (August 2009 – June 2010)
Archive 4 (June 2010 – February 2011)

NIFLA article

I've been cleaning up the NIFLA article, removing the sillytags, mostly. If you have a minute, can you review it for NPOV? Some cites are needed; we can't rely on the NIFLA website too much for references. Oh, and glad you got time off for good behavior! --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why thank you, sir. In many ways I agree with you and Roscelese that while we have plenty of legit info on them but still, it ought have a more diverse pallet of sources. I'm inclined to take them at their word on the education stuff as they are a accredited learning destination (by professional organizations, and by the government) so there would be very real consequences if they were less than honest on that front. Outside of that, I'll pick around for some more, and better sources. - Haymaker (talk) 17:29, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

NO WAY

You mean to tell me they were Benjiboi!?! Lionel (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You probably saw this, but wanted to make sure: [1] [2] Lionel (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Pareen's opinion of Live Action's tactic matter no more ....

....or less than Live Action's opinion of Planned Parenthood I suppose. Actually, this was covered also by NPRs on the media - basically the same perspective if less pointed. Have a listen [3]. The transcript will be available on Monday. I'll work something later on.Mattnad (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Just a note

We're both over 3RR on Planned Parenthood. I'm going to self revert my last one and I suggest you do the same. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure how I'm over 3rr. If you've got diffs I will. - Haymaker (talk) 01:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

This is one [4] as is [5]. This [6] is also a revert, although quite a while back (you aren't going to make me hunt for the last time that was added are you?). This was also something I removed from the article quite a while back, [7]. I guess you're over 3RR already, maybe I am too. ick. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:26, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to ask. Also on the Alex Pareene by-line. - Haymaker (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you look back far enough, you will see that the Kansas AG was listed as "pro-choice" before I removed it quite a while back. I'm not going to go back that far, I'm pretty sure someone added Alex Pareene as well but I'm not going to go through the last 100 or so edits to find it. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If you don't, you can't expect me to revert myself. I'd also like to see the diff on the pro-choice business. If its been a couple of days I'm disinclined to count it. - Haymaker (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Less than 2%

The source says: "...less than 2 percent of Planned Parenthood patient visits involve abortions..." so this edit is incorrect. Furthermore, you did not provide a rationale for the second portion of your edit. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 21:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Eh, everyone else is saying 3 and I added a source for the second clause. Edit summaries are just meant to be brief summaries, not tomes. - Haymaker (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

IIRC 3RR

I thought I read that even 3 reverts in a 24 hour period could violate 3RR because it violates the spirit of the rule. No one is "entitled" to 3 reverts in 24 hours, especially someone coming off a 48 hour block for edit warring. The purpose of the 3RR rule is to prevent edit warring and disruption, no? Just one non-wikilawyer's opinion. --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Kansas

Welcome to Wikipedia:WikiProject Kansas. I think that I've seen your name on some city edits in the past. I've been editing a large number of cities in the middle of Kansas, but I have also been touching county seats of all the counties and other various cities in Kansas. Please WATCH as many cities in your favorite area of the state so we can fix the flyby vandalism as fast as possible. I'm currently watching over 1000 various articles, most of them cities in Kansas. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 23:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I will start loading up on them. - Haymaker (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

A request for review

Hi Haymaker,

If you don't mind a long read, I would like some advice from you on this editor review. What I aim to get is some perspective on the relevant matter.

Thanks. Bobthefish2 (talk) 04:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I am honored by your request. I will try to chime in sometime this week. - Haymaker (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sanctions on Abortion-related articles

Courcelles has instituted General Sanctions on all abortion related articles, including 1RR. Be careful! --Kenatipo ^speak! 23:04, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Bizarre. Every editor is now subject to sanctions because of the incessant disruptive behaviour of a single editor. Well, he can't help himself--this will certainly result in a topic ban for him--only a matter of time--no self control! Lionel (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What did I tell you? Wow. That was fast. But only 24 hrs? How does he keep getting away with these slaps on the wrist???? I wonder if there's any chance of getting GS lifted when he finally gets topic banned? Lionel (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of MfD...

...if you'd like to speedy that version of "Traditional marriage movement" that you're keeping around as a security blanket, that would be appreciated, but if you have other things to do, that's fine too. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Not really sure what you mean by "security blanket"... - Haymaker (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

"nothing else in that category has been disavowed by the rest of that category"

That's false, actually. I'm surprised you haven't heard of the SSPX. Please revert yourself. It is not your place to decide who is Catholic for Wikipedia's purposes, and the USCCB is not a neutral source. I hope that since you're now aware of your error, you'll save other people the trouble of reverting you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Haymaker/Traditional marriage movement

User:Haymaker/Traditional marriage movement, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Haymaker/Traditional marriage movement and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Haymaker/Traditional marriage movement during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Dude, stop stalking me, now. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think his edits are necessarily out of reason, although his fourth edit is should be challenged and the second edit should be sourced. Can't say much about the first and third edits since I don't know the context. Bobthefish2 (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The substance of the edits is completely beside the point (though they are also poor edits in terms of substance). But I doubt it's coincidence that he came across these articles immediately after I had edited them and did nothing but revert me, which is a WP:STALK issue. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The boomerang potential here is epic. Contentious editors often have their edits monitored. Heck, even nice editors often do. - Haymaker (talk) 06:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

If you think I've been stalking you, feel free to report me, like you do every other week without success. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Right back at you. - Haymaker (talk) 06:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:STALK has to involve disruptive elements and/or some obvious potential intent of personally opposing your edits (i.e. he didn't like your comment on his ANI and he decided to go after you in ANI's you are involved, etc). So far, I don't see any signs that User:Haymaker was doing either. As for his editorial interests, he has complete freedom of choosing which places where he can contribute to and nothing limits him from checking your contribution history and taking an interest in the pages you are involved in - Heck I do that myself a number of times as well to a number of editors. Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:14, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

*shrug* You're entitled to your opinion. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes I am, but my opinion is that it is a waste of time to get into a dispute over nothing. A confrontational attitude that is not strategically controlled can lead to other editors filing various complaints about you (either in good faith or just out of spite). Bobthefish2 (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

CPC

If you don't like the term "ministries," please replace it with a term of your choosing (organizations? entities?) that reflects the consensus that "affiliated" is not enough. You have been trying for months to remove this information, and there is a profound lack of consensus in favor of your doing so. Your recent editing has been exceedingly tendentious and I sincerely advise you to stop, for your own good as well as the encyclopedia's. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:41, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and I see that you removed content about the Montgomery County law. It used to be cited to this article - I think what happened is that someone removed it when there was an update in the Baltimore case, not realizing that it supported other statements. Would you like to add it back? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 07:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You have not and never have had consensus to pretend that CPCs' relation to Christianity is a mere "affiliation." If your desire to suppress the information that they are Christian organizations is that compelling, please use the other wording preferred by some of the users, "run by Christians" rather than "affiliated with a Christian organization." You have been trying for months to remove this information, and there is a profound lack of consensus in favor of your doing so. Your recent editing has been exceedingly tendentious and I sincerely advise you to stop, for your own good as well as the encyclopedia's.

There are also several problems with your change of layout:

1. Criticism ghettos are generally discouraged, I think (which is why we recently got rid of the "criticism" section!), and it's a NPOV issue to fill the "services" section only with favorable information and segregate the unfavorable into "controversy."
2. The legal action has generally not concerned CPCs' provision of false information, so it's just weird to stick the two together unless you are trying to section off things that might reflect badly on CPCs.

To avoid the appearance of a POV-motivated change (though who am I kidding, really), would you please restore the previous organization of the page, and the "activities" header (which encompasses advertising and religion) rather than "services" (which encompasses neither)? -- Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:25, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a consensus that "affiliated" is not enough. Regarding the re-org, NYY implemented it and Haymaker restored it. And in case you haven't noticed, the entire article is a criticism ghetto. Lionel (talk) 23:52, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

If you're going to insist on creating this bizarre criticism ghetto, can you at least get off your seat and explain yourself on the talk page, where the user who first implemented the change now favors restoring the original layout? What an arrogant edit that was. So sure you're right that you don't even have to discuss. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Daniel Hernandez Jr. for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Daniel Hernandez Jr. 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Hernandez Jr. 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Friend

Are they a friend of yours? Lionel (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Abortifacient

Your personal opinion that birth control is equivalent to abortion does not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. Please a) revert yourself and b) stop stalking me. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Oops, too late. Well, just stop stalking me then. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:19, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats not remotely what I said and you don't know anything of my personal opinions, please don't assume you do. - Haymaker (talk) 20:21, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Abortifacient

Hello! You're getting this message because you are involved in a content dispute at Abortifacient. Please discuss your concerns on the article's talk page. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:22, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Lesbian Sex Mafia

You added the copypaste tag to this article back in November. Can you remember whether there was a specific web site or similar that you thought it was copied from? I'm currently working on the backlog at Category:Copied and pasted articles and sections and this is one of the last remaining of that backlog. Despite some pretty thorough searches I've been unable to find a source and as such, because I believe it is suspect, I was thinking of adding {{cv-unsure}} to the talk page and removing the copypaste tag which is how these cases are normally dealt with. However I wanted to check with you first to make sure I hadn't missed something. Dpmuk (talk) 13:56, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Could you let me have some example web addresses? I may be being blind but I seem to recall I had dificulty finding anything obvious so I may be missing an entire page / site or something. Cheers. Dpmuk (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

March 2011

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Roscelese (talk 23:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

What article?Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

That would be re-inserting "abortionist" at The Silent Scream, after I had changed it to "abortion provider" for obvious reasons. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

If that's all it was, then I think the warning is a bit excessive. Some editors like to call a spade a spade, and the term "abortionist" is often used in reliable sources. I'm not saying that word should or should not be used in the article in question, but using it does not necessarily amount to personal analysis or commentary, IMO.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

IMO, it may be excusable as an accidental oversight the first time, but after it's been replaced with neutral wording, restoring it for any reason is inappropriate. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:46, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you want to give Haymaker a warning for edit-warring, then that would be more apt. But then you'd have to give yourself one too. :-)Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, I don't think it's edit-warring. I warned for neutrality because it's a neutrality issue. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:00, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I showed you the references I added last time you baselessly accused me of stalking. I'm assuming you were just forgetting it, rather than deliberately saying something you knew to be false in the hope of getting me blocked, but now that I've reminded you, could you please redact your comment? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for violating Abortion-related general sanctions on The Silent Scream with multiple reverts within 24 hours. 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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:43, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Ouch. That was indeed my fault and I will not contest it but roscelese made two reverts as well [8], [9]. Why wasn't she given a block? - Haymaker (talk) 19:23, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

For ANI:

So here is how I see things; SOV's description of my actions are correct - I added a word, then re-added it, then I added a different word, then re-added it. In order for me to be able to re-add two different edit, both edits that I originally made had to be reverted. Those two reverts were made by Roscelese. I can see where my reverts were more ovbious (sorry about, the 1RR on that article slipped my mind) but Roscelese had to twice remove the material that I added in order for me to be able to re-add it twice. She probably doesn't deserve the same 48 hours that I got but she too broke the 1RR rule on same on the same article that I did. She deserves something.

I don't know what SOV's position on this issue is, as far as I can tell only blocking 1 editor was just an oversight but now that attention has been brought to said oversight it can be solved relatively easily. - Haymaker (talk) 00:05, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I would be apt to call it an oversight, except that oversights are usually acknowledged and/or corrected once they are brought to the attention of the person who makes them. And then there's this edit (which Sarek subsequently reverted).Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Copied over, but it looks like it took me so long you could have done it yourself. Sorry I didn't catch it earlier. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI

I started a thread at WP:ANI about an admin. You're not the subject of the thread, but you were involved. I guess you've pretty much been muzzled for the time being, but you deserve this notice as much as Roscelese.Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Pro-abortion

I saw that you were using the term "pro-abortion" on the NPOV board. I'm not aware of anyone that is "pro-abortion", so perhaps you could clarify your use of this term. It would be like saying someone is "pro-chemotherapy" or "pro-hysterectomy". Allowing for a woman to choose to have an abortion does not mean she promotes the procedure. In the same way, I very much doubt anyone is promoting the use of chemo or the joys of having a hysterectomy. But they certainly allow patients to choose to have this medical procedure. Is choosing to have a medical procedure the same as promoting or advocating for it? Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you're talking about and I don't think it makes a terrible lot of sense compare chemotherapy to an abortion. - Haymaker (talk) 15:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It seems quite easy to understand. Please stop referring to people as being pro-abortion, its misleading and opinionated. They might support allowing women the right to abortion if they need or want one but as Viriditas clearly says, no one is just pro abortion as it infers they want it above all else. Off2riorob (talk) 18:02, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rob about that, because the standard at Wikipedia is to use the self-identification terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice", even if it's true that people in every industry have an interest in selling what they provide.Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:10, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In every article I am always careful to use the term "Pro-Choice". Viriditas is referring to discussion I called a congressman pro-abortion. I don't think the term pro-abortion infers that they want it above all else any more than the terms "pro-war" or "pro-gun" would. - Haymaker (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly less problematic on a discussion page as opposed to an article. But I'd avoid it, unless other editors insist on saying "anti-abortion". Just my 2 cents. You're right that some people are pro-abortion in cases where a woman has made that choice, but sticking to the self-identification terms seems like an acceptable thing that will keep things calmer, even at talk pages.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

In my defense, this is a congressman who thinks that no only should abortion be legal but also that the taxpayer should foot the bill and it was in that context that the comment was made but yes, you're probably right. - Haymaker (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Waxman has fought for accurate, comprehensive sex ed and access to effective contraception for most of his political career (often against disheartening obstacles). It would thus seem that he's taken a very active role in promoting approaches that reduce unwanted pregnancies. In that respect, he's done much more to reduce abortions than most of the people who insist on labeling him "pro-abortion". I suppose that's one of life's little ironies. MastCell ^Talk 22:07, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

It is interesting that you think that. - Haymaker (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Jane Russell

Please discuss on the talk page, and remember that just because the article doesn't fall under BLP rules doesn't mean you can say whatever damn fool thing you want in it. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:24, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't think an interview with the subject is in the neighborhood of a "damn fool thing". - Haymaker (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The source you provided is not an interview, but rather an anti-abortion advocacy website (not exactly a reliable source) that says there was an interview. And if there was an interview? Big deal, she was against abortion, it doesn't make her a "pro-life" activist. As I said on the talkpage, which you might do well to post on: We don't divide the entire population of the United States into Category:American pro-choice activists and Category:American pro-life activists based on their views - they have to be, y'know, activists. You need actual sources for this. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I cannot understand why you are so determined to minimize this woman's work. - Haymaker (talk) 19:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

You've yet to prove that there was any work to be minimized. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocked for removing hatnote

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring, as you did at Abortifacient. 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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:27, 29 March 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.

I have objected regarding the block here.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Abortion related articles are on general sanctions, with 1RR restrictions. This means, just to be absolutely clear, you cannot make more than 1 revert in a 24 hour period. Haymaker made 2 reverts in a 24 hour 10 minute period, clearly gaming the system or what have you. Our edit warring policy, as described, is not a bold line where you are OK if you are on one side of it, and in violation if on the other side as The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.. It is a grey area, and this is a clear case where the user was continuing an edit war, and trying to be just outside of the 24 limit in order to get another revert in. Furthermore, this user was blocked under the exact same general sanctions 12 days ago (and a history of edit warring blocks), so I don't think ignorance of the rules or a "first time offense" defense should come into play here (though I think if the user apologizes and cites confusion about the rules, an unblock may be warranted). In regards to the others making reverts, both PhGustaf and Binksternet made 2 reverts in a 6 day period, well outside of a strict 1RR interpretation, while Haymaker made around 4 reverts in the same period. I guess you could argue that they were working together to game the system and avoid sanctions on themselves, while still continuing edit warring... I agree, they shouldn't have been reverting the same material over and over, and perhaps a better solution would have been just to lock the article, but I don't think anyone else really needs to be blocked, especially not 24+ hours after the fact. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not objecting to this block, but rather to the one-sided nature of the recent blocking of this particular editor. The recent block 12 days ago ignored a clear 1RR violation by another editor, apparently because that 1RR violation was not as bad. And now we have this same exact editor blocked again for something that is edit-warring rather than a 1RR violation, while the other edit-warriors get off Scott free, even though they were the ones pushing material into this article without consensus. If the object is to selectively block and ban pro-life editors, then this seems like excellent administrative conduct.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:09, 30 March 2011 (UTC)