User talk:WikiManOne

Hello, WikiManOne. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

---

It is my hope that the uprising of Middle Class America in Wisconsin, as a response to Scott Walker's misguided attempts to attack unions is only the beginning. Attacks on democracy must be stopped.

---

This may as well be the theme song of the Republican Party:

Keep breedin', breedin', breedin'

Workers we're a-needin'

We don't want them readin' They'll rise.

To mines and mills we'll send 'em

With no laws to defend 'em

They'll all just be livin' outside

All the wealth that I'm hoardin'

And nothing they're affordin'

Must mean that God is on my side.

---

IPPF

I'm totally stalking your contributions as we work on this. Sorry. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I noticed you edited the Japanese organization page. I think we left messages on each others talk pages at the same time. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice that Edris Rice-Wray Carson received a Sanger award, but was she otherwise associated with PP? I don't think every recipient should be in the category if that was their only significant interaction with PP. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much in the article at this point to justify it, but this does seem promising: "medical director of the Puerto Rico Family Planning Association. She founded Mexico's first family planning clinic in Mexico City." I wouldn't be surprised if that's the IPPF affiliate in Puerto Rico, the list on the website has it called "Asociación Puertorriqueña Pro-Bienestar de la Familia" which Google Translate makes into "Puerto Rican Association Pro-Welfare Family" which seems close enough. You can remove it if you want though. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you're right. Cool! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Roscelese's talk page. Hello. You have a new message at Sitush's talk page.

Bobby Schilling

Hi Wikiman, there is no need to put something into an article twice in two different spots, especially when the current edit is somewhat incoherent. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't belong on my talk page, it belongs on the article talk page. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

Cheeky request

Hi, I'm wondering whether you could try to grab a page from a journal for me, since you're in the US? I can only see snippet view because of stupid copyright differences between the US & UK (particularly stupid, since this journal is too old even for UK copyright laws to apply). It's page 371 of this [1]. I realise that you may not want to email it to me because that might disclose your address, but I'll figure out some way round this if needs be. And no worries if you're not comfortable with doing this or do not have the time. I've got loads of these queries & think I'll have to spread then around a bit. It is either that or a 400+ mile round trip drive to the library! Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ouch! When I say p. 371, I'm assuming that the entire story is on that page. It's about Charles Galloway, who features in W & J Galloway & Sons. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that you can get anything more than snippet view, unfortunately... I'll try looking at it from school on Monday. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 22:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'm grateful to you for even trying. These copyright shenanigans are very weird ... and very frustrating! US copyright laws are liberal cf. the UK and I find it astonishing that there might be a restriction on your side of the pond as well. I'm starting to think that the issue is sometimes related to incorrect metadata, incorrectly flagging content. I may have to contact Mr. Google and ask him why, even though he knows so much, he is not willing to share <g> - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Frostburg state u

Why did you revert all my edits? did you notice i removed some clearly nonnotable, POV material? i can see selective editing, with some discussion, but not this. did you think i was vandalising the article? i did say i would do this, per the article talk page. i have also added notable material, and was about to add another notable faculty member, Andy Duncan, when i found you had reverted. can we talk about this on the articles talk page. by the way, i like your statements about the madison uprising.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right, my apologies. I've been going through recent changes so I may have accidentally clicked or misread your edits. I have undone my undo. Thanks for pointing this out. Thanks for your kind words regarding the protesters. I honestly believe this is the best thing that has happened to our country since President Obama was elected. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

no, thank you for your honesty and politeness. I always start to get a head of steam up when someone edits my edits, and i remind myself that i dont know whats happening unless i ask. Thanks for watching out for malicious editing, i know that an article dropping in size so quickly is alarming. yes, and the uprising, along with the various middle east uprisings, is exhilarating. I suspect that Obama has been hoping for some sort of mass protests, as he has said repeatedly he cant do his work alone. He is walking a tightrope (i also think he is a natural victim of the power and pressure of the office, and may be leaning towards neoliberalism more than he wants to), and the people are his safety net. oh, and your user page said you are semi retired, but i noticed you had quite a few edits this month. I hope you are enjoying your return, if it is one.this work is ridiculously addictive, but at least we are doing something productive. PS i dont know what a WB is, unless its simply replying on your user talk page.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You could say I am attempting to back away from this editing and have recently been limiting myself to mostly signing on once a day. There is so many other things to do, but particularly on social issues related articles there are a huge number of right wing POV editors who constantly attempt to insert their POV to articles which is what I have primarily been focusing on lately, although I prefer editing articles that are less controversial. The polarizing ones seem to be the ones that require the most help if you will. My most substantial edits recently have been on the Planned Parenthood article, which before I got started on it was a catalogue of anti-choice stings on health centers, with more room devoted to criticism than everything else combined. Once that article stabilizes, I will probably more fully remove myself from editing. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and a whisperback is what I will leave on your talk page now. :) _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Abortion General Sanctions

Note that that was your 1RRsingle allowed revert on Lila Rose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Uh, no. What previous version did I revert to? _WM^O _{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. _WM^O _{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? _WM^O _{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. _WM^O _{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. _WM^O _{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 {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 27 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. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 17:38, 27 February 2011 (UTC)