User talk:WikiManOne

---

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.

---

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)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

WikiManOne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

This is mistaken. I undid my first supposed "revert" as Sarek suggested. I'm not sure where the second revert happened either, where are the two reverts. Also, again, Sarek should not be blocking as he is an involved admin. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 12:39 pm, Today (UTC−5)

Decline reason:

As explained by Saren and B. TNXMan 22:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

diff of second revert: diff.--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. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 17:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You did violate 1RR on Planned Parenthood - [2] and [3] were both reverts (partial in the second case) of Haymaker's edits [4] and [5], 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. _WM^O _{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? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 23:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

This user is asking that his block be reviewed:

WikiManOne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I don't think I should be blocked unless Sarek can show which two edits were reverts. As you can see above, on the first edit which he claimed was a revert, he himself stated, "You can self-revert the phrase so it doesn't count, or you can edit other articles for 24 hours. Your choice." and I proceeded to do so, therefore, according to him "it doesn't count." After that, I have made only one edit on that article as can be seen on the history. Therefore, the reason for this block is flawed, whatever other claims others would like to make. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 23:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

Administrator use only:

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I don't think I should be blocked unless Sarek can show which two edits were reverts. As you can see above, on the first edit which he claimed was a revert, he himself stated, "You can self-revert the phrase so it doesn't count, or you can edit other articles for 24 hours. Your choice." and I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lila_Rose&diff=next&oldid=416174213 proceeded] to do so, therefore, according to him "it doesn't count." After that, I have made only one edit on that article as can be seen on the history. Therefore, the reason for this block is flawed, whatever other claims others would like to make. <sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiManOne|W]]</sub>[[User:WikiManOne|'''M''']]<sup>[[User_talk:WikiManOne|O]]</sup> <sub><span style="border:1px solid #ffa500;background:#ffce7b;"><small>Please leave me a wb if you reply</small></span></sub> 23:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I don't think I should be blocked unless Sarek can show which two edits were reverts. As you can see above, on the first edit which he claimed was a revert, he himself stated, "You can self-revert the phrase so it doesn't count, or you can edit other articles for 24 hours. Your choice." and I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lila_Rose&diff=next&oldid=416174213 proceeded] to do so, therefore, according to him "it doesn't count." After that, I have made only one edit on that article as can be seen on the history. Therefore, the reason for this block is flawed, whatever other claims others would like to make. <sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiManOne|W]]</sub>[[User:WikiManOne|'''M''']]<sup>[[User_talk:WikiManOne|O]]</sup> <sub><span style="border:1px solid #ffa500;background:#ffce7b;"><small>Please leave me a wb if you reply</small></span></sub> 23:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I don't think I should be blocked unless Sarek can show which two edits were reverts. As you can see above, on the first edit which he claimed was a revert, he himself stated, "You can self-revert the phrase so it doesn't count, or you can edit other articles for 24 hours. Your choice." and I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lila_Rose&diff=next&oldid=416174213 proceeded] to do so, therefore, according to him "it doesn't count." After that, I have made only one edit on that article as can be seen on the history. Therefore, the reason for this block is flawed, whatever other claims others would like to make. <sub>[[Special:Contributions/WikiManOne|W]]</sub>[[User:WikiManOne|'''M''']]<sup>[[User_talk:WikiManOne|O]]</sup> <sub><span style="border:1px solid #ffa500;background:#ffce7b;"><small>Please leave me a wb if you reply</small></span></sub> 23:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

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)

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. _WM^O _{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. _WM^O _{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)

Really?

Is this really necessary? WP:UP#POLEMIC 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. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 23:47, 27 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)