User talk:WikiManOne

---

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)

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#POLEMIC 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

• News and notes: Newbies vs. patrollers; Indian statistics; brief news

• In the news: Egypt and Jordan likely candidates for Wikimedia office; Sanger interview; brief news

• Arbitration statistics: Arbitration Committee hearing fewer cases; longer decision times

• WikiProject report: In Tune with WikiProject Classical Music

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: AUSC applications open; interim desysopping; two pending cases

• Technology report: HTML5 adopted but soon reverted; brief news

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · 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 ⋅ contribs) 02:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

ANI notification

Informational note: this is to let you know that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia: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? _WM^O _{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#POLEMIC. 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? _WM^O _{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. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)