User talk:Pro-Lick

Block Log

As can be seen in my user page history, Zoe removed a clearly marked external link to my blog and then reverted after I changed it back just before Zoe blocked me for unverifiable reasons.

Actually, user pages that link to and from blogs and other personal sites is a long-standing common practice (more upon request):

User:Acarvin links to www.digitaldivide.net, www.andycarvin.com
User:Joebeone links to josephhall.org

As for blogs that reference and comment on articles, not always in a positive way, this also has been going on without any blocking of the users:

"mess" on Wikipedia [1]
threats and disputes by other users on wikipedia [2]
Blog requesting media for articles [3]

Zoe is taking out some sort of personal war against me. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Halliburton Shill. Zoe keeps creating new excuses, all POV. I was told to get a new username. I did. No other admin has a problem with this. The vandal/troll thing is made up. I have vandalized nothing and troll nowhere. The only verifiable part of the block is that I have returned with a new username, as requested, so there is no violation.

Consider some other opinions that lack the bias of the admins invovled:

This complaint, that was posted by Musical Linguist (aka AnnH), who has a very biased opinion against me because of her personal views. I wouldn't call anything she provides NPOV. Zoe and JoshuaZ appear to be part of some sort of disruptive game to support her quest to exclude my contributions, despite the fact that I make quality contributions to articles.

Lastly, my blog is just a more entertaining RfC. We were getting essentially no response to my 1st 2 RfCs (nobody else from that article had posted an RfC until later, and to view the bias and ill-will, just compare my RfCs with theirs) and that still didn't seem to add any additional users). Nothing on the blog promotes vandalism. It's not like the definitions are inaccurate or that I'm not adding anything else to that and other articles.

Regarding previous block, there was no evasion and I was unblocked. Please see press release section below for full explanation.

Welcome to my talk page. Please place your comments in the appropriate section, or add a section lacking an obvious section. Thank you, and enjoy your talk.--The Management ( aka--Pro-Lick 04:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC) )[reply]

Important Wikipedian References

Examples of Anti-Abortionists' Threats

Enjoy the do-it-our-way or we'll burn, bomb, and shoot you logic.

Regarding your edits to Abortion

Pro, the particular sentence you are objecting to has been accepted by consensus. At this point, attempting to edit the sentence can only be seen as an attempt to overturn the NPoV consensus. Refusal to abide by consensus canhave serious consequences, up to and including being blocked from editing Wikipedia.

Please re-read the discussion on the talk page, linked above, If you feel you have additional information or new arguments, please feel free to make them--but please do NOT simply ignore the consensus that has already been established. Justin Eiler 03:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing comments

Apparently, I posted a comment in an area that was reserved for citations. I didn't realize that until after you removed it, because I'm not used to that sort of thing. Somehow I read right through the words "Not for opinions" without it registering that you were declaring that section a comment-free zone.

I thought you should know. I'm putting my comments back now, in a comments subsection. If you've got a better idea, refactor away, my friend. -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your main issue was corrected in the definitions quote, so there was no further need for the comment. You obviously can go into the history and grab your comment and repost it elsewhere if you feal something else needed a comment. If you want to add a separate comment section, that's fine. I marked the source section clearly and will keep it as such.--Pro-Lick 03:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings (see above for threats)

Regarding this edit:

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy: There is no excuse for personal attacks on other contributors. Do not make them. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that you may be blocked for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thanks, GTBacchus^(talk) 18:02, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stated loving and trolling are not mutually exclusive. Nothing more. That was focussed on the content and, if it attacks anyone personally, that is incidental.

You also made a snide comment in your edit summary - you are not as clever as you think. Good

I guess I appreciate the irony on some level - to point out someone's snide remark, and couch it within a snide remark of one's own. None of us is clever enough to write an encyclopedia alone, so we have to work together. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Lick, I hope you don't think I'm harassing you, or out to get you or something. I like that you seem smart and passionate, and I welcome your contributions to Wikipedia. I suspect we agree politically, although I consider that irrelevant here. Please consider that your editing style is rubbing several editors the wrong way, and whether that's really how you want to interact with this project.

You could argue semantics, if you want to, and explain why your snide remark wasn't technically a personal attack, but only a snide remark... or you could refrain from snide remarks because they're in the same spirit as personal attacks: derogatory, unproductive, and calculated to malign another contributor. Please, let's all respect each other very much. I respect your contibutions, comments, efforts, and obvious passion for improving the article, as well as GoodandEvil's. Let's all be cool with each other. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One more thing - FYI - please do not refer to another editor's contibutions as vandalism, no matter how wrong or misguided they are, and not matter how much you disagree with them. GoodandEvil is doing what he sees is best for the article, and that is never vandalism. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism, where you'll see that we define that word very narrowly here. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:25, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder on vandalism. I was picking up its use from certain other users that used it outside the specific meaning it has here.--Pro-Lick 19:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AnnH (aka Musical Linguist) Confession

Hi, Pro-Lick. I just want to make sure that you're fully aware of the three-revert rule, which says that you may not perform more than three reverts on any page in any twenty-four hour period. If you violate that rule, you may be blocked for twenty-four hours. I noticed that you broke the rule recently, but I don't normally report people, unless they keep on doing it after being warned, and I particularly don't like reporting newcomers. AnnH ♫ 01:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I started my last edit to you (which you seem to have partly deleted) a few hours ago, by clicking the + at the top of the page to open a new section. I wrote some of it, and then went away and kept the computer running. When I came back, I made some other edits (I had the browser open in two windows) and then finished the one on this page. I see now that you were blocked a few hours ago, which I did not know when I pressed "Save page". However, apart from "you may be blocked", I don't think the message would have been any different. I'll also add that people who have a record of edit warring can actually get blocked even if they stay within the limit. If they keep on making exactly three reverts a day, and making the fourth one just outside of the twenty-four-hour period so that an administrator thinks they're gaming the system, they can be blocked. Also, they can get longer than 24 hours for subsequent offences. Anyway, I rarely report for 3RR, and even more rarely block for it, but I just thought you should be made fully aware of what can happen. And please remember, three reverts per day is not a right. AnnH ♫ 01:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common' down and BLOCK me

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:35, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Convenient to ask on the discussion page for sources after blocking me and failing to provide even 1 to support your POV. YOu can see the complete list compiled so far here on the talk page under Medical, Reliable, & Reputable Sources WP:RS.--Pro-Lick 22:49, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concede the block is really bad timing on my part; but to be straight forward you violated the 3RR last night. I didn't block because I thought sleeping on things would quiet things down, clearly it did not. Your list is well done and researched, however it is also selective. The issue here is abortion does result in the termination/death of the whatever is being aborted. That remains true regardless of the wording your sources choose to use. Does "death/termination" belong in the first sentence; maybe not; but it was debated a while back and that is what was decided. Your sources also do not change that. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 22:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To paraphrase: "The issue here is spermicicde does result in the termination/death of the whatever is being spermied. That remains true regardless of the wording your sources choose to use." That's your opinion again. Still unsported, still unsourced. You can claim to have won a debate in a restaurant in the middle of Alabama, but it doesn't change what the experts agree on unless you have evidence from other known experts. Moreover, someone quoted (unsourced) that the rules say you can't use Wiki as a source. If that's true, then it is also true, if not more true, for using the results of a debate in a bar in a small town at some forgotten time in the past.--Pro-Lick 23:44, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogies are unprecise, just as with cheek cells, sperm are not independantly developing organisms; rather they are differentiated specialized cells that have very limited function and lifespan when seperated from the host. Your understanding of Wikipolicy is very poor but certainly improving. Regarding using Wiki as a source, that is in regards to articles and making self reference in articles; when it comes to discussing changes to articles previous points/decisions/consensus is absolutely pertinent. I'm not here to repeat debates over and over again; and I like most people don't like WikiLawyering; especially from new users. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 03:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And support the unsourced claims with a personal attack that I'm "WikiLawyering". Quite the impressive political campaign. See below regarding consensus vs. policy. Whether you like my analogies or not, you provide no sources for your claims and the vast majority of medical references do not agree with your definition, much less that of the consensus of your small group of editors.

LOL, personal attack, that's cute. It was a short hand way of observing you continually attempt to leverage your interpretation of policy, and your small group of sources, to get your way. Also I was trying to give you advice, and clarify that sort of behavior closes more doors than it opens. I may have a "small group of editors" I have gotten to know in my productive time here at Wikipedia, but most aren't interested/located at the abortion article. You aren't going to get your way because of your behavior and attitude. Anything else you want to accuse me (or others) of isn't terribly accurate nor fair.

Please recognize despite all the WikiPolicy indicating the contrary, controversial articles are a balancing act, and NPOV does not mean removing things we find objectionable. If that was the case a while back I would have went against "death" and put "incapable of surviving" instead; but that didn't happen, I second guessed the decision in my head and then moved on. As to sources, I'm skimming your list, Encarta among others use "death" and "die" in their definitions. Also since Encarta is an actual encyclopedia... I'd say that carries more weight at Wikipedia than medical texts. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 15:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More personal attacks, combined with belittling a list of sources of experts and belittling policy. Until your claims are stated as policy, claim whatever you like. I'll only be looking at your actions.--Pro-Lick 00:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Pro-Lick, but RoyBoy's right here. Pointing out that you're WikiLawyering isn't a personal attack, it's a way of letting you know about a point of Wikipedia culture from those who've been here longer than you have. I've seen plenty of people get permanently banned, and I've seen plenty of people become productive and respected editors. I'll let you guess which category the Wikilawyer types tend to fall into. Your fate at Wikipedia in entirely in your hands. Here's a hint - people who go a long way at Wikipedia tend not to get anywhere near the 3RR, because they follow the spirit of the rule, and then the letter isn't a problem. Here's some good reading, about some ideals that some of us here try to follow. They're not rules - they're an overall attitude that will take you much further than any rule ever could:

I'd like for you to stick around. Please learn the ropes, rather than supposing you already know them. When in Rome..., right? It took me years to get the hang of this place. There are "rules" here that aren't written in obvious places, and about which the community is kind of ruthless when provoked. Observe for a while, and see how much you learn.

Oh, one more thing - proving that the "majority" or even the "vast majority" or reliable sources says one thing doesn't mean that's what we say. If there are reliable sources disagreeing, then we say that reliable sources disagree, and we explain the disagreement. Majority rules is not in effect here. We can indicate which view is in the majority, but we do not shut out the minority. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, in your opinion, it's not a personal attack because they do it all the time at Columbine? I'm not convinced. Nor am I convinced by majority doesn't rule here after having RoyBoy and others push consensus over and over again. Seems more like a double standard to keep it the way you want it.--Pro-Lick 00:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe someone would like to explain why the 3RR block has gone beyond the 24 hour limit.--Pro-Lick 01:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. The unblock issue seems to have resolved itself anyway, right? I'll have a look and see if there are any lingering autoblocks I can turn off, just in case. As to your other comments... I don't think I'm such a dense guy, but I actually don't know what you mean about "Columbine"? Maybe you can explain what you're getting at there, or not, if you prefer. I don't know what you're saying. As for the idea that there's a double standard to "keep it the way I want it", I'm curious just how you think I want the abortion page. I would really love to read your attempt at reading my mind.--GTBacchus^(talk) 04:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block was lifted about 5 hours after the limit. I don't know why. What I do know is that is fact. Regarding your mind, I don't have to read it. I can see how you voted in the straw poll and I can see the changes you make. As I wrote, I read according to your own actions. As to Columbine....--Pro-Lick 04:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what Columbine High School is and what happened there. You seem to be making some comparison between two kids flipping out and shooting up their school, and... something that's happening here? I really, really don't understand; I must be very, very dense. Apparently, you'd rather allude more than explain what you mean. Huh. I'm sorry for being so stupid; it must be very boring to explain yourself for the benefit of us dummies.-GTBacchus^(talk) 04:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lord of the Flies. Substitute any allusion to a small group of people using peer pressure as their primary decisions making tool.--Pro-Lick 05:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock requests

Can you give me more to go on. Your username is not blocked so you're probably caught up in another block, the block message should have given more details and a reason. Admins can't see anymore detail as to why you are blocked, so without that detail unblocking won't happen --pgk^(talk) 14:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emailed message to you. It had my IP address in it.--Pro-Lick 14:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for some reason the ipblocklist isn't responding for me I'll keep trying and let you know when it's resolved. --pgk^(talk) 14:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the autoblocks so things should be back to normal. Please try again. --pgk^(talk) 14:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Working. Thanks.--Pro-Lick 15:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation at Abortion

Hi, you violated the three-revert rule on Abortion. I have disabled your editing permissions for 48 hours. Please read our guide on dispute resolution during the time you are unable to contribute to Wikipedia. Feel free to return after your block expires, but take your differences to the talk page and please refrain from edit warring. (Note that I am in no way endorse or distance myself from the changes made by you or the person who reported you, I merely apply Wikipedia's policy against revert warring.) Cheers, —Ruud 01:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Discussions

-- You have a 3RR unblock, why do you want to be unblocked at this point in time -- Tawker 19:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For 1 thing, the 3RR block is supposed to be over by now. It's past 24 hours.--Pro-Lick 00:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006-03-18 16:34:10 RoyBoy blocked "Pro-Lick (contribs)" with an expiry time of [24 hours] (3RR on Abortion intro) - LOG--Pro-Lick 00:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You already got unblocked! --Rory096 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you try to edit as an anon, it might be an autoblock -- Tawker 02:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not get unblocked or edit as an anon. Still getting this: Your user name or IP address has been blocked from editing You were blocked by RoyBoy with the reason "Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Pro-Lick". The reason given for Pro-Lick's block is: "3RR on Abortion intro".

Ok, we'd need to know the autoblock number or your IP address before we could do anything -- Tawker 07:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emailing to you.--Pro-Lick 07:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to talk to User:Curps about the IP unblock, apparently he just blocked the IP so its best to discuss with him -- Tawker 08:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus vs. Policy

Linked to and a few choice phrases quoted for your convenience:

"Consensus should not trump NPOV (or any other official policy). A group of editors advocating a viewpoint do not, in theory, overcome the policy expressed in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not concerning advocacy and propaganda."
"With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that one is editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of one's activities."
"Precise numbers for "supermajority" are hard to establish, and Wikipedia is not a majoritarian democracy, so simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate."
"This group of editors should not agree to an article version that violates NPOV, but on occasion will do so anyway. This is generally agreed to be a bad thing."

Abortion comic strip poll

Hi Pro-Lick - I would suggest removing the comic strip poll from Talk:Abortion. The comics do nothing but further polarize the editors of the article, and show a lack of respect for opposing views. They do not have anything to do with any specific debates, in that they do not contribute to seeking a better article; if anything, they drive editors further away from a willingness to work together. Their are plenty of political cartoons from the Pro-Life perspective that could be inserted, but what's the point? As I said, it accomplishes nothing on the page save to incense those of opposing POV's. I just wanted to let you know my take, off of the page - I also wanted to offer a piece of advice, in that inserting things like that makes it more difficult for editors to take you seriously. As your seriousness/cooperative spirit are gauged by other editors, so is your opinion taken seriously or not seriously by them in making decisions as to what goes on the article page. The more respectful, patient, and cooperative you can be, the more likely your suggestions will be integrated into the article. Cheerio, DonaNobisPacem 08:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest moving the straw poll from Talk:Abortion. Internal polling only further polarizes the editors. In addition, no original research. The entire section needs to go. When that happens, the point of the cartoon poll will no longer be needed and I will be happy to have it removed. Thank you for helping to further communicate my point.--Pro-Lick 15:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Lick, before you reinvent too many wheels, check out m:Polls are evil. We've all read it, and you can link to it the way I did here ([[m:Polls are evil]]). You might agree with a lot of what's written there. Every poll I participate in around here, I do with full knowledge of that document, including the final section (don't miss it!) wherein is explained how polls are to be used. In short - a Wiki-poll is not a vote. It's a discussion-generating device. It works as that, but the trick is, you have to use it as that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking. I recommend re-reading the last part. Calling a poll a discussion generating device is an exercise in rebranding. The reality remains the same. If you want a discussion generating device, name it as such (or anything that does not imply a voting mechanism) and don't include a voting section, as was done in the straw poll. Until then, my previous statement applies and I am confused why anyone would support a poll or post it if they honestly, not just rhetorically, think polls are evil.--Pro-Lick 16:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't honestly think that "polls are evil". (I don't really use the concept "evil" in my world-view.) That phrase is just a soundbyte-sized label for the contents of the page.

You see, I arrived at Wikipedia a few years ago, and I noticed that there's something that goes on here, wherein people set up a straw poll, use it to generate discussion, repeat as often as necessary that it isn't a vote, and then use the results of the discussion to progress in whatever they're doing. It works, again and again and again. When you've seen a few dozen of them, you'll know what I mean.

Our deletion process, as another example, resembles a vote, but isn't one. Our process of selecting Administrators resembles a vote, but isn't one, quite. There are considerations that can, and do, trump "majority" or "supermajority" in all cases of Wiki-polling. In calling it a "straw poll" and treating it as a discussion-generating, information-gathering process, I'm just imitating what I've seen other Wikipedians do sucessfully. It's all part of picking up on cultural standards, and eventually being comfortable enough to apply them oneself. Maybe "straw polls" should be called something else, but they aren't. I'm going to keep using the standard Wikipedia terminology to mean what other Wikipedians will know I mean. Thanks for the suggestion that we change, though. Maybe someday.

You called my attention to the last section of m:Polls are evil, the one titled "Polls are misleading and encourage confusion". It was precisely because of that section that I thought it would be helpful to give you that link. I know that you're new here, and likely to think that our little Wiki-polls are votes, because that's what they look like at first. Now you know what's really going on. Everyone knows that "polls are evil", but we hold them anyway, and there's usually one person objecting to the poll and reminding everybody else that "polls are evil". We're all comfortable with that. Some courteous dissent is a good contant reminder that we must mind the discussion emerging from the poll, and not be blinded by a "vote count". Thanks for providing that dissent. I do hope you'll also be willing to weigh in on the decision being discussed, despite your quite just reservations about the format of the discussion. You may consider the group (or at least me) reminded that the straw poll isn't a vote, despite the resemblances. Thank you. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As "evil" is used in jest, but to make a point, my comic poll is used in jest and to make a point. In an environment where votes can't be faked, or at least are extrememly difficult to fake on a wide scale, I like polls and votes. I like democracy. Knowledge, however, is about reality, not what the majority want reported as reality. So, within the context of Wiki and any other Internet knowledge source, polls are, shall we say, in conflict with 2 important general aspects of an encylopedia.--Pro-Lick 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you'll note I haven't objected to your comic poll. I read and understand DonaNobis' objections above, but I'm not bothered by humor. (DonaNobis, if you're reading, I mean no disrespect, and won't say you're wrong, merely that I disagree.) Maybe it makes a difference that I'm pro-choice and find SD's new law abhorrent, and worth mocking. I'd like to see some comics from the other side, and find out whether they push my buttons, or what. Maybe then I'd agree with DonaNobis.

As to your point regarding voting, I think it's valid and important. When it comes to content issues, I would agree with you entirely. I say (a) that this is a style issue, and not a content issue, and (b) that style issues are not the sort of thing you can source, and are precisely the sort of thing consensus is and should be used for here. I suspect you may disagree with both? I'll wait for an answer before replying; trying to curtail my tendency to long-windedness. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Words are content. They have meaning. How we put them on the page, whether we link them, put quotes on them, italicize them, put them in a floating box, or indent them is sTyLe.--Pro-Lick 01:27, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool. It's good to find out just where we're not seeing eye to eye. Regarding the difference between content and style, you're oversimplifying. Examples of style that involve differences in language include: active vs passive voice, long sentences vs short sentences, dry/literal/direct statements vs flowery/evocative/indirect ones, writing for a non-specialist vs an expert audience, etc. I could go on and on. That the line between style and content is actually a grey area is actually a really interesting fact, on which a lot of good humor is based.

There are multiple ways to state any fact. Some involve different words, but all must relate the same fact. The sources are in broad agreement as to the fact of just what an abortion is. Some choose some words to express what an abortion is, others choose other words. The particular words chosen by each source make them different in style, but not in content. Using the word "death" or refraining from using it is different from actually asserting as a fact that an abortion does or does not involve death - there's actually no controversy on that point, just like there's no controversy as to whether the growth and cutting of hair on our heads involves death. It's an undisputed fact, that can be phrased in multiple ways. One may dodge the word death, or not, as dictated by one's style, just like one could use the word "death" or not in a biological description of the growth and loss of hair.

Am I making any sense? -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is more to style as you point out, though I would say you're shifting the topic. You apparently see "death" as a style choice. I see it as conveying an incaccurate meaning that supports a biased point of view. At least at the moment, the overwhelming number of reputable, reliable sources concur. Until that changes, my "style" choice is that of the sources.--Pro-Lick 02:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What inaccurate meaning is conveyed by the word "death"? I'm not seeing that part. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a question for the sources. In my POV, stating that death results is eqivalent to stating on a page about menstruation that the period results in the egg's death or on an article on masturbation that it results in the sperms' death. If style is to be considered, style relative to how similar issues are described needs to be considered, too. Which brings us to miscarriage, which reputable, reliable sources use death to define even more rarely than aboriton, even though it is considered a sub-category of abortion.--Pro-Lick 03:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you would find it difficult to find a source that finds masturbation and menstruation "similar" to abortion. I don't understand how the comparison is helpful. The cells involved in those situations have a limited lifespan; and are by-products of the human body, like dead skin. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with sourcing the mast/menst, which is why I prefaced it with POV. GTB asked, and my main answer remains, that's for the sources to answer. Miscarriage, however, is a sub-category of abortion, and therefore needs consideration, just as the sources for abortion need more than our WP:NOR.--Pro-Lick 06:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a definition fails to distinguish abortion from live delivery, it's no good. I don't know how to make that distinction without somehow expressing that one involves the fetus dying, and the other one doesn't.-GTBacchus(talk) 04:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

That's your POV (i.e., no sources to support your opinion).
That's your knowledge gap ("dont't know").

The sources don't have that problem, and you have failed to provide sources to support your POV. Again. You're using living and dying in human terms, yet the fetus is not human yet. Sourced replies only.--Pro-Lick 04:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admittedly, I think the comics are more offensive to one side than the other - for a pro-lifer, if you consider the one being aborted as a person, with a soul (if you are a religious pro-lifer) and rights, then abortion = murder - so the humour becomes rather sickening. On the other hand - many pro-life cartoons show a doctor performing an abortion as murder, or those supporting abortion as supporting murder, which tends to offend as well. I get the comics were there to prove a point, in a humourous manner; and I certainly am not one to object to humour (the fact I refer to myself as an idiot in some of my edit corrections should indicate that ;) ). But on the other hand, abortion humour can easily get offensive when one does not respect the POV of the opposing side, and that's what I object to.....anyways....if no one objects, I'll put a few links to the "other side" comics here, and you can see what you think.....DonaNobisPacem 01:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add to it. I'm sure I'll laugh, just not with them.--Pro-Lick 01:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dona, I'd love to see them, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abortion Reality 101

For those about to post here wishing to shill me their pet pseudoscience and medical quackery:

The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion provided by England's National electronic Library for Health

I find this particularly amusing because an anti-abortionist actually linked to it thinking it supported their propaganda. Of course, what it actually provides another example of is how little in-depth reading anti-aboritionists do. Reading it only highlights that abortion is not only safe and beneficial to the women who have them, but to any actual children they have.

A brief list of highlights:

abortion is safer than birth
complications are rare
no link between becoming infertile and abortion
studies not open to bias found no link between abortion and breast cancer
no such thing as Post Abortion Syndrome, but there is Post Anti-Abortion Syndrome:
- "long-lasting, negative effects on both mothers and their children are reported where abortion has been denied"

So, in summary, denying abortions is the problem. Providing them safely by medical professionals is the answer. Claiming anything else in an article on Wiki will result in that article being rewritten correctly, based on WP:V and WP:RS, not the political propaganda you are attempting to promote.

Abortion

I've been watching some of the changes you've been making to the article and I generally approve of them. I'm a bit bothered that there's something of an edit war going on, particularly since it seems to involve generally reasonable people. I'm not offering to mediate a truce -- you wouldn't want me in that role, anyhow -- but I do want to suggest that maybe you all could talk it out instead of edit-warring. If push comes to shove, I'd likely side with you in such an event, but I'd rather that this was handled without violence. Alienus 01:20, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't help that they have a partisan admin on their side. Alienus 01:25, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and not just 1. I appreciate what you do to make the article more encyclopedic as opposed to the Fox News article they've been writing. Things will change.--Pro-Lick 02:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The one I had in mind was Musical Linguist, of course. As for your undesirable changes to their "fair and balanced" article, I'm not convinced that things will change for the better. More and more, I'm thinking that Wikipedia is a proof-of-concept experiment to demonstrate the flaws of libertarianism. Alienus 03:39, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Scientific verfiability

I just want to make it clear that we're probably on the same page with regards to our personal opinions on abortion. However, regardless of whether or not I think that PAS and ABC are extremely unlikely, or total tripe, I'm in favour of fair coverage. If we were to apply the same blanket standard of absolute verifiability elsewhere on Wikipedia, it would not only preclude articles on mythology, religion, philosophy, history, and fandom, but also many scientific topics, like M-theory. Personally, if I had it my way, I'd chuck the "Fetal pain" section as needless concession to "the other side" long before "Mental health" or "Breast cancer" — but Wikipedia isn't about proving my point or having it my way. Wikipedia is a diverse community, so, naturally, its members run the ideological gamut. Nonetheless, we're all on the same team. We should all, I would hope, have the same end goal of building a comprehensive, accurate encyclopaedia. I'm sorry I've come across as stubborn, or even hostile, but perhaps I take a "revert first, Talk later" approach (after all, we've had our share of determined editors on Abortion). If you have any recommendations for how to cover ABC, or anything else, let's be constructive and build the section together instead of running an endless edit war. -Severa ?? | !!! 06:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My approach would not preclude the articles you're talking about. It would make it clear in those articles of how they are perceived by authorities on the subject. As it stands, you're giving undue weight to the believers as opposed to expressing the widely-held expert view.--Pro-Lick 16:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an example of how we could better delineate and communicate minority opinions, subsections or tables could be added and titled "Believer Talk". That would both allow for "fair" coverage and not confuse that coverage with the expert sources.--Pro-Lick 18:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Safe Sex

For Chooserr, here's what I would do on the safe sex page. Add this sub-category under Safe sex precautions:

Safe & Reproductive Sex

For those wishing to have children, conventional approaches like contraceptives, abstinance, or masturbation will not work. Present options include:

Medical tests to verify that your husband or wife are not carriers.
If you or your partner has an STD, antiretroviral drugs may work.

3RR and sock puppets

I have blocked all four identified sock puppets of yours indefinitely, as all were being used to abusively avoid 3RR violations. Three of the four will remain indefinitely blocked. Please select one to be your main account. The block on that one will be reduced, and you can resume editing on it after that point. Use the talk pages of any of the puppets to let me know which one you would like to keep, and I will reduce the block on that on. Thank you. - TexasAndroid 17:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because of how the blocks work, R. Koot's 48 hour block of this account for 3RR will override the indefinite block I placed for the sock puppetry avoiding the block. I'm choosing to let this stand unless I hear otherwise from you. This would mean that your other three sock-puppets, used to avoid the block and continue violating 3RR, will remain blocked indefinitely and you will be able to edit using this account normally once the block expires. Comparing the edit histories, this certainly appears to be the more established account that you have been using. If you would like one of the other accounts to stay as your main one, just let me know, and I will gladly shift around which account will become unblocked.

As an FYI, while the use of multiple accounts is, by itself, not against the rules here, various forms of deception and abuse involving multiple accounts is. This is why 3 of the 4 accounts are being blocked indefinitely. They were presented as different people, used to dodge a block for 3RR, and used to appear to avoid further 3RR violations.

Finally, you are currently blocked for 48 hours. This means you need to spend 48 hours without editing. Detection of any further evasions of the block will result in the block being reset. - TexasAndroid 19:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't take long. User:Undermined as a new block evasion sock. Very well. Your 48 hour 3RR block is now restarted. - TexasAndroid 19:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Lick press-release

For immediate release...

Pro-Lick knew nothing. It was an intelligence failure. I didn't lie, I was given faulty information.

Seriously, I've been off enjoying my 48 hour vacation. I am, indeed, the shill formerly known as Halliburton Shill. The rest, however, are not me.

I have looked over the sock-puppet page, and some may qualify as meat-puppets. I haven't bothered to look at them in detail, so feel free to abort. For those that seem to be doing more than simply reverting to my past changes, I would suggest keeping. Otherwise, I support your right to abort.

As a footnote, I never voted for Halliburton Shill. As was suggested by admin, I created a new account and followed the "spirit" of the multiple username rules. If anyone was tortured as a result, it was the result of elements acting outside the chain of command. No, wait, I have the right to do whatever I gosh-darn want during war. Heck, it's just frat party fun anyway. It's all the media's fault.

Cute. Problem is, when you edit, from whichever account, you leave records behind of where you edit from. These records can be checked by a small number of users who have access to that data. Checks were done, and six of the seven accounts currently listed in Category:Wikipedia:Suspected sockpuppets of Pro-Lick were proven to be you. The only one not proven is the latest, which edited after the most recent check user request was submitted, and thus was not checked. All except for the old Halliburton Shill account were used to edit during your 3RR block, and to continue to make the exact same revert on abortion that was the source of the block in the first place. That is why all those accounts are now blocked indefinitely, and why your 3RR block was reset twice. Despite your denials, you have not refrained from editing for your 48 hours.

To any other admin responding to the unblock request: Please check out [4] in the completed requests section. Three separate check user requests have comfirmed the parade of sock puppets are all from the same user. - TexasAndroid 14:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's very interesting (yawn). I'm aware of edit trails and histories (not to mention, dated archives) are left behind. That's not exactly shocking. Nor is it shocking that some people saw fit to change it back. Halliburton Shill is my only other account, however, and that's obviously not available for editiing. So if you want to lock the others up indefinitely, have fun and enjoy your confession toys.

Edit summaries

Please avoid using abusive edit summaries as per Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Thanks and happy edits. JoshuaZ 03:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page nor replace it with offensive content. Blanking your talk page will not remove the warnings from the page history. If you continue to blank your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. JoshuaZ 03:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism. You will be blocked from editing Wikipedia and your talk page will be protected from editing if you do it again. If you think a warning was not justified talk to an admin who may consider legitimately removing the warning. JoshuaZ 03:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since you seem to have a problem with non-admins issuing standard warnings (which is, incidentally, not only allowed but positively encouraged) I will support JoshuaZ's warning above. I am an admin, so that should satisfy whatever objections you might have. Just zis Guy you know? 09:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has a real problem following the rules or even being polite. I made polite comments and warnings repeatedly and he simply ignores them and removes them. Severe discipline is in order. Good 14:56, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input, JzG. I appreciate your time. As an admin, I am confident in your ability link me to the section on the Vandalism page that states "Removing warnings from your talk page is considered vandalism."

Just a reminder that JzG and JoushuaZ have not provided a WP:V source for JoshuaZ's "vandalism" claim. Despite the fact that I didn't even break the claimed rule and left the warning as is, I am being blocked (verifiable via this page's history). Maybe another admin or user can help them out.--Pro-Lick 15:11, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, WP:V is verifiability, not vandalism. If you are going to attempt to make claims about policy or guidlines, try to get your abbreviations right. The relevant rules are under Wikipedia:Vandalism which includes "Link vandalism Rewriting links within an article so that they appear the same, but point to something irrelevant or ridiculous (e.g. France). Avoidant vandalism Removing {{afd}}, {{copyvio}} and other related tags in order to conceal or avoid entries to risk deletion. Removing warnings Removing warnings for vandalism from one's talk page is also considered vandalism. Random character vandalism Replacing topical information with random characters, or just adding random characters to a page. "aslkdjnsdagkljhasdlkh," for example. Be careful: only in extended cases is this vandalism; it could also potentially be a new user test. " I have bolded the relevant section for you. Have a good day. JoshuaZ 15:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the effort, JoshuaZ. That was a good start. I am aware of the difference between WP:V and vandalism links. Please note that every time you post on Wiki, there is a "verifiable" notice and that verifiability is a policy. Regarding your vandalism quote, please review Wikipedia:Vandalism#Types_of_vandalism. There is a section regarding Talk page vandalism: "The above does not apply to the user's own Talk page, where users generally are permitted to remove and archive comments at their discretion, except in cases of warnings, which they are generally discouraged from removing, especially where the intention of the removal is to mislead other editors." So, the question is what other editors was I attempting to intentionally mislead? Please note "generally discouraged", not blocked, or "talk page will be protected from editing".--Pro-Lick 15:40, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability is a policy that applies to article content, as you yourself have repeatedly pointed out, Pro-Lick. Administrators have a fair amount of latitude as far as blocking disruptive users. Kind of like how the 3RR can turn into the 2RR if someone appears to be "gaming the system". (I'm not saying you are, in this case, it's just an example of how admins have some latitude.) The first check on admin abuse is other admins - if other admins review the block, and agree with it, then it sticks, whether or not you think it's justified by policy. In this case though, it is. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy, especially the section titled "Users who exhaust the community's patience", with which you've been flirting for some time. We can block you forever just because we don't like you, if enough of us agree to it.

You're asking other admins to review Zoe's block; that's the right approach. You emailed me, asking that I review Zoe's block, the reason for which was "returning vandal/troll/POV warrior". I can't honestly disagree with Zoe. You've been asked again and again not to remove or alter other people's comments on your talk page, especially warnings, but you kept doing it. You've been told again and again that civility is paramount here, but you've continued to be uncivil. You've been told by a dozen different Wikipedians that your style of editing and quoting policy to support your edits amounts to Wikilawyering, and is not accepted by the community as a good way to contribute, but you've ignored everyone and decided that you know best how Wikipedia works, because you read some policy pages. You refuse to listen to helpful advice from other, experienced Wikipedians. I support this block, chiefly because you're one of the worst violators of m:Don't be a dick whom I've ever encountered at this site. In a way, that page is the only rule that exists, not only in Wikipedia, but in life.

I AM WILLING TO SUPPORT YOUR UNBLOCKING, if you convince me that you are willing to adopt a radically different editing style, by treating everyone else here with unfailing courtesy and respect, and showing a good-faith dedication to working within a consensus model. That means not removing or altering other people's comments, not making fun of opposing POVs, not making or calling for unencyclopedic edits ("beautifying"?), not edit-warring for any reason, and generally working well with others. An ounce of humility will buy you a ton of good will from the community, which at the rate you've been squandering it, you could use.

Summary: Admins can block you just for being a... chronic vexatious editor. That's a fact of life, and it's policy. If you want to be unblocked, you'll have to stop being that. I'm perfectly willing to unblock you if you show good faith. Feel free to email me again, with reasons why your block should be removed or reduced. Telling me that the reasons for the block are "unverifiable" (or complaining about the block in any way) won't get you an inch; quite the contrary. A valid reason to unblock might contain sentences like, "I'm willing to change the way I contribute, and to be less confrontational and more of a team player." It would also contain sincerity, humility, and respect for other Wikipedians. Convince me, and I will vouch for you, support your unblocking, and defend your right to show the community that you're ready to edit harmoniously instead of disruptively. Here's an email link; the ball's in your court. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your blog

It would be a very nice assurance of your good faith and desire to be a productive editor if you would remove the entry on your blog calling for vandalism of Wikipedia. JoshuaZ 20:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pro, I think that what Josh is asking for is reasonable in this case. Anyone calling for vandalism is showing bad faith. Alienus 21:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Alienus. I've updated it with a new recommendation. I don't remove things from my blog - ever. No secret intelligence, no cover-ups. If there continues to be issues with "beautiful" changes, let me know. I will make it less obvious, such as unlinking to the page. It was never my intent to cause vandalism or to harm the actual content of the article. I simply wanted to encourage more people to provide some thoughtful contributions. A bit too boldy, yes.--Pro-Lick 03:10, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I hope this is a step forward to rehabilitating your reputation here. Alienus 03:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have good faith that the faith based here will be good.--Pro-Lick 03:14, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock - 4 April

Your account is unblocked. Please let me, or any admin, know if you're still unable to edit. I cleared one auto-block, and couldn't find anymore, but you never know. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your blog

Are you going to remove the call to vandalism from your blog? If not, why should we let you come back to editing here? User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]