User talk:Instaurare

RFC

Hi, thanks for your participation at the abortion article. Regarding the RFC you started, it looks like it may get archived soon unless someone edits that section. You might want to consider going to a venue like WP:AN to ask for a neutral uninvolved admin to review and close the RFC, while assessing whether there is strong consensus --- as there should be to change key parts of the article --- to insert "viable" into the lead (where that word has not been located for years), by either inserting that word as a general definitional limitation or inserting it in some other way (e.g. as an aside about technical medical terminology). Or we can just let the RFC get archived.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:26, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage

I see that you're against marriage equality. Do not vandalize article pertaining to marriage equality, regardless of your beliefs. Next vandalism attempt will be reported. You provided no reason to delete my contributions.--XLR8TION (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? What does my opinion have to do with anything? How was it "vandalism"? Please refer to WP:BATTLEGROUND before making any more combative posts on my page. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:23, 29 July 2011 (UTC) NYyankees51 (talk) 03:22, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

1RR violation at Catholics for Choice

This edit was over the line of 1RR. You were reverted twice, so I can't ask you to revert yourself to protect you from the consequences. Binksternet (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake, sorry about that. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

"even without, criticism is notable"...well, the measure of notability kind of happens to be mention or discussion in reliable secondary sources. Just saying "It's notable" isn't quite enough. Do you have any mainstream newspapers that report this? (I say "mainstream" because, for example, CNA's reporting that the Catholic League called CFC anti-Catholic is a poor source given that CNA calls CFC anti-Catholic themselves.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:15, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

In my experience, SPLC criticisms are considered notable even without secondary sources, so I am using that criterion for the Catholic League. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

That's a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, which is always a cop-out. If you have an issue with SPLC criticism being included in an article, there are ways to deal with that, but adding poorly sourced material to unrelated articles is not one of those ways. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, RSN or possibly NPOVN would probably be the place to start if you want to talk about Wiki-wide SPLC stuff. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Your presence requested

Regarding your recent revert at Planned Parenthood, there is an active talkpage discussion at which at least 4 editors have argued that the "see also" link is inappropriate (vs. 1 in favor). If you're going to restore it over what appears to be substantial opposition, could you stop by Talk:Planned Parenthood and offer something more than "it's relevant to the article"? MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:58, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

RE: the I-ban

FYI, it takes two to tango. Ros and I are two different heads, but at the end of the day, we're on the same coin. Hopefully we're headed toward an agreement that will have us contributing productively to our areas of expertise. - Haymaker (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

"2 to tango?" That is a metaphor right? You've not taking off-wiki dance lessons with Ros, are you?– Lionel ^(talk) 03:01, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Pfft, I do contra dance. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Opposition to the legalisation of abortion". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by May 22, 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 01:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Burkie Barnstar
		Your consistent high quality contributions to conservatism articles have not gone unnoticed. Keep up the great work! – Lionel (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Misuse of mediation?. Thank you.
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 02:35, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion RFAR

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Abortion and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 03:26, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Tired

To tell you the truth, NYyankees51, I'm getting kind of tired of all the drama and trying to shovel sh*t against the liberal tide. Sisyphus (with a shovel) I ain't! --Kenatipo ^speak! 17:01, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

How do you think they feel K? Methinks you have them exactly where you want them. – Lionel ^(talk) 04:06, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate the encouraging words, Lionel, but it would be a mistake to take Wikipedia seriously (or do I mean "too seriously"?). --Kenatipo ^speak! 04:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Gotta keep fighting! NYyankees51 (talk) 22:59, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Please no battleground. It would be infinitely more collegial to say: gotta keep beating the living sh*t out of them.– Lionel ^(talk) 02:56, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring at SBA List

Busted! If you look closely you can just make out the Yankees cap on #7.

You have crossed the line again with 1RR at Susan B. Anthony List. Binksternet (talk) 21:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

How? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51, why did you remove the ref to the SBA List endorsement criteria? --Kenatipo ^speak! 18:20, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, it was an edit conflict and I thought I merged my additions in properly but I guess I didn't. Sorry about that, I restored it. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

No problemo! --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

PP

Yes this is the point and this is being now discussed as someone requested for comment (RfC) here -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:49, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi ClaudioSantos, see this clarifying edit. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I already read it, I agree. While now the users are "voting" here about the link inclution/exclution, I was working and I have added some paragraphs to the history section here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Now it is being commented the weigth of the recently added paragraphs. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Schiavo pronunciation

I not sure why this user:hindsighter is so insistant that the Schiavos are saying their own name wrong. Most if not all of his edits on Wikipedia have been grammer or spelling related, but they overall seem reasonable. Hopefully he'll let it go now. Ace-o-aces (talk) 20:34, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I had to revert him again and I warned him about edit warring on his talk page. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:20, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I remember doing an essay on Terri Schiavo as a kid in high school, was before she died. I failed the essay though, apparently I didn't address the main question of the essay. Anyways, </unrelated random comment>. Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 04:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

So the Edit Warring warning is for me and not for Ace-o-aces. He/She started the war, not me. Ace-o-aces deleted my contribution, not the other way round. I didn’t delete anything. I’ve never come across anybody as stubborn as him/her on Wikipedia. Besides, have you just read what he/she said in his/her complaint? "I not (sic) sure why this user:hindsighter is so insistant (sic) that the Schiavos are saying their own name wrong." I can’t believe he/she still hasn’t got it into his/her head that that’s not the right pronunciation of the surname, plus he/she can’t even spell! Why am I stooping so low to have an argument with someone like that? Please read my messages on Ace-o-aces’s talk page, if you still haven’t bothered to do it, that is. If you let him/her get on with it, something’s really wrong with Wikipedia. I know I must be breaking a thousand Wikipedia rules with this message and I’ll be blocked or even expelled from the website that I use absolutely every day of my life, but you can’t imagine how pissed off I am. By the way, I’ve made more contributions than just ‘grammer’ (sic) and spelling.Hindsighter (talk) 05:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

You know, considering how contentious the Terri Schiavo case was and is, I figured THIS was something we could all agree on. Do we need to put this up for a vote? Ace-o-aces (talk) 14:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

^I agree completely. Hindsighter, it doesn't matter how you think it's supposed to be pronounced, we go with how the person says it. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

As a third-party observer, I agree. People pronounce names differently with many regional variations in pronounciation, but it is their name so their choice. CanadianEditor (talk) 17:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Marriage laws overhaul

Was there anything else you wanted to do with that? I think it could be ready to move into mainspace; we'd just need to make sure that all the relevant content from the current version of Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state appeared in the appropriate sub-articles. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I put that on the back burner. I still think it would be a good idea to add a column showing the margins by which the referenda passed. I find it very helpful/interesting to look at a glance and see the regional ideological differences, i.e. some northern states barely passing it and southern states passing it by a landslide. Other than that, we can definitely move it into mainspace, we just need to figure out what of Same-sex marriage law in the United States by state we're going to salvage. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:09, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

No worries, so did I. As I said, I don't think the margins are necessary in the main article, since there already exists a sub-article on these constitutional referenda which includes the margins. Maybe one of us should post at the talkpage for the SSM in the US by state article so that people there who haven't seen the draft can check it out and recommend improvements, and so we can get more people on the task of making sure that all the relevant content currently there gets put into the right sub-articles on individual referenda, etc. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:YouAreMore.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:YouAreMore.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Eeekster (talk) 00:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Opposition to the legalisation of abortion, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:33, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

RFAR on Abortion

An arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. Evidence that you wish the Arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence sub-page, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 26, 2011, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can contribute to the case workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Abortion Motion

I made a motion here. 71.3.234.41 (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Your Arbitration evidence is too long

Hello, NYyankees51. Thank you for your recent submission of evidence for the Abortion Arbitration case. As you may be aware, the Arbitration Committee asks that users submitting evidence in cases adhere to limits regarding the length of their submissions. These limits, of User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Words words and User:HersfoldArbClerkBot/Length header/Diffs diffs maximum, are in place to ensure that the Arbitration Committee receives only the most important information relevant to the case, and is able to determine an appropriate course of action in a reasonable amount of time. The evidence you have submitted currently exceeds at least one of these limits, and is presently at 594 words and 18 diffs. Please try to reduce the length of your submission to fit within these limits; this guide may be able to provide some help in doing so. If the length of your evidence is not reduced soon, it may be refactored or removed by a human clerk within a few days. Thank you! If you have any questions or concerns regarding the case, please contact the drafting Arbitrator or case clerk (listed on the case pages); if you have any questions or concerns about this bot, please contact the operator. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, HersfoldArbClerkBOT^(talk) 18:00, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to VsevolodKrolikov

In response to "At least some editing in support of "pro-life" is openly politically motivated", there is no conspiracy. Yes, I am pro-life and I say that on my userpage, but that does not take away from the substance of my arguments. I believe Wikipedia policy requires that pro-life and pro-choice be the titles; the fact that I personally agree with the title pro-life has no effect on whether policy supports it as well. And if I was politically motivated in this whole process, I would be fighting to make the pro-choice article title something that reflects bad on the movement. But I think Wikipedia policy calls for it to be pro-choice, so that's what I'm advocating - I'm not advocating my preferences.

In response to "Refusal to accept mediation outcome is disruptive", the diffs I cited do not show growing support for a move. They show that the second, third, and fourth proposals had fewer participants. It seems to me that the consensus established by the widest number of users should be the one we go with. VsevolodKrolikov's argument only proves that changing the title of pro-life was the politically motivated move because POV warriors persisted. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to MastCell

• Yes, I am a reformed sockpuppet. But I don't see how that has anything to do with the arbitration case. I was sockpuppeteering to vandalize a baseball article, and I didn't understand the rules on block evasion for my legitimate account created after this one was blocked. That is all behind me now. I edited legitimately for three years before the sockpuppeting and now for almost two years after it.
• All of my 1RR blocks were a technical misunderstanding of the rules of what constitutes a revert. After I finally figured out the technicalities, I have not violated 1RR since May 31st.
• My COI with the SBA List ended in 2009, and I wasn't much of a regular editor then. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Response to Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry

As stated above, my COI ended in 2009, and I wasn't much of a regular editor then. If someone wants to pursue that they can, but this ArbCom case is not the forum for it. The user says I have an "obvious" bias but provides no evidence of that, and singles out my editing to Bobby Schilling with no apparent purpose. The case is about the pro-life, pro-choice, and abortion articles, not SBA List or Schilling. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Editing priviliege

No, I see that now. It's an unusual circumstance though, and I'd seriously suggest staying away from anything very contentious (for the exact reason we see here). Having said that, it looks like editors from both sides are trying to get each other blocked now. Hmm - not happening. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My intentions weren't to get anyone blocked but I see now that the wikiquette thread was a bad idea, I didn't realize how it would devolve. I would like to see a resolution to the ANI thread; I don't want her blocked just because she has opinions I disagree with but I do take exception to what she said. If there's some way to resolve it without blocking her that would be ideal. But if pursuing it will just make things worse for everybody I'll drop it, and if you think that's the best idea I will. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that would probably be best - in fact, I'll close the ANI thread before anyone says something they later regret. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. The Wikiquette thread should probably be closed too. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I reply to this publicly...

User has demonstrated an incapability to have an intelligent conversation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
...but after the outing incident of a few hours ago, I'd rather not give my e-mail address to any editor who's shown a tendency to look for retribution. The problem isn't that you dug for dirt on me (even though I disclose the incident both on my user page and on the talk page of the article in question), it's that having found my off-wiki blog, you posted a link to a page where I commented with that account and encouraged others to look at the blog. You're right in noting that it's "completely inappropriate," but it's also just completely unacceptable. I get enough harassment on-wiki without people following me to my blog, which is connected to my real-life identity. I'm sure you're tired of hearing about how women are at some disadvantage in the world, but I'm honestly wondering right now if you haven't put me in physical danger now that anyone with a grudge who was reading that thread can find out my real name. As I said in the ANI thread, I don't know or care what your motivations were in adding that information. I'm perfectly willing to believe that you didn't realize it was antisemitic, because hey, when you don't deal with antisemitism in your life, you're less likely to recognize it. But the George Soros claim is just one recent manifestation of a long, long trend that has had very real effects on me and on my family, and using my objection to it to score some cheap points against me by falsely claiming that I accused you of being antisemitic is base. --Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 13 August 2011 (UTC) "E-mail this user" does allow the receiving user to see the e-mail address of the sending user. I can see your e-mail address in these e-mails. And yes, I know it can be found. It is absolutely out of my power to do anything about it, though - the site is not membership-based, so I can't log in and delete the comment, or I would have done so as soon as a user in the thread notified me about WP:CANVASS a year ago now. All I can hope for is that people won't, y'know, deliberately link it and tell others to look at it. I always find it particularly amusing when American Christians try to out-Jew American Jews by linking support for Jewish equality to support for the Israeli right wing. Doesn't matter if they're trying to have Christianity taught to Jewish children in public schools, doesn't matter if they're trivializing the Holocaust in support of their social agenda, as long as they support Likud - oh wait, if they support "Israel." Most American Jews don't support the degree of militarization that the Republicans do. A major faction of Israeli Jews don't support the degree of militarization that the Republicans do. Nor is it "pro-Israel" or "pro-Jewish" to treat Israel as a proxy in a crusade against Arabs and Muslims, or as a placeholder for the end of the world - as a symbol, rather than as a country full of people with diverse opinions whose political parties, just like those in the United States, have different opinions about the best direction for the country. Jews are people, not chess pieces in a political game. A lot of American Christian politicians don't get this. I think the CL's primary aim was to try to discredit CFC and that, at best, they didn't care about the collateral damage, though based on the fact that Donohue has tried to promote this stereotype more than once, I don't rule out worse. I appreciate the apology (and am not offended by "God bless," I take God's name in vain all the time). Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Well I'd recommend not discussing it further to avoid the Streisand effect. It's not an attempt to "out-Jew" anyone, it's to show that accusations of anti-Semitism really are baseless. It's quite tiring to be constantly accused of anti-Semitism, xenophobia, homophobia, racism, and everything under the sun, not necessarily by you but by people in general, and I don't know any other way to deal with it. Israel is not a chess piece, Israel is our strongest ally and it's common decency to treat them with respect. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Yup. Which is why Michele Bachmann called herself Jewish, of course. ;) I'm sorry to hear that people are accusing you of this, that, and the other, but if you continue to state your support for homophobic policies, or pass on antisemitic rumors off-wiki as well as on, that's going to happen. If I knew who we were talking about, I could speak to them and encourage them not to jump to conclusions, but since you're the only individual in this situation I can talk to, I might suggest thinking twice before saying biased things. The comment you make about respect ties into that - because respect for Israel entails respecting the fact that they are a politically diverse nation and that using "pro-Israel" or "pro-Jewish" when you mean "pro-Likud" or "pro-Shas" or "anti-Arab" is disrespectful to the individuality and the intellect of Israelis and Jews who disagree. Basically, one should think about whom one is marginalizing, lesson of the day. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:49, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Which homophobic policies do I support and which anti-Semitic rumors have I passed on? NYyankees51 (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC) The antisemitic rumor is the one we discussed already, which you inserted into an article in defiance of BLP and V/RS; the homophobic policies are the ones preventing couples from accessing the fundamental right of civil marriage based not on their commitment to each other nor on their fitness to marry but on the arbitrary distinction of sex, with the effect of discriminating against gay and bisexual people. (There may be others, but I don't recall you commenting on them.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:21, 13 August 2011 (UTC) (Also, I don't need a tb template. I know the conversation's going on, I'll check for responses. Thanks, though.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:29, 13 August 2011 (UTC) So because I personally disagree with the gay lifestyle and agenda, that must mean I'm afraid of it? In that case I'm a liberalphobe, druggiephobe, hippiephobe, and a RedSoxfanophobe. And you must be a conservaphobe, prolifephobe, and Catholicophobe. And I won't even answer the anti-Semite card, since it is so absolutely baseless. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC) If the fact that I explicitly said that people who said you were antisemitic or homophobic might be jumping to conclusions isn't enough to stop you from claiming that I'm calling you antisemitic or homophobic, there isn't much more I can do. You might want to cut back on your comments about "the gay lifestyle" or "the gay agenda," though, since that's another thing that could give the wrong impression. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC) You said that opposing the redefinition of an institution as old as society itself was a homophobic policy. Since you are apparently unable to have a conversation without playing the homophobe card, this conversation is over. NYyankees51 (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC) Writing that I demonstrate an "incapability to have an intelligent conversation" is a really, really ineffective way of making it look like you are the injured party. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Re: "User:Roscelese uses straw man to accuse me of anti-Semitism" above (closed). Thank you.ROBERTMFROMLI | ^TK/_CN 20:42, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Matthew 5:41

You know what would be a really great Christian witness? Spending time fixing the Equality Ride page you largely deleted! I mean, wouldn't it just show you to be a truly loving believer if you-- instead of leaving the page sort of empty-- you really dug in, did some research, and worked on the content to make it better in the process? (Actually, I'd probably be pretty impressed.)

You could even start by creating content with relevant citations and references, since that's the reason you thought to delete a lot of it..-- You know, adding content based on verifiable information. (That way NPOV won't be such a problem either! You know a lot about writing from that standpoint.)

Most of it was primary-sourced I think. It might be a hard job, but the information is out there. Oh yeah, and don't forget Matthew 5:41. Thanks for checking that out... (I think the Soulforce article is a bit under-referenced too...) Flowingfire (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I have to agree with Flowing on this one. We should consider the impact of deleting stuff. Otherwise all we'll have are stubs. – Lionel ^(talk) 20:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Requesting Arbitration

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Conservative_Targeting_against_Progressive_Topics and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowingfire (talk • contribs) 08:54, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit question

NYY, I'm puzzled by this edit. Would you mind sharing your thinking? Thanks. HuskyHuskie (talk) 23:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life is the term used throughout the article. I suppose we could keep it if "anti-abortion" goes after "pro-life". I just didn't think it should go before the term used in the article. NYyankees51 (talk) 03:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, now I understand. My own thinking is that perhaps, regardless of how the title of the article ends up, the two terms should be used--possibly in a haphazardly alternating fashion--throughout the article. HuskyHuskie (talk) 11:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to WikiProject United States presidential elections!

Thanks for joining WikiProject United States presidential elections. Welcome aboard!--JayJasper (talk) 20:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Please help!

Hi I want to know whether to continue building this article List of Muslim converts involved in terrorism or it will be deleted eventually? thanks --Fadywalker (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

If you're asking the question, you know the answer. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:52, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#New_categories_for_organizations_of_Catholics._PLEASE_comment!

Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Religion#New_categories_for_organizations_of_Catholics._PLEASE_comment! -- Jorge Peixoto (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Stop reverting my reverts of clear POV attacks on the David Barton page...

Welcome to Wikipedia. At least one of your recent edits, such as the edits you made to David Barton (author), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at the welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. The edits made by "MickeyDonald" are most certainly NOT acceptable, and you know it. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars NYyankees51 (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Then don't do something so blatantly unacceptable that it requires a template. You really should know better. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 21:22, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And you should know better than to make false accusations of vandalism. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Bryonmorrigan has been reverted twice but persists in edit warring to push POV. He should immediately cease the disruption. Thanks.MickeyDonald (talk) 04:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

September 2011

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on David Barton (author). Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

In particular, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you continue edit warring, you may be blocked from editing. Kudu ^~I/O~ 22:56, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi KuduIO, I don't think I'm really edit warring, I just made one revert. NYyankees51 (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi NY, I don't think you are edit warring, you were just part of an edit war, which is why I left this notice. If you don't think it's pertinent, feel free to ignore it and move along. — Kudu ^~I/O~ 20:42, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 21:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Workshop proposal notification

By way of notification, I have made proposals at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion/Workshop involving your account. MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

More on 911

Saw you comment over at the 911 page - like that your neutral on the matter at this point. Would love to hear what you have to say over at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/September 11 attacks/2.Moxy (talk) 02:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - I have no experience with GA assessments/reassessments, but I'll see if I can contribute to the discussion. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 03:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Anita Bryant

Your recent edit on the Anita Bryant article has been reverted as it was not justified. In future, do not remove sourced information from any article without sufficient reason as this constitutes vandalism. If you disagree with any of the details in an article, raise the issue on the article's discussion page. And so that you are clear, User:Qwyrxian (who is a Wikipedia administrator) does not believe there is a BLP issue with the article now that correct sources have been added (as per his comments here). Thank you. 88.104.21.7 (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

88... did bring this up on my talk page, and I think the problems that I had before have been fixed. I don't see anything specific that needs to be removed, though you're welcome to discuss it on the article's talk page if there are specific concerns. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I was just suspicious because it was a major edit by an unregistered user with no talk page and I saw that it had been reverted once. I'll look more closely in the future before reverting. NYyankees51 (talk) 04:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: September 2011

September 2011

FROM THE EDITOR

An Historic Milestone

By Lionelt

Welcome to the inaugural issue of The Right Stuff, the newsletter of WikiProject Conservatism. The Project has developed at a breakneck speed since it was created on February 12, 2011 with the edit summary, "Let's roll!" With over 50 members the need for a project newsletter is enormous. With over 3000 articles to watch, an active talk page and numerous critical discussions spread over various noticeboards, it has become increasingly difficult to manage the information overload. The goal of The Right Stuff is to help you keep up with the changing landscape.

The Right Stuff is a newsletter consisting of original reporting. Writers will use a byline to "sign" their contributions. Just as with The Signpost, "guidelines such as 'no ownership of articles', and particularly 'no original research', will not necessarily apply."

WikiProject Conservatism has a bright future ahead: this newsletter will allow us tell the story. All that's left to say is: "Let's roll!"

PROJECT NEWS

New Style Guide Unveiled

By Lionelt

A new style guide to help standardize editing was rolled out. It focuses on concepts, people and organizations from a conservatism perspective. The guide features detailed article layouts for several types of articles. You can help improve it here. The Project's Article Collaboration currently has two nominations, but they don't appear to be generating much interest. You can get involved with the Collaboration here.

I am pleased to report that we have two new members: Rjensen and Soonersfan168. Rjensen is a professional historian and has access to JSTOR. Soonersfan168 says he is a "young conservative who desires to improve Wikipedia!" Unfortunately we will be seeing less of Geofferybard, as he has announced his semi-retirement. We wish him well. Be sure to stop by their talk pages and drop off some Wikilove.

---

ARTICLE REPORT

3,000th Article Tagged

By Lionelt

On August 3rd Peter Oborne, a British journalist, became the Project's 3,000th tagged article. It is a tribute to the membership that we have come this far this quickly. The latest Featured Article is Richard Nixon. Our congratulations to Wehwalt for a job well done. The article with the most page views was Rick Perry with 887,389 views, not surprising considering he announced he was running for president on August 11th. Follwing Perry were Michele Bachmann and Tea Party movement. The Project was ranked 75th based on total edits, which is up from 105th in July. The article with the most edits was Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 with 374 edits. An RFC regarding candidate inclusion criteria generated much interest on the talk page.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination)

Hi NYyankees51. Because you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raymond A. Watson (2nd nomination). Cunard (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

October 2011

Please do not attack other editors. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. this edit is not helpful. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:08, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Details

When I added the $9.0 million to the Courageous article, I figured we were using the one-tenth norm. 9.0,9.1,9.2 etc. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh okay. It doesn't make a big difference to me. I just think we should keep the exact number in the infobox and in the first use in the release section. Other than that we can estimate. What do you think? NYyankees51 (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I really added it because the actual was higher than the estimate that most of the articles were using and changed the ranking, which I thought was pretty relevant. To me, when in the text/body, the exact dollar amount isn't critical. Most sources, when discussing it, use the one-tenth. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:18, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me. I think the exact should go in the infobox, but tenths is fine for the body. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:21, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I have added some pertinent information to the Courageous Film Talk Page regarding Reception and Reference information. I hope this will help you produce a more accurate Article page! These are necessary changes you need to make to this Film Article. The reviews and references should be added for balance and appearance. Please read the Courageous Film Talk page for details. I have provided the source of the reviews in each case. These critics are major players in the industry. Roger Ebert even tweeted about Plugged In Onlines review on Sept. 30th opening day of Courageous. I hope this makes this process easy for you to add some of the pertinent information to the Article page. --Lampstand49 (talk) 09:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I just added the Adam R. Holz Movie Review from Focus on the Family to the Courageous Film Article page. I have properly sourced the review. I hope this helps the WikiFilm Project! If you want to add any of the other reviews that I put on the Talk page feel free to do so! It feels more balanced after the lukewarm Orlando Sentinel and poor Christian Broadcasting Network reviews. Let me know if you need my help. --Lampstand49 (talk) 11:39, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

please take a look at this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#ClaudioSantos_violates_topic_ban.3F.3F

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Objectivist

Thanks for your note. I think there are some bureaucratic steps which you still need to take. You need you add yourself as a certifier of the RFCU. Since you wrote it, it's pretty obvious that you endorse it, but there should still be two entries at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Objectivist#Users certifying the basis for this dispute. Second, it needs to be listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct/UsersList.   Will Beback  talk  19:47, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Done, thanks for letting me know. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have cited you

An editor recently commented that this was the most lengthy move discussion he'd ever seen on Wikipedia, and I pointed him to your evidence as an example of what a really extended and contentious move/rename debate could look like. Thought you might be amused (as I was) at what the "other folk" who haven't been involved with Abortion articles think is a serious argument about article naming. KillerChihuahua^?!? 07:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Ah yes. Can't cry about the abortion articles debacle, so the only thing to do is to laugh about it. That other article is quite simply nothing compared to abortion. That is amusing, thanks for sharing. NYyankees51 (talk) 14:21, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Glad you saw it as I did, and found it humorous. At least those involved in the Abortion mess can comfort themselves with the knowledge that they will provide dutch comfort for others. :-/ KillerChihuahua^?!? 14:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

GOP Debate

The criteria for inclusion has never been a direct link to the television-provider's website. Compare the Telemundo and FOX News debates in December/January.

Multi-source attestation that are not influenced by one another: The State [based in South Carolina] and Goupstate --Smart (talk) 14:31, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Those two are reputable news sources. Caffeinated Thoughts is a blog, and the article cites unnamed "very reliable sources". NYyankees51 (talk) 17:22, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

I just assumed if anyone had doubts they'd google for more proper sources. I believe I am still the lead editor of the page, I did afterall start all of the descriptions for the debates that have taken place (except the May one). --Smart (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Herman Cain

How dare you delete my changes to the Herman Cain article! You obviously only did it because you don't like Herman Cain. What's wrong? Scared of a black Conservative? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.193.107 (talk) 16:28, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being serious or not, but I'm actually a big fan of Mr. Cain. Your edits are vandalism. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:22, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 October 2011

• From the editors: A call for contributors

• Opinion essay: There is a deadline

• Interview: Contracting for the Foundation

• In the news: Are Wikipedians reluctant journalists?; Wikipedia:The Musical

• WikiProject report: Great WikiProject Logos

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion; request for amendment on Climate Change case

• Technology report: WMF launches coding challenge, WMDE starts hiring for major new project

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 11:00, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Right Stuff: October 2011

October 2011

INTERVIEW

An Interview with Dank

By Lionelt

The Right Stuff caught up with Dank, the recently elected Lead Coordinator of WikiProject Military History. MILHIST is considered by many to be one of the most successful projects in the English Wikipedia.

Q: Tell us a little about yourself.
A: I'm Dan, a Wikipedian since 2007, from North Carolina. I started out with an interest in history, robotics, style guidelines, and copyediting. These days, I'm the lead coordinator for the Military History Project and a reviewer of Featured Article Candidates. I've been an administrator and maintained WP:Update, a summary of policy changes, since 2008.

Q: What is your experience with WikiProjects?
A: I guess I'm most familiar with WP:MILHIST and WP:SHIPS, and I'm trying to get up to speed at WP:AVIATION. I've probably talked with members of most of the wikiprojects at one time or another.

Q: What makes a WikiProject successful?
A: A lot of occasional contributors who think of the project as fun rather than work, a fair number of people willing to write or review articles, a small core of like-minded people who are dedicated to building and maintaining the project, and access to at least a few people who are familiar with reviewing standards and with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Q: Do you have any tips for increasing membership?
A: Aim for a consistent, helpful and professional image. Let people know what the project is doing and what they could be doing, but don't push.

If you've got a core group interested in building a wikiproject, it helps if they do more listening than talking at first ... find out what people are trying to do, and offer them help with whatever it is. Some wikiprojects build membership by helping people get articles through the review processes.

---

DISCUSSION REPORT

Abortion Case Plods Along

By Lionelt

The arbitration request submitted by Steven Zhang moved into its second month. The case, which evaluates user conduct, arose from contentious discussions regarding the naming of the Pro-life and Pro-choice articles, and a related issue pertaining to the inclusion of "death" in the lede of Abortion. A number of members are involved. On the Evidence page ArtifexMahem posted a table indicating that DMSBel made the most edits to the Abortion article. DMSBel has announced their semi-retirement. Fact finding regarding individual editor behavior has begun in earnest on theWorkshop page.

Last month it was decided that due to the success of the new Dispute Resolution Noticeboard the Content Noticeboard would be shut down. Wikiquette Assistance will remain active. The DRN is primarily intended to resolve content disputes.

---

PROJECT NEWS

Article Incubator Launched

By Lionelt

Was your article deleted in spite of your best efforts to save it? You should consider having a copy restored to the Incubator where project members can help improve it. Upon meeting content criteria, articles are graduated to mainspace. The Incubator is also ideal for collaborating on new article drafts. Star Parker is the first addition to the incubator. The article was deleted per WP:POLITICIAN.

WikiProject Conservatism is expanding. We now have a satellite on Commons. Any help in categorizing images or in getting the fledgling project off the ground is appreciated.

We have a few new members who joined the project in September. Please give a hearty welcome to Conservative Philosopher, Screwball23 and Regushee by showing them some Wikilove. Screwball23 has been on WikiPedia for five years and has made major improvements to Linda McMahon. Regushee is not one for idle chit chat: an amazing 93% of their edits are in article space.

Project

Portal

Join

Archives

Newsroom

Subscribe

Suggestions

The Signpost: 31 October 2011

• Opinion essay: The monster under the rug

• Recent research: WikiSym; predicting editor survival; drug information found lacking; RfAs and trust; Wikipedia's search engine ranking justified

• News and notes: German Wikipedia continues image filter protest

• In the news: Citizendium on the rocks, Shankbone celebrated, and the week in vandalism

• Discussion report: Proposal to return this section from hiatus is successful

• WikiProject report: 'In touch' with WikiProject Rugby union

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Abortion case stalls, request for clarification on Δ, discretionary sanctions streamlined

• Technology report: Wikipedia Zero announced; New Orleans successfully hacked

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

hm...

[1]... [2]... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:07, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory

Category talk:Anti-abortion violence#RFC on supercategory was reopened after a review at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive228#RFC close review: Category:Anti-abortion violence.

I am notifying all editors who participated in these two discussions or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard/Archive 26#"Christian terrorism" supercategory at Cat:Anti-abortion violence. to ensure all editors are aware of the reopened discussion. Cunard (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 November2011

• Special report: A post-mortem on the Indian Education Program pilot

• News and notes: Wikimedia Norway awarded, Halloween on the Main Page, Wikimedia UK recognised

• In the news: The Economist assays the encyclopaedia's challenges, Jimbo speaks on net future, and an inclusionist alternative emerges.

• Discussion report: Special report on the ArbCom Elections steering RfC

• WikiProject report: Booting up with WikiProject Computer Science

• Featured content: Slow week for Featured content

• Arbitration report: Δ saga returns to arbitration, while the Abortion case stalls for another week

• Technology report: Full steam ahead on Visual Editor, the avoidance of lock-breaking and 1.18b1 release

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 12:48, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Murray

No problem, cheers! ~BLM (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 November 2011

• News and notes: ArbCom nominations open, participation grants finalized, survey results on perceptions on Wikipedia released

• In the news: Fundraising vs ads redux, WikiConference India nigh, a world lit up with articles

• WikiProject report: Having a Conference with WikiProject India

• Featured content: Writing featured content: Advice from Sturmvogel 66; Sports, sports, sports!

• Arbitration report: Abortion and Betacommand 3 in evidence phase, three case requests outstanding

• Technology report: Coding Challenge results; Wikimedians to wait and see if Athena really does represent "wisdom, courage and inspiration"

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 22:56, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 November 2011

• News and notes: Last-minute candidates for ArbCom, the Sue Gardner European Tour hits London

• In the news: Indian wikiconference heralds expansion, fundraiser in Silicon Valley major donor coup, import of Wikipedia reconsidered

• Discussion report: Much ado about censorship

• WikiProject report: Working on a term paper with WikiProject Academic Journals

• Featured content: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: End in sight for Abortion case, nominations in 2011 elections

• Technology report: Mumbai and Brighton hacked; horizontal lists have got class

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 01:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion closed

An arbitration case regarding all articles related to the subject of Abortion has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• All articles related to the subject of Abortion:

1. shall be semi-protected until November 28, 2014;
2. shall not be moved absent a demonstrable community consensus;
3. are authorized to be placed on Standard discretionary sanctions;

In addition:

1. Editors are reminded to remain neutral while editing;
2. Structured discussion is to take place on names of articles currently located at Opposition to the legalization of abortion and Support for the legalization of abortion, with a binding vote taken one month after the opening of the discussion;
3. User:Orangemarlin is instructed to contact the Arbitration Committee before returning to edit affected articles;
4. User:Michael C Price, User:Anythingyouwant, User:Haymaker, User:Geremia, User:DMSBel are all indefinitely topic-banned; User:Michael C Price and User:Haymaker may appeal their topic bans in one year;
5. User:Gandydancer and User:NYyankees51 are reminded to maintain tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area.

For the Arbitration Committee,
- Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)