User talk:Instaurare

Archives

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

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

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 8, 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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—

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Edit warring at SBA List

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

^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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
(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)[reply]

Abortion Motion

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