User talk:Instaurare: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Have you forgotton your promises?)
Line 671: Line 671:
   
 
Looking at your recent edithistory in light of your userboxes - I think I would give you similar advice to what Mojoworker tells you. There is a difference between striving for neutrality and balance and systematically removing information about a certain political topic that one has a strong opinion about. [[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 19:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 
Looking at your recent edithistory in light of your userboxes - I think I would give you similar advice to what Mojoworker tells you. There is a difference between striving for neutrality and balance and systematically removing information about a certain political topic that one has a strong opinion about. [[User:Maunus|·ʍaunus]]·[[User talk:Maunus|snunɐw·]] 19:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
  +
  +
:Removed my userboxes so no one can use them against me. [[User:NYyankees51|NYyankees51]] ([[User talk:NYyankees51#top|talk]]) 19:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
   
 
==Disambiguation link notification==
 
==Disambiguation link notification==

Revision as of 19:57, 19 February 2012

Contents

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 November 21, 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 Burke Barnstar Hires.png 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—

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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 20:15, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

With the relative quietude that you may be facing for a while in article space, this might be a good time for us to return to fixing this up in your sandbox (honestly, I no longer recall exactly where the file is, I've been meaning to get back to it.) I don't think that listing the margins would serve to build the picture that you suggest, not only because the states aren't grouped geographically (navigating the US would be so much easier if all the states were placed in alphabetical order!), but also because the referenda are significantly variable along two other axes: the specific content of the referendum, and the date of the referendum. Given concerns about the width of the table, it seems it's best done without. --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. It's at User:NYyankees51/marriage/new. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:02, 19 February 2012 (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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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—

Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flowingfire (talkcontribs) 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

The Right Stuff
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.


Richard M. Nixon, ca. 1935 - 1982 - NARA - 530679.jpg
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.


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)

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)

Murray

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

you forgot to sign

on jclemens talk page. --Kenatipo speak! 18:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Ooops thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 01:20, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
You're welcome! and thank you for maintaining tones appropriate for collaboration in a sensitive topic area! --Kenatipo speak! 02:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
(That has a real ring to it! Can we make a template out of it?) --Kenatipo speak! 02:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been noticed.

Why Left and Right?

Why does it have to be a fight at all.

Do you not understand the criminals are on both sides. The system is criminal, in that its sole purpose is to highlight supposed 'differences' in opinion. However it's fair to say 100% of human beings just want to be secure, happy, and occupied. They want the ability to raise children and be married and so forth.

If you can't understand the complex simplicity of this argument, by all means continue to (and i quote) " keep beating the living sh*t out of them" and perpetuating this ridiculous cycle of intolerance.

You make me sick, but all sickness can be healed with love. Remember that | 118.92.49.218 (talk) 14:23, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh? NYyankees51 (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
10-1 it was objectivist.– Lionel (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
What you are referring to is a whore for the same system you promote, and I represent none of that nonsense. I should have known it'd be pointless to attempt enlightening someone who can believe in such fiction. 118.92.49.218 (talk) 11:32, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Still have no idea what you're talking about, and I'd suggest you stop socking. NYyankees51 (talk) 15:58, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Jclemens on the ArbCom abortion decision

I also think Jclemens did a good job, considering what he had to work with. The self-appointed prosecutor (not Jclemens), an admin, only presented evidence against one side in the debate and the pro-life side did not present evidence defending itself or present evidence of misconduct by the pro-choice partisans. The result is that 6 out of 8 editors singled out for ArbCom's kind ministrations are on one side of the debate. But, what is an Arb to do? Jclemens fairly begged people to present evidence in the form of diffs, and even asked for uninvolved volunteers to gather evidence (which got him criticized). Which brings up a question or two: does ArbCom decide the matter based mainly on the evidence provided by the involved parties? how much of its own research does it do? what are ArbCom's responsibilities when the evidence presented is one-sided and the side being accused doesn't defend itself or bring counter-charges? The pro-life editors did not have an articulate and organized champion like the pro-choice side did, and that resulted in a lopsided outcome, in my opinion. But, it's a difficult and time-consuming case, and Jclemens deserves thanks. --Kenatipo speak! 17:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Arbitration motion regarding Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion

Resolved by motion at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification that: The Abortion case is supplemented as follows:

Remedy 1 of Abortion is amended to the following:

  • Any uninvolved administrator may semi-protect articles relating to Abortion and their corresponding talk pages, at his or her discretion, for a period of up to three years from 7 December 2011. Pages semi-protected under this provision are to be logged.

For the Arbitration Committee, Salvio Let's talk about it! 12:19, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Discuss this

In use template

Thanks for the appropriate use -- tagged, edited, and removed in a reasonable period of time. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks - they are very useful! NYyankees51 (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

SBA dispute

You've gone over 1RR by reverting twice in the past three hours; please self-revert to avoid being reported. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't see that the first was a revert. By the way, does 1RR still apply after ArbCom? NYyankees51 (talk) 20:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I see zero reason why not, but if you're really unsure, you could ask. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 21:07, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

You are also over 1RR at Susan B. Anthony List. Please revert yourself. Binksternet (talk) 22:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[3] NYyankees51 (talk) 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I filed a report about your edits at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. You may wish to explain your viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 00:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
Per the request above, please self-revert that second revert of the contested material quickly. Kuru (talk) 01:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Abortion amendment request

Hello. I have made a request to the Arbitration Committee to amend the Abortion case, in relation to the structured discussion that was to take place. The request can be found here. Regards, Steven Zhang Join the DR army! 04:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

January 2012

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 19:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

At Slakr's direction, I've brought the report to WP:AE instead. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Semi-prot

You might want to get your talk page and user page semi-protected, permanently. Binksternet (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Never thought of that, thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
User:Amatulic protected my pages a year ago and it has worked 100% as expected. You might ask Amatulic directly rather than the rpp people. Binksternet (talk) 06:07, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I have no problem semi-protecting user pages indefinitely, and I have done so for yours. I have always believed that one's own user page should be semi-protected by default; there is no reason anyone but you should be editing that page.

Talk pages are a different matter. I noticed on the history of this page a few legitimate comments from anons or non-autoconfirmed editors, and they should be free to make non-disruptive comments. I have protected this page for 1 month. I'm happy to escalate the duration if problems continue to persist. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Topic ban from abortion for three months

Per this result at AE, you are banned from the topic of abortion, broadly construed, on all pages of Wikipedia for three months. The ban includes both articles and discussions. This is under the authority of the standard discretionary sanctions that were authorized in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abortion. According to the userpage guideline, notices of *active* Arbcom sanctions should not be removed from your talk page. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Rick Santorum

Deleting text referring to abortion is probably inconsistent with your temporary topic ban on abortion-related issues.[4] Someone else probably would have removed it if you hadn't, so that's all the more reason to have shown restraint.   Will Beback  talk  23:44, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Where's Lionelt?

  1. Hello, NYyankees51. I see you're still fighting the good fight. Courage, mon brave, courage!
  2. Do you know what happened to Lionelt? I'm starting to be concerned. Thanks. --Kenatipo speak! 02:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
So am I. I emailed him on the 17th and haven't heard back. Keep him in your prayers. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
Roger, wilco. Thanks, NYy. --Kenatipo speak! 19:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Replied

I've replied to your question at User talk:EdJohnston#Topic ban. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

3RR

Naturally you're aware that you're at the limit of 3RR on the santorum article. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:22, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, NYY, this is definitely not coatracking. If it were the frothy article, it would be, but it's arguably about his controversial statements regarding homosexuality. I'd suggest a real fast apology on WP:EWN, because it's a pretty clear case... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

EW notice

You have been reported for edit warring on Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. AV3000 (talk) 17:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of one week for edit warring, as you did at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. --Chris (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Instaurare (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribscreation logchange block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

I believed I was engaged in righteous reverting based on WP:BLP and WP:BURDEN concerns. I did make an effort to discuss the issue on the talk page while those who restored the material didn't, leading me to believe I was justified in making five reverts. However, I realize that edit warring, justified or not, is not helpful. I ask to be unblocked if I promise to limit myself to 0RR on the article until clear consensus is established. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There was nothing "righteous" about your reverts. Sourced criticism is rarely a BLP violation, and there was nothing particularly egregious about the information being inserted. This is the 4th time you've been blocked for edit-warring in a year, a one week block for your behavior is appropriate and standard. Take a break and when your block expires, consider how to avoid edit wars in the future. -- Atama 03:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired.

RfC

Hello, you recently participated in a straw poll concerning a link at the Campaign for "santorum" neologism article. I am giving all the poll participants a heads-up that a RfC on the same issue is being conducted here. BeCritical 19:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

February 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you. DreamGuy (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

EW notice

You have been reported for edit warring on Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. AV3000 (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

And again. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:41, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 February 2012

The Right Stuff: January 2012

The Right Stuff
January 2012
ARTICLE REPORT
The Conservatism Portal-screenshot 02-07-12.jpg
Wikipedia's Newest Featured Portal: Conservatism

By Lionelt

On January 21, The Conservatism Portal was promoted to Featured Portal (FP) due largely to the contributions of Lionelt. This is the first Featured content produced by WikiProject Conservatism. The road to Featured class was rocky. An earlier nomination for FP failed, and in October the portal was "Kept" after being nominated for deletion.

Member Eisfbnore significantly contributed to the successful Good Article nomination of Norwegian journalist and newspaper editor Nils Vogt in December. Eisfbnore also created the article. In January another Project article was promoted to Featured Article. Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias, a president of Brazil, attained Featured class with significant effort by Lecen. The Article Incubator saw its first graduation in November. A collaboration spearheaded by Mzk1 and Trackerseal successfully developed Star Parker to pass the notability guideline.


PROJECT NEWS
Project Scope Debated

By Lionelt

Another discussion addressing the project scope began in December. Nine alternatives were presented in the contentious, sometimes heated discussion. Support was divided between keeping the exitsing scope, or adopting a scope with more specificity. Some opponents of the specific scope were concerned that it was too limiting and would adversely affect project size. About twenty editors participated in the discussion.

Inclusion of the article Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was debated. Supporters for inclusion cited sources describing the KKK as "conservative." The article was excluded with more than 10 editors participating.

Me2011.jpg

Project membership continues to grow. There are currently 73 members. Member Goldblooded (pictured) volunteers for the UK Conservative Party and JohnChrysostom is a Christian Democrat. North8000 is interested in libertarianism. We won't tell WikiProject Libertarianism he's slumming. Let's stop by their talkpages and share some Wikilove.

Click here to keep up to date on all the happenings at WikiProject Conservatism.

DISCUSSION REPORT
Why is Everyone Talking About Rick Santorum?

By Lionelt

Rick Santorum by Gage Skidmore.jpg

Articles about the GOP presidential candidate and staunch traditional marriage supporter have seen an explosion of discussion. On January 8 an RFC was opened (here) to determine if Dan Savage's website link should be included in Campaign for "santorum" neologism. The next day the Rick Santorum article itself was the subject of an RFC (here) to determine if including the Savage neologism was a violation of the BLP policy. Soon after a third was opened (here) at Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality. This RFC proposes merging the neologism article into the controversy article.

The Abortion case closed in November after 15 weeks of contentious arbitration. The remedies include semi-protection of all abortion articles (numbering 1,500), sanctions for some editors including members of this Project, and a provision for a discussion to determine the names of what are colloquially known as the pro-life and pro-choice articles. The Committee endorsed the "1 revert rule" for abortion articles.


Repeated deletions from Rick Santorum

Dude, you've got to stop blanking the section of this article that's about the neologism. There's clear consensus to include it and you're not even pretending to attempt to form a new consensus; this'll just get you blocked again. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 07:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Abby Johnson

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that this page has been changed quite a lot, in case you objected to any of the changes. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 19:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! NYyankees51 (talk) 15:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Santorum vs santorum

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Santorum vs santorum". Thank you. --The Gnome (talk) 07:55, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2012

Edit warring

You appear to be edit-warring on Freedom to Marry. Also, a 3rr report on you has been filed on you for your edits to Rick Santorum, should you choose to comment: [[5]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 06:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Erhmmm

You can delete my comment, but you cannot erase the horrible nomination of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Candace_Gingrich-Jones. Explain yourself now.--Milowenthasspoken 03:26, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Apology

Sorry about that. I didn't see it. Mea maxima culpa. Dominus stupido. Penitentiagite! Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem! NYyankees51 (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you forgotton your promises?

I haven't been paying close attention to your actions recently, however, I did notice Freedom to Marry mentioned above, your ARBCOM Topic ban from abortion articles from last month, and now WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:NYyankees51 reported by User:Roscelese (Result: ) a couple of days ago. It brought to mind some of the things HJ Mitchell and I discussed with you almost a year ago about your unblock agreement with him, when you promised to edit constructively. You also said that you "absolutely will work hard to gain the trust of the community". Here he expressed chagrin at you not keeping a low profile after he unblocked you, and advised you to "be very careful around topics like same-sex marriage, especially when (you) had a userpage that advocated some pretty controversial political and social views. Whatever our views on subjects, though, nobody should be able to tell what those opinions are by our edits, whether to talk pages or articles." You replied: "I think my editing does not reflect my userpage, and if it ever does I hope someone will tell me." Well, I'm telling you – your POV is deafeningly obvious. Almost a year later, it still looks like the only reason you're here is to push your political, religious and social agenda. I had hopes for a change in your editing behavior when you joined WPMILHIST, but it doesn't look like you did much more than join the project.

So, I'll throw in my 2¢ again (so now it's 4¢ Face-smile.svg) and repeat the advice I gave you then: If you can't make an edit without your strongly held beliefs clouding your objectivity, then maybe you shouldn't be editing that article – at least not without a lot of introspection to make sure you're truly being objective. That's a whole lot different than pushing every guideline and policy to the limit, which, ultimately, is only going to get you into more trouble. Mojoworker (talk) 20:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I will think about this and respond in-depth when I have more time, today or tomorrow. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:25, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Don't listen to Mojo, NYY. This place would get so boring if all you edited were african campaigns and heavy cruisers. If you go the MILHIST route I might as well take AN3 and ANI off my watchlist, hahahahahaha!!!!– Lionel (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking at your recent edithistory in light of your userboxes - I think I would give you similar advice to what Mojoworker tells you. There is a difference between striving for neutrality and balance and systematically removing information about a certain political topic that one has a strong opinion about. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Removed my userboxes so no one can use them against me. NYyankees51 (talk) 19:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Timothy M. Dolan, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page American (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

EWN report

I have closed it with a strong warning that next time you repeat a reversion on those or any closely-related pages, I'll block you for a month, escalating from your last 1 week block. You've been around here for long enough to know better, so cut it out, ok? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds fair. This applies to Freedom to Marry, Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality, and Rick Santorum, any others? Thanks. NYyankees51 (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
As I said in the official close, "broadly construed". That means, lots of others. Remember, 3RR violations are not required for a finding of edit warring, and you've historically done a fair amount in this general area.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:07, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
Block NYY? Sarek: don't you know that it's a felony to impersonate an admin? – Lionel (talk) 09:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

2010 Itawamba County School District prom controversy

Those edits were appropriate, but how do you even find these things? Funnily enough, I was the person who exposed the private prom there.--Milowenthasspoken 03:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)