User talk:Sizzletimethree

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sizzletimethree, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! --B (talk) 04:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, when leaving someone a new message, you should put it at the bottom of the page. There is a button up at the top next to the edit button that says "New Section". This button only appears on talk pages. If you are starting a new topic or leaving a new message, you can hit that button and it will let you enter a subject line (which will be used as a section header) and your message and then it will automatically be added to the bottom of the page. --B (talk) 11:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as the bot said above, please add four tildes (~~~~) to the end of your messages. This will automatically turn into a signature with your name and the date/time stamp. --B (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

February 2011

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 04:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Lila Rose. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been reverted or removed.

If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor then please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive; until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively could result in loss of editing privileges. Thank you.

Do not use profanity as you did here [1]. Lionel (talk) 07:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article is tagged Controversial. Please familiarize yourself with the restrictions:

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Lionel (talk) 07:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that profanity is against the rules, per, WP:NOTCENSORED. And yes, major changes should be discussed first, for next time. _WM^O 07:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CENSORED applies to article content. I think this is applicable here. Lionel (talk) 08:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WMO, I didn't do anything wrong. If you can't take the word shit you should go lock yourself in a box, its not incivil. Its not like three year olds are on here.

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding or significantly changing content without citing a reliable source, as you did with this edit to Planned Parenthood, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Banaticus (talk) 05:39, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edit you made to Planned Parenthood constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to remove content without explanation. Thank you. Banaticus (talk) 05:40, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did with this edit to Planned Parenthood. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Banaticus (talk) 05:43, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. You will be blocked from editing the next time you vandalize a page, as you did with this edit to Planned Parenthood. Banaticus (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PP

Do you and your opposer mind taking the debate to the talk page for a bit please. All these reverts are going to land you both in trouble before long. There is plenty of discussion on the TP and you are, of course, welcome to have your say. Thanks. Sitush (talk) 05:46, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

This is a warning. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:52, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Planned Parenthood. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
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 wording, and content 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 edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. —C.Fred (talk) 05:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blogs

Blogs are not usually considered reliable sources in wikipedia, so you should not rely on them for your information sources on the PP article. I am asking for you to be permanently blocked for vandalism. Sitush (talk) 05:55, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I DIDNT VANDALIZE ANYTHING!!! WHY WOULD YOU BLOCK ME?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree (talk • contribs) 06:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

I have reported you on the 3rr noticeboard. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 05:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC) WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN??? [reply]

Bold text

What did I do that was so bad??

Everyone posted on here an I just now saw it!!!

Please do not play the innocent. Every time someone posts on your talk page you get a big yellow/orange "message received" banner at the top of whatever page you are on. You cannot miss it. This is two consecutive days now that you have resorted to vandalism. It might be worth your while reading up the basic policies of WP indicated right at the top of this list. There's a section for new users. Thanks. Sitush (talk) 06:04, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not playing innocent! I wasnt paying attention to any yellow banner! I just saw it now! How did I vandalize? I'm just trying to make the articles better, like your fair policy says! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sizzletimethree (talk • contribs) 06:08, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, read the guidelines. You cannot be selective in which guidelines you choose to accept. The PP article had been tagged as controversial for some time (see its talk page) & so any changes need to be discussed first. You are also not normally permitted to revert someone's edits more than 3 times in 24 hours. Furthermore, your suggestion that you were trying to make it "fair" is unfortunately misguided. "Fair" means "neutral point of view" (WP:NPOV - it doesn;t mean your view. Removing a huge section, as you did, on the grounds that PP "help a lot of people" is not NPOV. Go make yourself a coffee or whatever takes your fancy, come back and read some of the stuff highlighted near the top of this page. It will improve your experience no end. Thanks. Sitush (talk) 06:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was more fair the way I changed it. Why is all that criticism fair? I don't see that on anti-abortion bozoes' pages! I only reverted 3 times cause that's when I noticed the messages, so I guess I got lucky. The other user reverted me four times though, so what happened to him? What was so controversial about my edits? The Lila Rose article is marked controversial too and they made it into a big puff piece without discussing it and the planned parenting page is a big hack job! Sizzletimethree (talk) 08:42, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the info? You should discuss your changes on the talk page first, please. The other user "got away with it" because he was reverting "vandalism", which is an exception to the three-revert rule. You have to "assume good faith" (WP:AGF) but there are limits to that Please, slow down a bit: you are launching yourself into quite awkward territory and will not last long here if you do not understand the etiquette and rules. - Sitush (talk) 09:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Troll

I'm speculating here, but your pattern and approach strikes me as the work of someone who is just trying to stir things up. See WP:Sockpuppet and Troll.Mattnad (talk) 13:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How to do this

I just flagged a vandalism report on you filed by one of the bots as a acontent dispute, so hopefully you won't get blocked for it.

Since I have been contributing to the gendergap mailing list since shortly after it was established following the NYT article you've referred to, I decided to do a little bit more than that. Notwithstanding the above commentator, I am assuming in good faith that you are what you represent yourself as. There are ways to bring about the change you want to see ... but if you continue to do things the way you are, you risk being blocked for disruptive editing.

If you're planning to stick around long-term, you might want to subscribe to the gendergap mailing list, a very mixed-gender list where we've been having a lot of discussions about these things and how to improve them.

If you would like to respond to me, it's best to do it on my talk page (or use my email link if you want to keep it private). I would very much like to help. Daniel Case (talk) 15:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. NYyankees51 (talk) 17:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the term pro-life?

Just wondering why you think anti-abortion is a such a better term? If you use the anti-abortion term, then the other side becomes pro-abortion. IMO, none of the terms are very good; pro-life is probably the best of the lot but using that term begs the question of why pro-lifers are often in favor of the death penalty. In any event, if you haven't quit Wikipedia altogether, I am wondering why you think one term is better than another. -Regards-KeptSouth (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a life!

the sentence above ^ wasn't me, but please forgive me butting in now. To me, it is pretty simple: the medical terminology is "abortion", so purely for the sake of scientific accuracy you are either pro- and anti-abortion. Yes, I know that some now use the word "termination", but (a) the same would apply, and (b)"termination" is a word coined in an attempt to soften the language for 3rd party consumption. Example: I am deaf. Honest, I really am and was born that way - can't hear a thing. But according to the recent linguistic developments designed to reduce stigma, apparently I am in fact to be called "hard of hearing". So, I am as hard of hearing as a diamond is on the Moh scale. These are the linguistic sops of medical science; the pro-life type of phrase takes it one further and tries to bring emotion into the terminology rather than merely sanitising things for the sufferer. - Sitush (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 00:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 hours for WP:Disruptive Editing: blatant disregard for signatures and maintaining context on talk pages to the point that posts amount to grafitti. 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. Toddst1 (talk) 01:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Completely new abortion proposal and mediation

In light of the seemingly endless disputes over their respective titles, a neutral mediator has crafted a proposal to rename the two major abortion articles (pro-life/anti-abortion movement, and pro-choice/abortion rights movement) to completely new names. The idea, which is located here, is currently open for opinions. As you have been a contributor in the past to at least one of the articles, your thoughts on the matter would be appreciated.

The hope is that, if a consensus can be reached on the article titles, the energy that has been spent debating the titles of the articles here and here can be better spent giving both articles some much needed improvement to their content. Please take some time to read the proposal and weigh in on the matter. Even if your opinion is simple indifference, that opinion would be valuable to have posted.

To avoid accusations that this posting violates WP:CANVASS, this posting is being made to every non-anon editor who has edited either page since 1 July 2010, irrespective of possible previous participation at the mediation page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]