User talk:WikiManOne/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

VERY CUTE

Another admin who has opposed me in content disputes comes along to edit the block. Very very cute guys. What happened to the uninvolved part of uninvolved admin should do the blocking is so hard to do? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 23:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If the dispute you're referring to is the pro-life name change, Sarek supported the change. --B (talk) 00:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

No, she changed her position. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I see, my bad. (By the way, Sarek gives his name on his userpage as "Garrett", so I'm assuming he's male ... and of course, his namesake, the distinguished ambassador, is male.) --B (talk) 00:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So what we have here is two impartial administrators blocking me, which is a violation of wikipedia policy, and both of them seem to be blind as to their failure to follow said policy. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:17, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And they use their little tricks to add two items to my block log instead of just one.. This is completely inexcusable. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

All the admins you refer to as female are in fact male. That said, it seems to me that you consider every administrator to be either involved, "influenced" by the ANI report, or "defending their admin friend". Is there any admin out there that can satisfactorily review your block? Because that rules out pretty much 100% of the admin corps.--Atlan (talk) 00:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

This block is a violation of policies on administrator actions and is therefore trash. I don't see why Magog can get away with violating such clear policies as laid out above, and then they can add insult to injury by adding a second block on top of that to my block log. Inappropriate all the way around._WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:23, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, he admitted as much, it was a mistake, and I believe it to be an honest one. The block should have been adminstered by another admin. That however, doesn't make the block void. Block don't come much more straightforward than 3RR blocks.--Atlan (talk) 00:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So their mistake somehow now justifies two blocks over one incident? Combine that with the fact that they get away with it with impunity. Furthermore, the first admin to look at the report (who was uninvolved) didn't see fit to block and stated that both reporter and myself should stop, then this involved admin comes along and blocks only me. How is that fair? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The other commenters weren't admins and they were merely adding their opinion to the 3RR report. It's not uncommon for the reviewing admin to come to a different conclusion, a conclusion that has been rather thoroughly reviewed by multiple people since and deemed a good one.--Atlan (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

How many people have to tell you you're wrong before you get it? Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

You act like you did nothing wrong when you did. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to weigh in here; say what you will, but don't tell outright lies. Magog took this to ANI by himself explicitly for review, because he understood his view can be seen as compromised. Don't accuse him of acting like he did nothing wrong. m.o.p 00:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Then he comes here and acts like he did nothing wrong and gets his admin buddy (you) to come defend him. He went there to try to insure that he wouldn't get in any trouble for it by making such an excuse. If he really made a "honest mistake" then he would have undid his actions without trying to insure that another admin would be standing there to re-do them. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Somehow I knew you would deflect that question and make it about me. I've also never talked to MOP in my life. Please stop digging. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:45, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

(e/c)Sadly, this isn't going anywhere. You've made a mistake but you keep pointing the finger of blame at others. I've never even talked to Magog before. This is not a conspiracy. You edit-warred, and you were blocked. The circumstances of the block were not ideal, but you're just digging yourself deeper into this with the conspiracy theories and accusations. For the final time, please take a breather and stop doing this. Thank you, m.o.p 00:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Magog blocked me inappropriately, why isn't he facing some sort of sanction? I will be happy to serve my block if he serves a similar one for his clear misuse of admin powers. Furthermore, something needs to be done about the double entry in the block log, maybe unblock me two minutes early or something and explain that the first one was a conflict of interest. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocks aren't issued for punishment. There is no threat of Magog issuing another block while involved, so a block would prevent nothing. Had you convinced the reviewing admin that you would not continue to edit war, rather than pointing blame, you might have been unblocked as well by now.--Atlan (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Does this look like an edit warrior to you? I discuss everything. Why do I have to have two blocks on my block log while he gets away spot free for abusing admin powers? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:55, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the 3RR report is rather unambiguous. Based only on that, you did indeed edit war, despite your good intentions. Magog got away scot free (I believe the phrase to be, not spot free), because he immediately offered his action up for review after intentifying the problem. The difference between you and he is, that he DID admit fault.--Atlan (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

And if you look across his contributions, you'll notice a pattern of edit warring on multiple articles, though it usually isn't as blatant as it was here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he made a very self serving report to get support for his actions. And if the report was so unambiguous, then why didn't this admin (who is uninvolved) see fit to block me instead of making a comment blaming it just as much on the reporter as myself? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I doubt Magog is that devious, and it is sad that you think it so. Anyway, Seb is not an admin so he could not have blocked you even if he wanted to.--Atlan (talk) 01:05, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Seb isn't an admin, and telling both of you to "knock it off" is a fairly obvious indication that he also recognized you were edit warring. Dayewalker (talk) 01:07, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, you're still missing the point, if it was so unambiguous, then why did the first set of neutral eyes to see it disagree? I'm still convinced that all of you are only supporting her because the culture on wikipedia among admins is to support each other's actions when at all possible. Both Sarak and Magog have been in content disputes with me before, and were therefore clearly not uninvolved, and the rest of you are supporting the block at this point because you like Magog in the past. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:14, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

The first set of neutral eyes agreed that both parties were edit warring, not that a block was unwarranted. Anyway, I couldn't possibly have been any more uninvolved, which is why I posted here. I have no previous interaction with Magog and I have never edited the disputed topic. I hope you will take my word for it that the block was sound according to 3RR policy and that it was simply issued by the wrong administrator. That mistake was admitted and you should get past that point. You can either try another unblock request with an unambiguous statement to stop edit warring, or wait out your block.--Atlan (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

So what we have is a non-neutral administrator deciding that only one of the two involved should be blocked and just happened to choose to block the one he disagreed with, and just happened to think about this after he blocked me so tried to cover his ass and went to ANI with his apologetics, while at no time did he apologize to me for his misuse of admin powers. By the way, you might not know any of the editors involved, but you self identify as right wing which would naturally put you on the opposing end of the content dispute. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:37, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't even know what side you are on, what side Magog is on, or indeed what side I am on. Please tell me what my opinion would likely be on the subject matter based on my "right wingness" (right wing in the European sense, mind you).--Atlan (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

If someone could kindly save this

I would like to comment on it when I come out of block so if someone could keep it from being archived kindly. Thanks. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:15, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, this ANI thread is five days old, and would have been archived already if not for you keeping it alive. It's pretty clear no admin action will come about because of that thread. I'd suggest you just let it go. Dayewalker (talk) 01:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Fine, I'll have to reopen it when I come out. I find it ridiculous that I get blocked for minor violations while this right winger gets away with massive violations of the NPA policy. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your nice message.

Hello. You have a new message at Tamara Zion's talk page. 18:50, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Warning

Edits like these are violations of WP:NPA and considered a personal attack. Don't readd it. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:52, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, whatever issues you have with them, what you have posted is not the way to solve them (may be treated as a personal attack, with all the consequences). Materialscientist (talk) 08:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Further, comments like That's why I asked to update it above but apparently accuracy is only secondary to people's pov objectives are not helpful to you or the project. Your editing rights are on a thread right now; please take especial care to not break it. PhGustaf (talk) 03:24, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Does someone know who/where my mentor is? He agreed to mentor me and I don't remember hearing from him, and I don't feel like going through my archives looking for it. And that's no more a personal attack than Kenatipo outing me by the way, which the Admins didn't do anything about since they agree with him in content disputes. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Kubigula is your mentor and according to him, he has tried to contact you three times recently to no response. Might want to check your email. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Weird. I check my email all the time and haven't seen anything, maybe I'll look in my spam folder. Anyways, things are very busy for me for the next few weeks so I won't be on much... Just do some drive-by editing on articles here and there. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 06:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I would, while you are online today, take a look at the ongoing ANI discussion on "general sactions for those who edit Abortion articles". - Neutralhomer • Talk • 06:55, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I really would rather not bother with the noticeboard, Magog's so called "review" of his inexcusable actions as well as their inability to do anything about Kenatipo's attempted outing really put me off on any sort of npov on there. Its just a choicebox for right wing pov attacks. Unless someone has something to report me on or I have something particularly egregious, I'm out of there when at all possible. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Please give it a look. Whether you make your comments heard in that section or not, what's being discussed in terms of editors who work on abortion-related articles will directly affect you in the future, and some of the articles you edit. Dayewalker (talk) 07:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible you've got a different e-mail account set up here than the one you normally use? If it were me, I might try sending an e-mail direct to the mentor (using the "e-mail this user" option on his page) and see if he's able to respond back. I would also do some on-wiki communication like "I just sent you an e-mail" and "I got your e-mail", until such time as the e-mailing seems to be working properly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:14, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I sent you several follow-ups on our previous email exchange; I wondered why you never responded. Maybe your email server thinks I'm a spammer. Anyway, events have now overtaken my advice to some extent.

My time on wiki will be limited for a while. I strongly strongly believe that the best thing for you is to avoid abortion topics for at least a week. Some times you really need to step back.--Kubigula (talk) 16:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Probably so. I went to the ANI just now, I support the new restrictions as long as the uninvolved admin is strictly enforced. Obviously, I have a bad taste in my mouth after being the subject of three consecutive blocks by involved admins. I'm editing a lot of places lately, not just abortion but my time is pretty limited so I doubt I'll do much in abortion for a while. These POV pushers are ridiculous. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

reverting my edit

Please explain this. Truthsort (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I probably would have reverted it too [the conventional way, not with rollback]. There's already one pithy editorial comment there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiManOne, please see Wikipedia:ROLLBACK#When_to_use_rollback. It is important to use an edit summary if you are not reverting "simple" vandalism, meaning something that anyone would clearly recognize is an intentional effort to damage the encyclopedia. --B (talk) 17:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

True that, I shouldn't have used rollback but I stand by my revert. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 19:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood and ANI

Hey there. Just be a little wary of doing too many reverts at Planned Parenthood, because judging by this they won't go down well! The Cavalry (Message me) 23:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you slow down a bit, too. There are many eyes on the article; if you don't fix new misinformation at once, someone else (like me) will do so soon enough. And, please, on talk pages and in edit summaries, be as polite as possible. Sometimes being polite is the best way to piss someone off. PhGustaf (talk) 03:54, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Points taken. Thanks for the input. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

Wikipedia:WikiProject Albemarle County

Sorry for the very late reply.... I can add a recent changes template to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albemarle County, I'll do it later today. --TIAYN (talk) 08:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Very much appreciated. Thanks. Let me know where it's put. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

You'll have to create on of these lists if I'm supposed to create a recent change template for your project. --TIAYN (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

That looks time consuming. Do you know of a bot that can do it, or can it be done off of a category list? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

Not really, just go through the "history/archive" of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Albemarle County articles by quality log. The history/archive of the log isn't that long either so it will probably just take 5 to 10 min. --TIAYN (talk) 08:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

WMO - Please be careful about using rollback. It should ONLY be used for vandalism as defined in WP:VANDALISM. If you disagree with the edit, you should be using the undo button on the link. A couple of your recent uses today appear pretty tough to justify - here and here (noting that the last was self-reverted as being accidental). Before hitting rollback, please make sure the edit meets the WP definition of vandalism as it's very strict. Thanks. Ravensfire (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The second one I explained in a null edit. The Lila Rose one seemed like a pretty straight forward case of vandalism when I first saw it (I have an inherent bias against IPs) but taking a closer look it does appear you are correct. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

Yup - I saw the null edit afterwards. With the stuff on ANI, I'd suggest avoiding the rollback button unless it's really, really obvious vandalism (junk characters, profanity, etc). Undo is nearly as fast, except you have to enter the edit summary, which can be a good thing. Ravensfire (talk) 21:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely, if its only one edit I primarily use undo. Rollback is better for consecutive edits. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

Rollback should only be used against blatant vandalism such as unexplained deletions or inserting junk like "Hi, Mom!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

As has been clearly stated above... I seem to have acquired quite a few talk page stalkers... (not a bad thing, I don't mind it at all...) _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

And there is also twinkle which gives the best of both worlds. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 07:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I wish there was such a tool for Google Chrome. lol _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 08:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I have quite a few watching me, and at the same watching out for me. The benefits generally outweigh the detriments. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, I have 41 watchers at the moment so I guess I'm not doing too bad in that department... if this was real life, you guys would in jail, just saying! haha. No seriously, I think its kinda cool. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 08:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've got 246, which is actually kind of scary, but thankfully they don't all post at once. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Unexplained tags and reverts

Hi WikiManOne, you are continuing to add tags without providing a reason or starting a discussion on how to fix them. Also, you are rolling back edits without explanation. In the future please tell everyone why you're doing things like these to controversial articles. Thanks! NYyankees51 (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi NYyankees51, please refrain from writing on my talk page if you don't have any new material to discuss with me. Thanks! _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

WikiMan, it's a warning to stop disruptive editing. It belongs on your talk page. You're always free to remove it. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

FYI, an incident that may involve you is up for consideration at WP:ANI/3RR - Haymaker (talk) 01:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Awesome, another worthless report by Haymaker! Please don't even bother posting these things on my page when you're reporting fake vios, don't waste my time going there. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

Haymaker is required to add the notice to your talk page. Don't attack him for being cordial, and again, you're free to remove whatever you want from your talk page. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

• News and notes: Gender gap and sexual images; India consultant; brief news

• In the news: Egyptian revolution and Wikimania 2008; Jimmy Wales' move to the UK, Africa and systemic bias; brief news

• Versailles: Six-month residence in the Palace of Versailles for a Wikimedian

• WikiProject report: More than numbers: WikiProject Mathematics

• Features and admins: The best of the week

• Arbitration report: Longevity and Shakespeare cases close; what do these decisions tell us?

• Technology report: Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · EdwardsBot (talk) 18:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

User Space

The above banner on your talk page and your statements regarding Christianity on your user page are very offensive. Would you consider removing them? - Haymaker (talk) 16:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I may be willing to edit the one on the talk page, I mostly intended it as a joke to poke fun at the ridiculous news item giving attention to that bizarre individual. Care to state the policy basis of your request? Note that I will not be monitoring your little noticeboard fun, I realize that you seem to take great pleasure in finding ways to take me to one of the several noticeboards but I will no longer be monitoring your frivolous plays. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 17:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Per UPNO. - Haymaker (talk) 17:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Which policy exactly would you be referring to? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 17:15, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Specifically, under the heading "Very divisive or offensive material not related to encyclopedia editing". - Haymaker (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Which bullet point do you think this falls under? _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 17:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Mostly the first, and the spirit on the guideline. - Haymaker (talk) 17:27, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

(EC) I would have thought you'd have familiarized yourself with that section since it was the policy reason I used when I filed that MFD based on your WQA report a few weeks back. Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia, or statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons (these are generally considered divisive and removed, and reintroducing them is often considered disruptive).--Cube lurker (talk) 17:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Has the guy, in fact, been executed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

From current reports It does not appear that he has at this time been executed. He's "only" been beaten and sexually assaulted.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:52, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

He is slated to be executed later this week. - Haymaker (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be some reports that he has been released due to international pressure, but I'm not sure that it's fully confirmed.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:UPNO is a guideline rather than a policy as Haymaker correctly notes. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:14, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Very unusually, I agree with Haymaker here as to the comment at the top of your talk page. What the hell is this "Religious freedom is a Western concept that we shouldn't impose on other countries" business? The only person being imposed on is the one being persecuted for his beliefs. Same as "We shouldn't try to end FGC" - it's all very well to say "we shouldn't impose our culture on others" but I doubt small children being scarred for life would appreciate your concern for their tormentors' feelings. Consider if you made the same statement about the United States, where many people would like to legally enforce Christianity. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm puzzled by that also. "Human rights" is not an inherently "western" concept. Maybe the guy declared as a Christian in the hope of drawing some attention to his situation. If so, maybe it worked. And if it does, he's not so dumb. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I won't get into the substance of what you wrote, but expressing such militant anti-Christian beliefs is probably not a good idea if you don't want your motives questioned. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:21, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Actually the policy that should have been referenced is WP:NOTMYSPACE. Without judgment on the offensiveness or not offensiveness of the post, it doesn't seem to be related to building the encyclopedia. Gerardw (talk) 23:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Given it doesn't take up a large amount of space, and given that he isn't explicitly attacking any specific editors and given that its only a criticism of evangelist and that historically evangelists have cause huge numbers of problems, I'm not really sure what the issue here is. Personally I'd take out the bit about freedom of religion but whatever. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

While it's probably a violation of policy in a technical sense, and doesn't seem to be in the spirit of the guideline, it seems the not my space policy is an area where a lot of latitude is given -- a definite WP:Gray Area. Probably just best ignored. Gerardw (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you please remove the offensive statement from this page and the offensive and historically inaccurate one from you user page? - Haymaker (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The statement on my user page is entirely historic fact, no I will not remove that. The Freedom from Religion Foundation runs similar ads. I don't see any offensive statement on this page. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 00:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

"The Freedom from Religion Foundation runs similar ads." So? Does that mean anyone can put anything on their page that appears in advocacy advertising? NYyankees51 (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Said from someone who had some very offensive userboxes on their page till a few days ago. The point in referring to the ads is to reaffirm its historical accuracy which Haymaker ridiculously called into question. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 01:17, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Offensive to you. There's a big difference between expressing reasonable moral/religious/political beliefs and outright bigotry. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

At no point did Christianity ever rule the world. The Dark Ages refers to the convergence of the decline of the Roman Empire and a population crisis in Europe. - Haymaker (talk) 01:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually they got pretty close in the early 20th century, every empire on there other than the Ottomans and Japanese are Christian and the Latin Americans were all Christians too. The only notable exceptions were China and Iran, and there was a lot of European influence over China at that time. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:03, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've just taken a look at the user page and it certainly wasn't the dark ages though at the time the Europeans controlled most of the world - additionally that statement is inflammatory and should go. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:25, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Polite request

WikiManOne,

I can respect a difference of opinion on anything. The old saying is: if you truly respect the concept of freedom of speech, then you will defend the right of someone to say, in your opinion, vile and degrading things. I will not request that you change your beliefs, nor will I ask you to change any words on your page, except where they may truly be in violation of policy, rather than for their content. Having said that, I would like to politely request you remove my name from your user page as the source for those templates. I respect you enough to not ask you to change a thing, and hope you will respect me enough to request not having an association with those same beliefs. I would not agree with these things if they were written about any faith or lack thereof, and would not want others to think I was in agreement with them. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:47, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed the reference per the request. Gerardw (talk) 11:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello. You have a new message at Kubigula's talk page.--Kubigula (talk) 05:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Care Net Michael Sean Winters Overton window Catholic Truth Society Casino Jack and the United States of Money Emma Reynolds Faye Wattleton Guttmacher Institute Birthright International Frank Harris Hitchcock Human Life International The Daily Progress Edward A. Flynn 2012 Republican National Convention Scott Lively Abortion in Sweden Abortion in Finland Abortion in Albania Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District

Cleanup List of Tea Party protests, 2009 Life Dynamics Inc. Republican Party (United States) Merge List of Tea Party protests, 2010 National Catholic Education Council Penis Add Sources Tea Party protests Republican Party (Puerto Rico) Catholic Answers Wikify Jennifer Welker Chester Catholic High School Foreign exchange autotrading Expand Ethical aspects of abortion 2009 Republican National Committee chairmanship election Taxpayer March on Washington

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 08:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

IPPF

I'm totally stalking your contributions as we work on this. Sorry. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I noticed you edited the Japanese organization page. I think we left messages on each others talk pages at the same time. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:07, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice that Edris Rice-Wray Carson received a Sanger award, but was she otherwise associated with PP? I don't think every recipient should be in the category if that was their only significant interaction with PP. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't see much in the article at this point to justify it, but this does seem promising: "medical director of the Puerto Rico Family Planning Association. She founded Mexico's first family planning clinic in Mexico City." I wouldn't be surprised if that's the IPPF affiliate in Puerto Rico, the list on the website has it called "Asociación Puertorriqueña Pro-Bienestar de la Familia" which Google Translate makes into "Puerto Rican Association Pro-Welfare Family" which seems close enough. You can remove it if you want though. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 03:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you're right. Cool! Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:26, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Roscelese's talk page. Hello. You have a new message at Sitush's talk page.

Bobby Schilling

Hi Wikiman, there is no need to put something into an article twice in two different spots, especially when the current edit is somewhat incoherent. NYyankees51 (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't belong on my talk page, it belongs on the article talk page. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply}

Cheeky request

Hi, I'm wondering whether you could try to grab a page from a journal for me, since you're in the US? I can only see snippet view because of stupid copyright differences between the US & UK (particularly stupid, since this journal is too old even for UK copyright laws to apply). It's page 371 of this [1]. I realise that you may not want to email it to me because that might disclose your address, but I'll figure out some way round this if needs be. And no worries if you're not comfortable with doing this or do not have the time. I've got loads of these queries & think I'll have to spread then around a bit. It is either that or a 400+ mile round trip drive to the library! Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ouch! When I say p. 371, I'm assuming that the entire story is on that page. It's about Charles Galloway, who features in W & J Galloway & Sons. - Sitush (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that you can get anything more than snippet view, unfortunately... I'll try looking at it from school on Monday. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 22:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I'm grateful to you for even trying. These copyright shenanigans are very weird ... and very frustrating! US copyright laws are liberal cf. the UK and I find it astonishing that there might be a restriction on your side of the pond as well. I'm starting to think that the issue is sometimes related to incorrect metadata, incorrectly flagging content. I may have to contact Mr. Google and ask him why, even though he knows so much, he is not willing to share <g> - Sitush (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Frostburg state u

Why did you revert all my edits? did you notice i removed some clearly nonnotable, POV material? i can see selective editing, with some discussion, but not this. did you think i was vandalising the article? i did say i would do this, per the article talk page. i have also added notable material, and was about to add another notable faculty member, Andy Duncan, when i found you had reverted. can we talk about this on the articles talk page. by the way, i like your statements about the madison uprising.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You are right, my apologies. I've been going through recent changes so I may have accidentally clicked or misread your edits. I have undone my undo. Thanks for pointing this out. Thanks for your kind words regarding the protesters. I honestly believe this is the best thing that has happened to our country since President Obama was elected. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

no, thank you for your honesty and politeness. I always start to get a head of steam up when someone edits my edits, and i remind myself that i dont know whats happening unless i ask. Thanks for watching out for malicious editing, i know that an article dropping in size so quickly is alarming. yes, and the uprising, along with the various middle east uprisings, is exhilarating. I suspect that Obama has been hoping for some sort of mass protests, as he has said repeatedly he cant do his work alone. He is walking a tightrope (i also think he is a natural victim of the power and pressure of the office, and may be leaning towards neoliberalism more than he wants to), and the people are his safety net. oh, and your user page said you are semi retired, but i noticed you had quite a few edits this month. I hope you are enjoying your return, if it is one.this work is ridiculously addictive, but at least we are doing something productive. PS i dont know what a WB is, unless its simply replying on your user talk page.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

You could say I am attempting to back away from this editing and have recently been limiting myself to mostly signing on once a day. There is so many other things to do, but particularly on social issues related articles there are a huge number of right wing POV editors who constantly attempt to insert their POV to articles which is what I have primarily been focusing on lately, although I prefer editing articles that are less controversial. The polarizing ones seem to be the ones that require the most help if you will. My most substantial edits recently have been on the Planned Parenthood article, which before I got started on it was a catalogue of anti-choice stings on health centers, with more room devoted to criticism than everything else combined. Once that article stabilizes, I will probably more fully remove myself from editing. _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:36, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and a whisperback is what I will leave on your talk page now. :) _WM^O _{Please leave me a wb if you reply} 07:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)