Jump to content

User talk:WikiManOne/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Thanks

Thanks for the star. It's an honor. I'll go nail it up on my barn right away.   Will Beback  talk  22:35, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

TJ article

Thanks for your comment on the TJ article talk page. The discussion has come to stop. Most editors agreed slavery should be discussed (briefly) in the lede, though we couldn't agree on words. I've proposed a new sentence that might be ok to most people (though some might argue to excise his racial views). I'm willing to make any reasonable changes to it. Can you check back to see if how the progress goes (as it happens)? Ebanony (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

User page

Hey, its your page, do what you want (I have seen other editors add the suspected sock tag in jest) but the banned user tag might confuse a lot of admins. - Haymaker (talk) 08:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

  • That's the idea, I saw it on an admins page a few minutes ago and found that admin to be still active, thought it was funny so I added it. :) I'll probably add more of those in the future. WMO 08:52, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at User talk:Roscelese/List of designated hate groups's talk page.

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at JohnCD's talk page.

George Allen

There's a section just below with his name and George Allen isn't the sole candidate in the race right now. Right now it's two, but eventually a more and more names are going to declare and all the names would look cluttered. Cladeal832 (talk) 03:20, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, I just didn't understand the what seemed to be unilateral removal of the sentence. I suppose an argument could be made for only Allen's name being in the lead by using WP:DueWeight but I agree with your edit and will revert my revert. WikiManOne 03:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at user:sitush's talk page.

Thanks (#2)

Thanks for the offer to be apart of Wikipedia:WikiProject Albemarle County, but sadly, I know little on the history of Albemarle County. I mostly focus on the history of Frederick County (which surrounds Winchester). I can help with radio and television though (another one of my areas of work) but that is only so much work I can do. But, again, thank you for considering me and asking. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 18:44, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright, well would you be against adding yourself to the project with a note that you will only be involved in broadcast media? WikiManOne 19:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Nah, I wouldn't have any problem with that. I can slap some templates on the talk pages while I am at it today. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:07, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Don't bother with that, I'm asking the bot to do that. So hopefully they'll get around to it soon here. Thanks for the changes to the template/project page btw. I've been meaning to do those things but haven't had a chance. :)WikiManOne 20:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Too late on the templates. :) I added them about 15 minutes ago. :) No problems on the changes. I see stuff like that and like to tinker with the coding to make it work better. You should see my userpage. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:41, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at JohnCD's talk page. You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at user:sitush's talk page.

Bad jokes

Hi. I removed the "suspected sockpuppet" and "banned user" templates from your user page. I realize that you added them as a joke, but because they can seriously mislead other users, they are disruptive to Wikipedia. I hope you understand. --Orlady (talk) 18:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Confusion at WP:WPSCH

Hi, could you let me know please, what your onnection is with user:Salegi ? Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 07:54, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

High Schools

By "de facto" i meant, in fact that's what happens. I did a survey once and found that high school articles are only deleted if their existence can not be verified, and its been that way for at least 5 years. There are a few oddball AfDs where a deletion may have occurred, but its very rare. See, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education ("Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability.") You can see comments I've made to that effect before at [[1]] (March 2010); Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Everest Public High School (December 2009); see also Wikipedia:Notability (high schools) (essay); Wikipedia:Other stuff exists ("Wikipedia has, unintentionally, set a precedent for inclusion or exclusion when notability is contested (for example, high schools or geographic features), and in these situations this type of argument may be worth introducing."). Hope this helps, it was something I had to learn when I stumbled across it as well.--Milowent • talkblp-r 17:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC) You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at sitush's talk page. You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at sitush's talk page.

Planned Parenthood

Why has there just been a major revert? Sitush (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Someone just added a bunch of minor/local news "controversies" about the subject that made up about a third of the article and constituted undue weight and were not npov in all honesty. That was the reason I started the discussion on the talk page to start over on the controversies section and try to come up with something better. WikiManOne 03:16, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
This is gonna run and run ... Sitush (talk) 03:18, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Anti Abortion

I've reverted its creation as its a WP:POVFORK, please make a move request on Pro Life if you wish to move it. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I took your suggestion and made the suggestion on the pro-life page, maybe you can weigh in? WikiManOne 20:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I think I need to think about it. This one is tricky, you are right that pro-life is POV, but pro-life is much more commonly used. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually your case looks pretty persuasive :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:42, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
I wouldn't say much more commonly used, it's about the same I think when you look at neutral sources, and most of the uses of "pro-life" are referring to what the organizations claim themselves to be. "Pro-life" brings up 1480 results in Google news [2], "anti-abortion" brings up 1330 [3] which leads me to think the difference in number of uses isn't substantial. If you look at each use, it is clear that the ones using "pro-life" are generally not quite as neutral as the "anti-abortion" uses. WikiManOne 20:43, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at sitush's talk page.

Comments at talk:pro-life

Out of interest, have you been reading the archives of that talkpage? The comment about parental notification laws not being "pro-life" except insomuch as they restrict abortion is similar to a comment I made in a previous discussion. As I may have mentioned, I'm paranoid about the appearance of trying to illicitly influence discussion, whether by canvassing, socking, etc. so...I'm not really sure what to say because I don't want to ask you to change your editing habits, and to be honest we edit differently enough that there's not likely to be a problem, but there are a few things you're doing that are similar to things I do. Sorry, this is kind of a stupid comment. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I haven't read the archives, there's a lot. I just can't believe that someone would try to argue that parental consent laws are somehow "prolife" and not "anti-abortion", it just makes ZERO sense to me. You did mention that you are careful about avoiding appearing like you are canvassing which is why I have chosen not to notify you of various discussions even if I am notifying both sides. Is there something specific in my editing habits that you are unhappy about? WikiManOne 00:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
As a side not, I am thinking that an article on this incident [4] might be appropriate, what do you think? And how should it be titled if it you think it should be included? WikiManOne 00:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I don't really know why I said anything about it - there's nothing I'm asking you to do. Sorry for bothering you, that was obnoxious.
It would probably fail the notability criteria (yeah, lots of articles on events do, but I feel the solution is to delete or merge those, not to make more of them). Maybe the information could be put in another article, like self-induced abortion? Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm.. Yeah, I would definitely like to include it somewhere, its an event that had multiple citations. [5] [6] [7]. I'm thinking I'll start working on an article in my sandbox at some point here and see if it can be worked into a full fledged article. Also, as for the move, I'm definitely hoping it goes through... pro-life is definitely not npov and its being used in multiple articles because that's the article being linked to. WikiManOne 01:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Re http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul%27s_Cathedral,_Dunedin#Dismissal_of_Mr_David_Burchell

Hi WikiManOne - Thanks for getting back so promptly on the above issue. I'm new to wikipedia, and realised I made an error - the discussion for the content disagreement was in "history" of the page, not in the "discussion" section.

I suspect I am dealing with vandalism on this issue, as the page keeps getting attacked by an "anon" user, who does not leave comments or talkback.

How do I deal with this person wasting my -and everyone else's - time?

Cheers,

UltraZit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UltraZit (talk • contribs) 03:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Feel free to list it at the WP:Administrators' noticeboard as vandalism and make a coherent argument for semi-protection. (I see that the the user making the edits is an IP address so all you need is semi, you and other autoconfirmed (I assume you are) users can still make changes under semi.) Hope this helps, let me know if you need anything. WikiManOne 03:17, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. Cheers UltraZit (talk) 03:30, 4 February 2011 (UTC)UltraZit

ANI Discussion: Vandalism

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. --67.176.248.164 (talk) 04:48, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

JUSTAVOTE

I've reverted your additions, as you misread WP:JUSTAVOTE. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. :) WikiManOne 02:59, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

wqa

I've asked on his talk page what he intends to do. I'm giving him a chance to reply. If he doesn't I'll nominate the page for deletion at WP:MFD--Cube lurker (talk) 03:22, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Very cool, thank you for taking care of that, I tried to approach it nicely and he seemed to just blow it off and I have enough confrontation in the areas I edit without taking that on. I appreciate you taking it on. :) Also, notice from your profile that you are a fellow New England fan, disappointing playoffs this year... the good thing about the Patriots is that there's always next year. :) WikiManOne 03:25, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Anytime. Very disappointing end to the year for the pats, but like you said, hope for better next season.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
It really appears (to me) as if these editors constantly assume bad-faith on the part of editors who disagree with their world-views and try to fix bias they have created in articles. I see you've already run into this on his talk page. And yes, Rex Ryan needs to be put in his place. :) WikiManOne 04:37, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm trying to be Switzerland on the larger conflict here, but I agree wholeheartedly on the Rex Ryan part. It's about midnight here. I'm still hoping to resolve it through discussion, but if not I'll advance it to MFD first thing in the morning.--Cube lurker (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for taking care of that, I've become pretty fed up with the whole thing and have posted a brief report on the noticeboard in hopes that something more will be done. WikiManOne 17:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Project Nicaragua

Hello WikiManOne. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Project Nicaragua, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article claims coverage in reliable sources. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, I just thought it should be deleted as from the creator's talk page, he had created the same article before with it having been deleted. I'm fine with what you did. :) WikiManOne 06:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Maybe it was better sourced this time, or maybe it was just his/her lucky night? — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:57, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Hmm, appears the article has been improved somewhat and pseudo wikified, if that's the word for it, with external links to wiki pages. :) Either way, I think notability is more established now and shows you made the right decision on this one. :) WikiManOne 01:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Pro-life vs anti-abortion

I do think that you are trying your best at the moment to portray some sort of consensus - and in the case of things such as PP that is almost the worst thing you can do because you will forever be hounded by both "sides". But I am slightly concerned about this and would appreciate your thoughts.

It is not about what views I have on the issue but rather how the outcome is portrayed. I am wary of reverting an edit from someone who, on the face of it, is accepting that their edit may be inappropriate given current events, but is apparently using more than one WP user account. Thoughts? Sitush (talk) 01:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe his use of the second account is within wikipedia guidelines on that as he clearly states it on the the alternate account that it is one, and he isn't trying to hide it to sway consensus, etc. Personally, since this isn't a major issue or flouting explicit consensus, I would probably give him a little time to comment on the article's talk page about it but if he chooses not to, then I would go ahead and revert it. Obviously, you are free to move faster and revert it any time you like and I think you would have support for that.
I agree that trying to achieve consensus on that particular article is very hard, I'm going to try to keep an eye on it and improve it as I can (I think the current version is much better than the previous) but I'm doing my best not to get involved in any more articles of that genre. WikiManOne 01:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I'll see what happens over the next day or two. Personally, I prefer the term anti-abortion to pro-life (purely because I feel it is medically/scientifically more correct & therefore dispassionate) but I am keen to get this entire matter stabilised for - oh - at least a week or two. Anything longer than that would be a bonus, for the reasons you give above. I pulled out of the whole thing for a while because I could add nothing to the debate which would be constructive given my lack of knowledge of the finer details. You have persevered and hopefully the article will become stable soon. Meanwhiule, I've managed to do wonders at W & J Galloway & Sons and Churchill Machine Tool Company - amazing what you can get done if you shut yourself off from the controversies! - Sitush (talk) 01:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I looked at the histories and stats on those articles, you certainly have made a miracle there. I agree, anti-abortion is more correct and should be the term used, thus my move request, I just disagree with using a different term than the article is using. (WHY DIDN'T YOU SAY THAT ON THE MOVE REQUEST?!? :P) I think the article has finally stabilized for a while so I'm trying to move the discussion on to general improvement of the article. Obviously, I welcome any and all comments you might have on that. WikiManOne 17:22, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I thought that I had said it on the move req. Perhaps I said it on the Pro-Life talk page? Sitush (talk) 17:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
You did comment, you just didn't take a side, you just made some comments. WikiManOne 17:33, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the Laugh

I seen your post with the sentence "someone's imbecile capabilities" and I busted out laughing. I know it wasn't directed toward me, but it was just awesome. :) Thanks for the laugh, I needed that today. :)

On an unrelated note, I updated the WP:ALVA page, tinkered with the footer and added a quality stats table (which took a couple hours to figure out). All that needs done now is the 1,608 articles in Category:Unassessed_Albemarle_County_articles need to be assessed. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, after posting that I thought that it was perhaps out of place under WP:NPA but then decided it was warranted. I like the changes to the ALVA page, I guess we need to start working on assessment then. I asked a bot to mark all the articles for ALVA but at that time, I wasn't planning to have articles assessed for us... Perhaps we should ask the same (or another) bot to run through the articles again and add assessment if they are assessed on other projects? I'm going to try and start taking snapshots of local areas to add to articles as well in the upcoming weeks (whenever I have time on my hands to roam around with a camera...). WikiManOne 22:21, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, you could probably ask that bot or another one that is available to run through and assess things. The bot normally assess them the same as the already exsisting templates. Let me see if I can find an open bot. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC) • Go Steelers!
Awesome, thanks for doing that. :) WikiManOne 02:33, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the person I asked it watch the Super Bowl, along with half of Wikipedia it seems. I also asked at WP:BRQ, so that might speed things along. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC) • Go Steelers!
  • An Update: Still waiting on a bot request at BRQ and at the user's page as well. Not making much headway, but I am sticking with it. Will let you know if anything happens. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you sign your post.

WikiManOne. I was about to point the uncivil editor to the relevant policies and warn them, but I noticed you didn't sign your ANI post on their talk page. Can you do that first? Thanks a ton.Griswaldo (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Done! My bad for missing that, I (incorrectly) assumed it was in the template. WikiManOne 02:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

David Asscherick

Is there a good reason for including "did not finish college" in the Persondata? One would think that the subject would be notable for more than that. Also, I think you could have tried to work with the editor who is deleting information, at least by pointing them to relevant sections of the BLP policy. There is no point in antagonizing editors who perhaps aren't fully aware of our guidelines. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I pointed them to the WP:COI guidelines, the BLP should be linked from the article talk page. I put that in the person data because I saw it on multiple biographies when I looked it up. I'm not personally attached to the article, just didn't like seeing sourced material being deleted, whoever it was that was deleting it. WikiManOne 05:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Well, I saw that, but "Look at COI" just isn't that informative. Clearly you are dealing with a persistent editor who has a quarrel, legitimately or not, and that's a problem that has to be dealt with. Giving them a bit more than just a link might be helpful--but that "didn't finish college," that's hardly encyclopedic, and I think you know it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
That was added a long time ago, I cannot speak to my intentions at that time. I agree with you now that it probably shouldn't be in the article. I think that was one of the first articles I edited that was a BLP. WikiManOne 05:16, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. As you saw, perhaps, I pointed out to the other editor that verified and relevant content is likely to stay, and I hope that that will prevent edit-warring, blocks, IP hopping, etc. Later, Drmies (talk) 05:20, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Palin

Hi, note of advice, please don't add thing, is that you know have multiple objectors and when you know discussion is clearly ongoing on the talkpage not edit warring but it is a bit disruptive. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Talkback

Hello, WikiManOne. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 03:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


WP:CANVASS

I think the guideline, WP:CANVASS, is sufficiently clear that I couldn't add anything by way of explanation. If you're in doubt then perhaps there's reason to doubt. With many behavioral guidelines, a small, rare, good-faith infraction is not a concern. I don't know enough about the details or your history to know if there's any more to this than meets the eye. My general advice is to avoid any appearance of advocacy.   Will Beback  talk  09:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Lila Rose

I am issuing this to both you and Haymaker...you both need to edit collabratively. Reverting back and forth gets neither of you anywhere. Take a breather, talk it out on the talkpage. If you have questions, feel free to find my talkpage and I will hash it out with you. Take Care...Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Agree with that. I've suggested that he take his changes to the talk page before making them again. WMO 20:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
...and I would suggest you do the same, please. Talk it out. Sometimes just a simple conversation will settle things. You will see their side and they will see your side and you can find common ground and a happy medium that works. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

You have been mentioned in an incident here - Haymaker (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

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

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

  1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
  2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
  3. 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. Please take a break from this article. Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC) 20:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

No edit war. There is actually exactly four reverts, and they could be considered reverting vandalism. However, you did just give me a realization that the 3rr doesn't allow more than three reverts at all on a page, I was always under the impression that it was referring to three reverts on one set of content. Regardless, some of the edits made count as vandalism and therefore do not count against 3rr. WMO 20:45, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
That is the manual 3RR warning. If you have 4 reverts in 24hours, you could potentially be blocked for a length of time (normally 24hours) and I don't want to see that happen. Please take a break from the page and just talk it out on the talkpages, please. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 20:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'm going to take a break and discuss on talk page if Haymaker participates. WMO 20:50, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. If you need some help, please let me know. You could even work on WP:ALVA if you can't find anything to work on. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 21:33, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
I did some work on the project page, I hope you don't mind the changes? Also, am trying to do my best marking importance into these articles... lol Thanks for finding that bot, looks like its doing great work! WMO 02:48, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, the bot was scheduled, but I didn't know it was working. Awesome! :) Importance really isn't something that needs to be done, but if you want to do it, feel free. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:51, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Then you must take a look, check out its contributions. Thanks for tracking that down. :) WMO 02:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

  • Suggestion, please consider using the regular direction field on the WhisperBack template. It would go like {{wb|User Name Here|Section Name Here}} and would be placed just like you have been on the talk pages. What this does is it directs people to a specific section, so they don't have to search all over on talk pages for the section in question. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I should. Its just easier to use my auto macro to do it. lol. WMO 03:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
It is, but once you get into the habit of doing it this way, it will become second nature. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Perfect! :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:24, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

PP, again

Congrats on your work with the PP article. It is much better, IMO, for what you have done to it. - Sitush (talk) 00:54, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm still not quite done with it but for now trying to fix other glaring pov issues in this genre of articles. Let's hope there are no new attempts to add more pov issues to that article, I really don't think I can go through another battle complete with ridiculous noticeboard accusations, etc. WMO 02:20, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There will be new attempts. C'mon, you know that. But there is now a decent base to return to when all starts kicking off. I do think that you were a bit hasty in your removal of one sentence, esp since you had put it up for discussion. But, hey, stones/glass houses etc. As for other articles of a similar genre, well, given recent events it might be wise to focus your attentions elsewhere for a couple of weeks. Let things calm dowm, safe in the knowledge of "a job well done", and thus avoid serial accusations from people who disagree with you and, probably, are now following you around. The stuff will still be there in a fortnight. - Sitush (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
True that, I'm working mostly on articles of local interest where the bulk of my contributions happen... and where the least controversy occurs. I suppose there is zero chance in interesting you in writing articles of local landmarks in the US? :P WMO 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
You mean you're listing every McDonalds? - Sitush (talk) 03:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
No, no no no no. Just shopping centers over a certain size, etc. WMO 03:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Not the churches of Connecticut, then? Although doubtless some US churches are also shopping malls (and perhaps even McDs). There has been quite a hoo-hah about some of them (the churches) recently at AfD. Take a look at the tp of user:Orlady - Sitush (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
True, most churches here have shops where they peddle religious materials... Take a look at WP:ALVA, that is the project I'm working on primarily. WMO 03:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Kenatipo‎

Don't respond to that guy anymore. He is just trying to goad you into an arguement. If he posts again, just revert and I will handle it or an admin will. I have emailed one so she will take a look. But leave it to them, OK? - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:13, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

That's what I did, if you look in the history I deleted his most recent reply and left him a note re WP:CIVIL. This guy is being ridiculous. - — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiManOne (talk • contribs)
Yeah, he is. The more he keeps it up, the quicker he will be blocked by admins. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
In complete irrelevance, I'm starting a list of outcomes from the RSN in my userspace, User:WikiManOne/RS. If you feel like adding to it or using it, feel free. WMO 07:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Good idea, Sir! That will definitely come in handy. Oh, by the way, you don't have to put talkback templates up anymore. I have you on my watchlist. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:47, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Thought it might be. I found it ironic that there is more consensus that Media Matters is reliable than there was for the New York Times and to a lesser extent the Huffington Post. lol. and very cool, I might just have to put up that "stalked talk page" banner. :P WMO 07:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
There are userboxes for that. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:04, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

in re Extremists, generalizing

in re ANI comment, neo-nazis & the 'Christian right' -- I started to post a note here but then decided I'd like to have the right to refactor it later so I'll post something at my talkpage soon. Fwiw, I've also posted a note to another editor who seems to have taken your comparison one step further. -PrBeacon (talk) 10:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011

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. - Haymaker (talk) 15:00, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Canvassing

Unless you have a really good explanation for not notifying one editor of the previous FRC discussion, I think you should be blocked temporarily because of canvassing as you have been warned before. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:19, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I did not canvass. If you will look closely, I notified all editors who have been active since the new year and had not already participated in the discussion, or at least that's what I tried to do. WMO 16:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
I don't know if other are going to buy that argument, but I personally do not think there is any problem in notifying all the editors, active or not. It avoids the impression you try to bias the discussion. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 16:56, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
Which editor exactly did I miss that had actually been active recently? WMO 16:58, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
LAEC was stil posting at his talk page and at the time, Jclemens had not yet carried his message over to the FRC talk page. Uncle Dick was the only other one not notified and although is is inactive, I notified him today as well to avoid gaps in the notification. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 17:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
And LAEC is banned/blocked (don't remember right now), why should he have been notified? I didn't notify Uncle Dick because he was inactive, I also did not notify at least one (I can't remember if there were more right now) include votes because they were inactive as well. Furthermore, this "previous warning" is not a warning at all but a response to my request for input. Feel free to point out this egregious violation of WP:CANVASS that got me warned previously. WMO 17:06, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Lila Rose

Hi, you have started to revert again at this article, please take this as a continuation warning of the still open previous 3RRNB report and stop reverting and discuss. Off2riorob (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I am trying to discuss, he's trying to unilaterally add material. :) This is ridiculous, there is no consensus to include and he persists in including the material. WMO 00:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
You are the only editor opposing inclusion. This has been discussed on the talk page and everyone else supports inclusion. You can't claim a lack of consensus just because you don't like it. - Haymaker (talk) 00:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring. 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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

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.

This 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).

WikiManOne (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

With all due respect, it is unfair that I am blocked for the same amount of time as an editor who has been blocked for the same violation three times previously, for involvement in the same incident. I also note that I repeatedly asked for discussion before the addition of the controversial material that I removed and that the editor did not participate until after the discussion. I have never been blocked before and even the other editor here was blocked for only 12 hours during his first block, this is his fourth. Considering that I have never been the subject of a edit blcok, I believe that my block was unfairly long for removing controversial content unilaterally and constantly readded by an editor with a history of edit warring who refused to discuss before adding. I realize I was wrong in engaging, but a 24 hour block seems particularly acrid under the circumstances, and I ask that it either be lifted or decreased. I apologize for the scattered nature of this message. WMO

Decline reason:

The other party's preventative block was effectively reduced to match your preventative block, based on the situation. 24 hours is the standard in cases like this, although it probably deserved longer for you. Read WP:EW and WP:DR over the next 24hrs so that we may not be forced to invoke this type of preventative measure in the future. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:18, 10 February 2011 (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. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.


  • I also recommend the block be reduced. While WikiManOne did edit war, this is his first block. I recommend that WikiManOne's block be reduced to 6 hours, if not removed altogether as time served. I would also recommend that WikiManOne consult a mentor to stay out of trouble in the future (worked for me) and I have taken the liberty of contacting my former mentor, an admin, User:Kubigula. The mentoring recommendation is optional and up to WikiManOne, but I feel it would be helpful to have someone kinda "lead the way" so problems don't occur in the future. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 01:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    Thanks, I will accept the mentor if he offers, not sure how it all works however. Also, I want to note, my "edit warring" was simply removing undue information from an article and repeatedly asking the other editor to discuss, going as far as to start a discussion on the talk page which the other editor ignored. Regardless, I still shouldn't have edit warred, but I don't see how someone who's been blocked before, shows a pattern of being edit warring (fourth block), and refused to discuss gets the exact same block as I do, when I have never been blocked before and repeatedly wanted to discuss for consensus. WMO 02:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
    • I'd be happy to work with you. Mentoring is no big deal - just someone to talk to and hopefully help you avoid getting yourself in troublesome wiki situations. It would help if you enable your email as Homer suggests below.
    • As for the block, 24 hours is pretty standard for edit-warring, regardless of who is more at fault. 3RR is a quite firm line here. If the block is lifted early, will you commit to absolutely ceasing the edit war? It would probably be a good idea to step back from the article for a day or so anyway.--Kubigula (talk) 04:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
  • I will definitely stop the edit warring. If I look at it now it looks hopeless. I have some additions I would like to make to the Planned Parenthood page that I've been working on. I'm going to work on enabling my email (seems my email filter is somehow deleting it as I've sent it multiple times...) Is the 3rr really that strict on this? Because if you look at the block log of the person that caused the war, his first block was only six hours. But yes, definitely will stop edit warring. WMO 04:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
3RR is the bright line, though the block length is not set in stone. As I am now involved, it's not appropriate for me to respond to the unblock request. However, I am contacting the blocking admin.--Kubigula (talk) 05:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Kubigula is a good guy to work with. He helped me keep my nose clean once I came back from an indef block (yeah, I have a block log), so you are in good hands with him. I will watch the fort at WP:ALVA until you get off block, so no worries there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Cool, how long does it usually take for these unblock things to get acted on?? I have a new version of the Planned Parenthood history section set to go whenever I get unblocked... WMO 06:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
It can take anywhere from 5 minutes to several days, depending on the request. Since this is under discussion here, and the issue has been at ANI (repeatedly), I imagine most admins are hesitant to review. I'm not that smart, though. Would you consent to a 1RR restriction on this article? In broad strokes, you would edit as normal, and could revert once. After that, you do not revert on the article - no matter what. The intent is to prevent the edit war from ever beginning. If an editor or editors are making unquestionably bad edits, or inserting material where consensus is clearly against inclusion, then other editors will have to deal with it. You've committed to stop the edit warring, this would formalize it - and maybe make an unblock easier to sell. What do you think? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 14:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
In other words place the article under the same protection as the Tea Party article? Sure, I can definitely deal with that. WMO 18:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiManOne/Archive_1&oldid=1077388591"